06 August 2002
Senate Panel Considers Impact of Possible Military Action against Iraq
(Foreign Relations Committee considers Middle Eastern, European response) (1260) By Benjamin Gross Washington File Staff Writer Washington -- The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations considered the regional implications of possible U.S. military action against Iraq during a two-day series of hearings July 31-August 1. The full hearings were aimed at assessing the nature of the threat posed by the Iraqi government, the full range of possible American responses, and the likely consequences to other Middle Eastern nations. In his opening remarks July 31, Committee Chairman Joseph Biden emphasized the important role of international cooperation in the successful implementation of American strategy in the region. "We have to consider what support we are likely to get from our key allies in the Middle East and Europe," Biden said. "And we must examine whether there are any consequences for regional stability." To obtain a comprehensive view of international attitudes towards Iraq, the committee questioned a panel of independent experts with a wide range of foreign policy expertise. The panel included Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland; Fouad Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins University; Geoffrey Kemp, director of Regional Strategic Studies at the Nixon Center in Washington, D.C.; and Mark Parris, a retired ambassador and senior policy advisor. Testifying first, Telhami set the tone for much of the committee's discussion by highlighting the strategic reluctance of many states in the region to support a U.S.-led war on Iraq. Although most governments oppose Iraq's obtaining weapons of mass destruction, he noted, many also fear a strong, long-term U.S. presence in the region. "Most states in the region do not see Iraq as now posing a serious threat to them that warrants a war that could significantly alter the regional environment and presents them with hard choices internally and externally," he said. Furthermore, Telhami warned, people in many Arab states are sympathetic to Saddam Hussein, a situation that would force friendly Arab governments to take steps to contain public anger. Therefore, "it is likely that one outcome of war with Iraq and possible Arab governments' cooperation in that war is that there will be more repression, despite the best of our intentions," Telhami said Ajami echoed Telhami's concern, noting that few consider Saddam Hussein's government a serious menace and that any military intervention in the region would quickly be denounced as an Anglo-American invasion. To counter these allegations, he noted, the United States will need to justify the campaign within the context of the war on terror. "We will have to cut through all that: the expedition will have to be justified by September 11 rules," Ajami explained. "America will have to insist on its right to retribution, on the generalized case that terror is indivisible and that a regime of this kind of malignancy in so vital and explosive a region will have to be changed." Kemp agreed that international support would be crucial to the ultimate success or failure of an attack on Iraq. Whether the United States adopts a unilateral or multilateral strategy, he said, it must consider how people would react both in the Middle East and in Europe. "Their response to a U.S. led war against the regime of Saddam Hussein will depend upon several factors. First, the level of international cooperation promised to the U.S. prior to the war. Second, the duration, conduct, and effectiveness of the military campaign. Third, U.S. proposals and plans for the 'days after' regime change in Iraq," he said. Specifically, Kemp suggested that Iran, though not powerful enough to prevent an attack on Iraq, would by virtue of its geographic position, be able to influence any future government set up afterwards, so its interests must be taken into account. Similarly, Kemp said, European support "is going to be essential to make sure that the post-Saddam Iraq and the whole Middle East remains relatively stable." However, he concluded, during the past few months, the United States has pursued its own objectives with only limited regard for external strategic concerns, like U.N. legitimacy. In his discussion of the Turkish perspective towards a possible U.S. attack, Parris emphasized a similar lack of strategic vision. Regardless of the U.S. action, he said, Turkey would need to play an important support role. At the same time however, Turkey is extremely reluctant to involve itself in direct military action to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, he said. "Over the past decade, Turkey has found ways to cope with most of the consequences of the Gulf War. It is not now uncomfortable with the status quo that has emerged in the area in and around northern Iraq," Parris noted. Still, if the United States does decide to take action against Saddam, Parris suggested, it would be in both U.S. and Turkish interests to maximize cooperation and minimize the possibility of surprises. The United States must also take its ally's future concerns into account along with its present ones. For example, given the amount of time the Turks have devoted to monitoring the Kurds in Iraq's north, they might object to any presence which might hinder that ability. Parris's conclusions echoed those of his fellow panelists: whatever course of action the U.S. chooses to take toward Iraq, it must hold honest, detailed consultations with its allies to ensure the present and future success of any operations in the region. The greater the advance preparation and consultation, he said, the better the chances of ensuring future regional stability. "I think it is clear that everyone in the region is going to have a stake in what happens in Iraq and those are people who live right next door and have resources and contacts far better than we do," Telhami said. "If we don't coordinate with them, they can make our lives miserable...[I]t is clear that they have resources, they have the interest, and obviously the abilities...therefore, depending on whether we coordinate, we cooperate, whether it works with the rest of the region, in terms of coincidence of interest, it matters a lot." The Committee on Foreign Relations will hold further discussions on American policy towards Iraq in September, following the annual Congressional recess. (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
