Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=01/16/03

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=IRAQ CONFLICT

NUMBER=6-12791

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: Several American newspaper suggest the Bush administration is formulating a policy for dealing with the possibility that U-N inspectors in Iraq will not find any prohibited weapons.

In the editorial columns, the current situation continues to draw comment and analysis, and we've got another sampling from V-O-A's ____________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: The New York Times is reporting the Bush administration is resisting calls by other nations that it get a second United Nations Security Council vote before going to war with Iraq. And U-S officials say even if the inspectors find nothing, that would not necessarily preclude armed conflict.

The Los Angeles Times adds that the various omissions in the Iraqi weapons declaration, already tendered to the world body, could be used to justify a war, since U-S intelligence presumably has proof they do exist.

The Washington Post is disappointed with the U-N inspections so far.

VOICE: The Security Council's Resolution . on Iraq, passed unanimously two months ago, was unambiguous.: to "afford Iraq . a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and to "set up an enhanced inspection regime" to verify whether a voluntary disarmament take place. Iraq has so far refused to comply: In fact, it has already violated the resolution by submitting a declaration to the council denying that it has any weapons to dismantle.

Chief U-N inspector Hans Blix . can see that his mission is failing. But rather than report that to the Security Council . he is attempting to redefine both his mission and the resolution. . His motive is obvious: He would like to head off U-S military action at any cost, even though such action clearly has been justified by Iraq's failure to comply.

TEXT: In New Hampshire, Manchester's Union Leader grows increasingly impatient.

VOICE: Tomorrow [Friday] is the 12th anniversary of the start of Operation Desert Storm, in which the United States and our allies successfully fought to liberate Kuwait, but unfortunately did not fight to liberate Iraq. . How long must [the] world wait to disarm Saddam?

TEXT: In Oklahoma City, the Oklahoman is skeptical, saying: "Take two years, or five or 10. Saddam's arsenal won't be found. He's had too much time since the .Gulf War to rig the game."

The Corpus Christi (Texas) Caller Times says President Bush has achieved much with "a policy of calculated ambiguity" toward Iraq but worried that . "it can't go on indefinitely.

However, Florida's Saint Petersburg Times cautions patience for fear of losing international support for a war.

VOICE: The buildup of U-S forces in the Persian Gulf is accelerating, but international support for an immediate war against Iraq has been melting away. With U-N inspectors having failed to turn up hard evidence of illegal Iraqi weapons programs, crucial Arab and European governments are opposing any precipitous military action. Even the United States' staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, now says that the inspectors need more "space and time" to do their work.

Our government can't be held hostage to world opinion when our national security is at risk, but Iraq poses much less of a risk as long as it remains under the microscope of international inspections.

TEXT: In Tennessee, The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal suggests: "The Bush administration has accomplished much on Iraq with a policy of calculated ambiguity . [but] . it can't go on indefinitely. Time is indeed running out, but no one seems sure just how fast."

TEXT: With that comment, we conclude this editorial sampling on the conflict over Iraq's arsenal of deadly weapons.

NEB/ANG/MAR