Iraq News by Laurie Mylroie
The 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 .
IRAQ NEWS, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999
I. SAUDI PRESS ENCOURAGES SHI'A PROTESTS, AFP, FEB 22
II. IRAQ PRESS ATTACKS SAUDIS, INA, FEB 23
III. SAUDI/KUWAITI ROLE IN US AIRSTRIKES, INA, FEB 21
IV. RAMADAN INTERVIEW, IRAQ SPACE TV, FEB 15
V. IRAQI PRESS STEPS UP ATTACK ON KUWAIT, SAUDI ARABIA, REUTERS, FEB 15
VI. IRAQI PRESS AGAIN THREATENS KUWAIT, SAUDI ARABIA, INA, FEB 16
VII. SADDAM LETTER TO THE ARAB LEAGUE, AL QUDS AL ARABI, FEB 20
On Mon, AEI sponsored a panel to launch David Wurmser's fine new
book, "Tyranny's Ally: America's failure to defeat Saddam Hussein."
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush Undersec Def, spoke of the need to overthrow
Saddam Hussein. He explained that he had come to believe that already
in the last week of the Gulf war. By then, it had become clear that the
US had picked a mortal fight with a man who would always seek revenge
and always be a threat to US allies in the region, and even, perhaps to
the US itself.
Wolfowitz also explained that shortly after the cease-fire, the Saudi
Foreign Minister met with the US Secretary of State. Saud Al-Faysal
told James Baker that it was necessary to get rid of Saddam, explaining
that Saudi Arabia could live with the Shi'a, but the worst thing was for
Saddam to remain in power.
Also, as Wolfowitz explained, Turkish prime minister, Turgot Ozal, was
one of the leaders during and after the Gulf war in calling for Saddam's
overthrow. Even today, Turkish generals will say, from time to time, in
private, that if the US were serious about overthrowing Saddam, they
would support it.
Wolfowitz spoke of the inapt historical analogies being used in
regard to Iraq. One is the Bay of Pigs, which figured prominently in
Byman, Pollack, and Rose, Foreign Affairs, Jan 99, "The Rollback
Fantasy," written on the assumption that UNSCOM would remain in Iraq.
[When an article is OBE even before it appears, that is good indication
something is wrong. The authors didn't comprehend the dynamics of
events, so they didn't anticipate what would come next. ]
Alluding to that article, Wolfowitz remarked that the Bay of Pigs was
as much about a US failure of will as anything else. If the US is
determined--which is a US decision--the analogy is irrelevant.
Moreover, Clinton's Bay of Pigs has already occurred--when he let Saddam
overrun the INC in Irbil, in Sept 96, as Wolfowitz wrote in "Clinton's
Bay of Pigs," WSJ, Sept 27, 1996.
Another inapt analogy is "containment." It is argued that the US
contained the Soviet Union until it collapsed, so why not Iraq? As
Wolfowitz explained, "containment" was a second choice to "rollback,"
because the Soviet Union was a very major military power, including
nuclear power, for much of the time. Also, Western Europe was a much
stronger pillar upon which to rest a strategy of containment. America's
Arab allies are not likely to be able to hang on for 10, 20, or 30
years--however long it takes for Saddam to meet a natural end. Even
Turkey is problematic, because of the economic problems generated for it
by the embargo on Iraq.
And Wolfowitz suggested several more historical analogies that are,
in fact, more appropriate. One is Afghanistan. The other is Rumania,
where the tyrant was ousted by a popular revolt.
Also, Iraq. As Wolfowitz explained, when, after the Gulf war and the
Kurdish exodus that followed, the Bush administration determined on
addressing the problem, it kicked the regime out of the North with ease.
Backed by the US airforce, three battalions--one US, one UK, and one
French--were all the allied ground forces involved in Operation Provide
Comfort.
Indeed, "Iraq News" did some work on developments in Iraqi Kurdistan
after the Gulf war, including many interviews with people there. As
many of them related to Kamran Karadaghi, then of al-Hayat, now of Radio
Free Iraq, and myself, the liberation of Northern Iraq was not that
difficult. Under the protection of the allied-enforced no-fly zone, the
people joined with the PUK/KDP militias and turned against the regime
they so much hated. The Iraqi army would not fight. Soldiers either
surrendered or went home. And without the army, the mukhabarrat was
vulnerable. It was too few in number to defend itself against the
combination of the lightly armed Kurdish militias and the population.
Mukhabarrat offices and prisons were assaulted and Saddam's rule in the
north collapsed. Of course, something similar happened in Rumania. The
population and the army suddenly joined together and the Securitate
alone could not save itself or the regime.
Former CIA director, James Woolsey, described how, since the summer
of 1996--when the CIA operations to oust Saddam failed--the US has
adopted a trivializing and belittling attitude toward the danger posed
by Saddam. Woolsey suggested that the attitude of NSC Adviser, Sandy
Berger-the "whack-a- mole" approach--was instructive. Among other
things, it assumed that the mole was not doing anything much between the
whacks--like developing proscribed CBW capabilities and long-range
missiles.
This, Woolsey suggested, reflected a "single-mindedly short term
focus," oriented towards public relations. What follows is the
occasional shooting of cruise missiles at whatever targets, such as
occurred in Sept 96, following the Iraqi assault on the INC.
Woolsey also raised the problem that the Gulf states will not be able
to hang on indefinitely in the face of US fecklessness and will be
tempted to engage in appeasement, since they can see that the US is not
serious.
Woolsey said that it was time, in fact past time, for the US to take
decisive measures: recognize a Gov't in exile; establish a no-drive zone
in southern Iraq; let oil be pumped from the North; and do everything
possible to delegitimize Saddam's regime and otherwise demonstrate that
the US is serious about overthrowing him.
Daniel Pipes, Middle East Quarterly editor, was supposed to be
representative of the other side of the debate: better-the-devil-we
know. But as Pipes explained, he had changed his mind. From 1991
through 1998, he had thought that the US shouldn't try to overthrow
Saddam. Saddam was contained; there was stability; and the oil flowed.
But with UNSCOM gone, the danger existed that Saddam would rebuild his
proscribed unconventional capabilities.
Pipes took issue with Wurmser's strong criticism of secular Arab
tyranny. He said that today the problem was "Islamism." Pan-Arabism
was passe and therefore the US should be prepared to work with figures
like Hafiz al-Assad to counter the Islamist threat.
Azhar Nafisi, of SAIS, explained that Islamism and Pan-Arabism were
really two sides of the same coin. And she, an Iranian, cautioned that
tyrants will eventually harm you. They play by different rules and you
can't make alliances with them over the long term.
In fact, a number of panelists and the audience took issue with that
key point in Pipes' presentation--"Islamism" was now the threat and the
US should be ready, without much hesitation, to embrace secular Arab
natl'ist dictators--which also apparently led Pipes to long discount the
Iraqi threat.
One part of the problem, as Nafisi, and then Wurmser noted, is that
the distinction is not absolute. As Wurmser explained, from time to
time, Hamas and the PLO work together. As "Iraq News" remarked, there
is nothing to stop Osama bin Ladin et. al. from working with Saddam.
They supported him during the Gulf war and they support him now.
Also, Arab nat'list ideology is not dead, as Meyrav Wurmser noted.
And how can one say that THE threat is "Islamism?" In the entire
region--from Morocco to Indonesia--there is only one problem? Not
likely, as "Iraq News" suggested.
And both Wolfowitz and Woolsey cautioned against the ready embrace of
dictatorship. Wolfowitz acknowledged that sometimes it was necessary to
work with unpalatable characters, but he suggested that during the Cold
War, the US might have overdone it. He mentioned the Philippines'
Ferdinand Marcos. It was Eliot Abrams, who, during the Reagan
administration, complained to him about the US coddling of Marcos.
Woolsey cited the WW II alliance with Stalin against Hitler. It was
necessary, but the principle--the US supports democracy--should not be
lost sight of and tactical deviations from that principle should be
recognized for just that.
As "Iraq News," Feb 22, noted, the Feb 14 threat issued by the Iraqi
leadership is serious. The Arabs, particularly the Saudis and Kuwaitis,
are concerned. On Feb 21, as Xinhua reported, Kuwaiti Crown Prince,
Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah, visited Riyadh, "accompanied by a large group
of high-level Kuwaiti officials, among whom are cabinet ministers and
military officials, the Kuwait News Agency reported. Saad's visit comes
at a time when the Iraqi crisis still remains as a major security
concern for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia . . . Kuwaiti officials and Saudi
newspapers have lodged strong condemnation against Iraq, terming
Baghdad's threats as 'dangerous and flagrant' and reflecting again
'hostile intentions of the Iraqi regime' against its neighbors."
As AFP, Feb 22, reported the Saudi press is encouraging the Shi'a
unrest in the wake of Grand Ayatollah Al-Sadr's assassination, a
reflection of Wolfowitz' point-even for Sunni orthodox Saudi Arabia, the
Shi'a are tolerable, but Saddam is not.
And the Iraqi press continues in kind. As INA, Feb 23, reported,
"Two Iraqi newspapers have stressed that Saudi newspapers speak for
their masters and have suspicious links with intelligence services that
are hostile to the interests of the Arab nation. The articles published
by the Saudi press reflect the political stupidity of the rulers of
Saudi Arabia. These rulers are so stupid that they can no longer grasp
the Arab political situation."
The Feb 14 Iraqi leadership statement was strong and violent (see
"Iraq News," Feb 14). It said, referring to the US/UK strikes in the
no-fly zones, "We caution the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and tell
them that you are now being involved in an aggressive hateful war . . .
increasing the sea of blood between you on the one hand and the people
of Iraq, the principles of right, and all that pleases God, on the other
. . . If you do not intend this, you must pause and regain your senses
and do what satisfies God and the people of the country for which you
are responsible . . . If what you are doing is premeditated and is
intended to kill more Iraqi men, women, children, and elders and destroy
Iraq's properties, then God is above all. It suffices us that we have
presented enough evidence against those who committed aggression to
all."
And Iraqi communiques on the US/UK strikes regularly stress a
Saudi/Kuwaiti role. For example, INA, Feb 21, reported, "The murderous
ravens once again violated the sanctity of our national airspace today.
Enemy formations, flying from Saudi and Kuwaiti territory and airspace,
violated our airspace in the southern area . . ."
Why does Iraq continue to challenge the no-fly zones and provide
occasion for the US/UK strikes? Gen. Hugh Shelton, JCS Chairman, said
in Qatar, Feb 22, "Since Operation Desert Fox, [Saddam} has lost about
20 percent more of his strategic surface-to-air missile systems, his
SA-2s, SA3s and the associated radars that go with them. And he's also
lost a good amount of his triple-A weapons."
Again, why does Saddam think this is worthwhile? DoD spokesman,
Kenneth Bacon, Feb 23, said, "I think [Saddam's] clearly worse off than
he was prior to Desert Fox . . . I think his actions do reflect his
understanding that he's worse off." But Bacon also acknowledged "I
can't explain why they're doing that [challenging the no-fly zones],
because they have suffered substantial losses of equipment and
presumably of forces."
"Iraq News" believes that Baghdad continues to challenge the no-fly
zones in order 1) to split the coalition. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are
intimidated and frightened, as the US does nothing, not even acknowledge
that a serious problem exists; and 2) to provide the rationale, in
Saddam's own mind, for his next act of violence.
On Feb 15, Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan gave an interview,
broadcast on Iraqi satellite TV. Ramadan said, "We consider that the
aggression against Iraq began in 1991 and is continuing in various
forms, including the direct military action, or the economic action,
which ultimately seeks to kill citizens in terms of their food,
medicines, illness, security, and stability. . . . [The US] has
created terror and made it known that Iraq's demands and rights are not
acceptable. It has even influenced the UNSC members . . . Everyone
knows how many UNSC members have said that the disarmament issue in Iraq
is over . . . So what is the purpose of forming evaluation committees
that have elements who were the basis of the espionage operations,
tardiness, and bad reports in the UN Special Commission? The purpose
can be no other than submission to the United States' desires . . . We
thus say that the time has come to confront all of these matters with
everything we have. We believe that the human being is the biggest
capability of all . . . that they must do their best to achieve
independence and reject slavery . . ."
Ramadan was asked, "Yesterday, 14 February, at a meeting chaired by
President Saddam Hussein, a statement was issued warning each of Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia . . . Can you give an idea to that Arab citizen about
this issue?" He replied, "We should read this statement carefully, not
the way it was circulated by some news agencies. . . . Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia actually participate in the aggression against Iraq . . . The
statement tells them that you should stop this, but if you are
powerless . . . then Iraq will play its role in defending its people and
property, and it can inflict immense damage on these dens in this region
and in every region."
Thus, the Iraqi threat is NOT limited to the threat of an attack on
Kuwait/Saudi Arabia.
Asked about Turkey, he replied, "In this message, we addressed our
brothers. . . . Turkey is not a fraternal Arab country. Turkey is a
member of the US-led NATO. Turkey has an alliance agreement with the
Zionist enemy. . . . Practically and logically, what applies to the
dens of evil in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia applies to the dens of evil in
Turkey and on ANY place from which evil is waged against Iraq."
And Ramadan concluded, "Iraq's 14 February statement does not mean,
as some say, that Iraq is so disturbed that it wants to commit suicide,
because what can Iraq do against these bases or US interests, wherever
they may be? I would like to tell these people that Iraq's statement is
an expression of strength, faith, and high confidence . . . All the
people who won their liberation, including the Arab people, and when
they expelled the foreigner from their land, did not have technical and
technological means or resources that the colonialists had. . . . In
spite of this, these nations, whether the Arab or non-Arab nations,
managed to liberate themselves. . . . This is the same people who
expelled the aggressors at one time and can expel them once again and
greatly harm them. . . . In its statement, Iraq does not proceed from a
weak position. . . . I tell the Arab citizens, the organizations, and
the parties and to all the good people that the US and Zionist enemy
will give up its hegemony, control, and its military presence only if it
is harmed."
The same day, as Reuters, Feb 15, reported, "Iraqi newspapers stepped
up their attacks on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . 'We warn the rulers
of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait against allowing the warplanes of the
American and British aggressors to violate our airspace and we are able,
after relying on God. . . to minimise and harm the bases of aggression,'
the government newspaper al-Jumhouriya said. 'The rulers of Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait should understand and read carefully what is inside the lines
of the Iraqi leadership's statement, '. . . the paper said in a front
page editorial."
And the next day, Feb 16, INA reported, "An Iraqi paper advises the
rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to make use of the farsighted
enlightenment of the Iraqi leadership and urges them to heed its call to
act slowly and come to their senses in order to satisfy God and the
people of the land under their rule. In an article on the front page by
Chief Editor Hani Wuhayyib today, the newspaper al-Qadisiyah says that
those rulers must realize that Iraq is determined to continue its . . .
resistance of the aggression regardless of the sacrifices. It adds:
Whoever continues to be involved in a despicable aggressive war against
the people of Iraq as a subservient party must realize that this
aggressive act has a dear price."
On Feb 20, the London-based, pro-Iraq, Al Quds Al Arabi, published the
text of a Feb 1 letter that Saddam sent in reply to a Jan 26 letter from
the Arab League Secretary General, correspondence which followed upon
the Jan 24 Arab League Foreign Minister's meeting [see "Iraq News," Jan
25].
AFP, in Baghdad, also obtained a copy of the letter and wrote, Feb
20, that Saddam had offered to "start a fresh page" in relations with
other Arab states. But it was, in fact, a Mafioso-type offer--not to be
refused, akin to the Iraqi "offers" of reconciliation prior to Aug 2
1990 and cited by Tariq Aziz in his recent four-part series on that
period [see "Iraq News," Jan 11-14].
On Feb 21, the Iraqi leadership--Saddam, Izzat Ibrahim, Taha Yasin
Ramadan, Tariq Aziz, and Ali Hasan al-Majid--met. As Iraq Radio
explained in a brief report, "The conferees discussed the political
conditions. The leadership underlined its readiness to hold dialogue
with the Arab states, including those that have well-known stands, in
accordance with the leader president's letter to the Arab League
secretary general. Iraq Radio broadcast Saddam's letter, as it appeared
in al Quds al Arabi, as well as the letter from the Arab League
Secretary General.
Saddam's letter took issue with the statement issued by the Jan 24
Arab Foreign Ministers meeting. It complained, "The aircraft which
impose the no-fly zone and carry out aggression . . . take off daily
from bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. . . . If we want to talk about
Arab security, and the deterioration and accumulations from the general
Arab situation is suffering, with the view to tacking past mistakes . .
. and if we want to expedite the settlement of the problems resulting
from the Gulf crisis . . . Iraq is ready to attend any Arab meeting,
whether on the summit level or any other responsible level . . . This is
the course if we actually and truly want to turn a new page in Arab
relations, . . . an objective and constructive dialogue that is based on
facts and looks more to the future than remaining captive to the past.."
Thus, from Feb 14-16, Iraq issued a series of threats and on Feb 20
and 21 said that it was ready to open a new page, hold a dialogue, &
etc.
In the period since the Gulf war, the Iraqi regime has sometimes
spoken somewhat like this, but in generally more muted terms. And
always, violence has followed. But that violence, and its relation to
the statements that preceded it, was convoluted and complex. It is
virtually impossible to understand before the event, even with
hindsight, what Saddam intended or when he intended to do it. To help
illuminate the significance of the present Iraqi threats, "Iraq News"
will shortly seek to explain what happened before and how those acts of
violence, threat, and intimidation were misunderstood.
I. SAUDI PRESS ENCOURAGES SHI'A PROTESTS
Agence France Presse
February 22, 1999, 07:29 GMT
Shiite unrest is beginning of the end for Saddam, Saudi press says
RIYADH, Feb 22
The rioting in Iraq that followed the murder of a top Shiite Moslem
cleric marks the beginning of the end for the Baghdad regime, the Saudi
press said Monday.
"The uprising in several Iraqi towns against the regime of Saddam
Hussein marks the start of the last chapter in the fight of the Iraqi
people to bring down this regime," the Al-Nadwa newspaper said.
"Whatever the force and instruments of repression used by the regime,
it will not be able to dampen this uprising because the Iraqis no longer
have a choice," said the newspaper, which reflects official opinion.
"The continuation of this fascist regime means the continuation of
the people's suffering without any hope for the future," the daily said.
"A change in Iraq is inevitable, because once the people begin to
move, no military force can stop them," the newspaper said, urging the
Iraqis to "continue their uprising for liberty."
The Al-Bilad newspaper said that "what is now happening in Iraq is
the start of a revolution against oppression and dictatorship."
"Sadam's regime relies entirely on a part of the (elite) Republican
Guard, but this cannot continue for long because the will of the Iraqis
will be stronger ... the end of Sadam's regime is inevitable," it said.
The Al-Riyadh newspaper said "the next step, after the protests about
the assassination, could be a popular uprising, without foreign
interference, because of the regime's mad moves."
"Saddam's policies are lighting the gunpowder and the fire could
reach his inner lair," the newspaper said.
Rioting erupted Saturday in the Shiite suburbs of Baghdad and in
several southern Iraqi towns following the assassination of Iraq's top
Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Mohammad Sadek al-Sadr, on Friday.
Opposition groups have said that Iraqi security forces shot at least
20 people dead and wounded dozens more as they brutally crushed the
protests.
II. IRAQ PRESS ATTACKS SAUDIS
Baghdad INA in Arabic 0845 GMT 23 Feb 99
[FBIS Translated Text] Baghdad, 23 Feb (INA) -- Two Iraqi newspapers
have stressed that Saudi newspapers speak for their masters and have
suspicious links with the intelligence services that are hostile to the
interests of the Arab nation. The articles published by the Saudi press
reflect the political stupidity of the rulers of Saudi Arabia. These
rulers are so stupid that they can no longer grasp the Arab political
situation.
In an article headlined "A Lesson for Those Who Learn," Al-Jumhuriyah
says: Apparently, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are still walking a very
dark path that makes their destiny even more uncertain. They are no
longer able to see where they stumble and trip and to differentiate
between Saudi national interests and pan-Arab interests and security on
the one hand and the ambitions of foreigners who usurp Arab rights and
violate all Arab pacts and norms on the other. This is in addition to
the clear subversive role against the essence of Arabism and Islam and
everything related to faithful nationalism.
The newspaper adds: It seems to us that the rulers of Saudi Arabia
are either forced to imitate the reckless and arrogant
US-British-Zionist attitude in a way that made them unable to reverse
course; or it could be that political grudges have swept them up and
made them unable to distinguish between good and bad.
In an article headlined "Cheap Fabrications and Sick Dreams,"
Al-'Iraq says: We tell those people who supervise Al-Nadwah, Al-Bilad,
and Al-Riyad: The illusions and dreams you entertain are impossible to
achieve. Your loss will be greater this time, after all these years of
fabrications, lies, and aggression against
Iraq.
The newspaper concludes: The unity of Iraq is too powerful to be
shaken by hired newspapers and trumpets and misleading media campaigns
launched by covetous colonialist and Zionist circles. The only chance
you have now and the only sensible option that can protect the nation is
to stop the policy of treason and relinquishment of national and
pan-Arab rights and resources to foreign powers.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
