More on the Debate Over US Policy
Iraq News,FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1998
By Laurie MylroieThe central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .
I. JERUSALEM POST EDITORS, OVERTHROW SADDAM, NOV 13
II. A.M. ROSENTHAL, OVERTHROW SADDAM, NYT, NOV 13
III. LE FIGARO, OVERTHROW SADDAM, NOV 12
IV. NYT EDITORS, RETURN UNSCOM; KEEP SADDAM, NOV 13
Today is the 100th day without weapons inspections in Iraq; the 13th
day without UNSCOM monitoring; and the 2nd day without IAEA monitoring.
NBC Evening News, yesterday, reported that a CIA assessment, recently
sent to the White House, explained how difficult it will be for the US
to destroy chemical and biological weapons targets in Iraq. Some
facilities are dual use or close to civilian populations. They are
being stricken from the target list. As the list shrinks, some at DoD
worry that not enough damage will be done.
Sec State Madeleine Albright was interviewed by Margaret Warner on
the Jim Lehrer Newshour, yesterday. Warner asked whether the impending
US strike meant the administration had concluded that the UNSCOM
inspection regime was over. Albright replied, "The inspection regime
has not been working for eight of the last twelve months. And I think
one of our concerns is we can't think that something is working when it
is not. That is dangerous."
Wasn't that Scott Ritter's point--"the illusion of arms control is
more dangerous than no arms control at all," as Ritter wrote in his Aug
26 resignation letter [see "Iraq News" Aug 28], and subsequently.
Warner also asked, "If air strikes are launched, what will be
achieved?" Albright replied, "Well, let me just make the following
point: There are people-UNSCOM is not working now. We are very
concerned about what is happening in terms of [Saddam's] weapons of mass
destruction. . . If in fact, we do take an action of force, it will be
designed in order to degrade his ability to develop and deliver weapons
of mass destruction and prevent him also or make it less possible for
him to upset the neighborhood."
Subsequently, Warner asked, "But the head of the special commission,
Richard Butler, and many other experts in this field, have said really
that even after massive air strikes, a country like Iraq, with the
know-how to make these biological weapons and chemical weapons, can
really reconstitute them pretty quickly." Albright replied, "Well, we
know that."
Albright continued "which is why we think it's important to have an
inspection and verification and then monitor a regime in there. That
has been what we have been trying to do for the last seven years. But
if it doesn't work, then we can't fool ourselves into thinking it's
working and relying on it. That's why we are prepared to have them
continue their work, have there be a comprehensive review, so that if
Saddam feels that there's no light at the end of the tunnel, you know,
if we do a comprehensive review, that's all we could ask."
Warner then rephrased her question, "I guess I'm talking now about
after-if that hasn't all worked and we go to air strikes and you think
you've achieved these military goals and strikes, and it's sort of then
what? I mean then do you go back again when you think he's rebuilt, or
do you actually [think] at that point he would welcome inspectors
there?" Albright replied, "Well, he might . . . We still believe,
Margaret, that UNSCOM is the best method for dealing with the weapons of
mass destruction. . . . We are not just desirous of bombing, but the
purpose here is to make sure that [Saddam] does not have that weapons of
mass destruction capability."
But how will that be achieved, given that Albright herself
acknowledged that following the strike, Iraq's proscribed weapons could
be reconstituted fairly quickly, absent UNSCOM, even as UNSCOM's return
to Iraq is not a stated goal of the US military action? That is the
point Paul Wolfowitz made on the Newshour the day before, when he said
that the military actions about which the administration is talking,
they themselves admit will not get UNSCOM back into Iraq and will not
get rid of Saddam's proscribed capabilities [see "Iraq News, Nov 12].
Richard Perle, Reagan Asst Sec Def, on CNN's Cross-Fire, yesterday,
argued that getting rid of Saddam was the only way to get rid of the
proscribed weapons. Perle said that he was afraid the administration
had in mind another set of pinprick attacks with fancy weapons which
would not have a decisive result. He noted that the administration
still would not say that its policy was to get rid of Saddam-to help
Iraqis who want to liberate their country. When the administration said
that, Perle suggested, the US would have a policy toward Iraq.
Bob Novak ended the program, proposing that he suggest an idea to
Perle upon which the two might agree. Novak said the administration
wanted to carry out its strike on Iraq without convening Congress to
consider the matter or having a public debate on the issue. Perle
readily agreed.
The Jerusalem Post editors, today, wrote, "Seven years of the most
intrusive international inspections regime ever imposed on a country
have failed in ridding Saddam Hussein of his [unconventional weapons]
arsenal and military analysts are skeptical that a bombing campaign will
succeed in this task either. . . . The purpose of a bombing campaign
cannot be simply restoring a gutted inspection regime, which, even
before it was gutted, had proved to be inadequate. Saddam has left the
West with only one way to enforce the United Nations' resolutions
-removing him." The Post hailed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" and
suggested that the present crisis constituted an opportunity for the
administration to act on it.
A.M. Rosenthal, today, again called for Saddam's overthrow,
underscoring the threat he poses, "Saddam will never give up his weapons
of mass destruction. So either he is killed in Iraq, by Americans,
Iraqis or a combination, or millions face death . . . somewhere,
someday not far away. "
Indeed, even elements in France have become fed up with Saddam and
they sound rather like A.M. Rosenthal. A front-page editorial in Le
Figaro, yesterday, said, "Although France is rightly pressing for the
exhaustion of diplomatic channels first, everyone agrees with the Arab
states in the region: Saddam Hussein is no longer to be trusted. After
every crisis, the lord of Baghdad makes pledges that he does not honor.
So the time has come at last to put a stop to this game of cat and
mouse, which has gone on for much too long, and the only victim of which
is the Iraqi people, strangled as they have been for seven years by the
sanctions. . . . It is impossible to locate the sites where biological
weapons may be manufactured: A mere computer disk is enough to hide the
necessary data. . . . If the intention is to act for the good of Iraq
and to put an end to this endless crisis, Saddam Hussein must be got rid
of."
But the NYT editors wrote today, "The primary purpose of military
action should be to compel the return of United Nations weapons
inspectors and assure their access to all locations suspected of
harboring evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons or
missiles. . . . A new air campaign will need to be sustained, with a
regrettable risk of civilian casualties." Sounding like Byman and
Pollack, in "Iraq Strategy Review" [TWI], the NYT wrote, "There is an
understandable temptation to take on the added goal of politically
crippling Mr. Hussein or even driving him from power. Desirable as
those results would be, the air and ground campaign required to achieve
them would inflict unacceptably high costs on the Iraqi people, Mideast
regional stability and America troops. Even the air campaign carries a
risk that Iraq could launch Scud missiles against Israel, . . . although
UN inspectors believe that almost all Iraqi Scuds have now been
destroyed."
That, though, the NYT reported today that Israeli intelligence
estimates that Iraq still has some 30 Scuds. "Iraq News" shares the
Israeli Gov't assessment that it is extremely unlikely Saddam will
launch missiles at Israel in this crisis. Still, one advantage of the
proposed plan to liberate Iraq is that it would involve making Iraq's
Western desert a no-drive zone, with the opposition in control. That
would not only put a buffer between the Iraqi regime and Jordan,
diminishing Baghdad's ability to make trouble there, but it would place
Israel out of range of Iraq's Scuds.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
