US turf wars betray the Iraqis
(Henry Porter and David Rose, The Guardian, June 18, 2002)
President Bush's instruction to the CIA to kill or capture Saddam Hussein defies previous presidential orders banning the assassination of foreign leaders. It can also be seen as another bewildering turn in American policy towards Iraq. . . . What makes this so hard to understand is that the US has few real alternatives on the ground in Iraq. During the past decade there has been only sporadic CIA representation in the north-east, where for a time the INC operated with the cooperation of one of the warring Kurdish factions. . . . After the covert attempts on Fidel Castro's life in the 60s and many similar operations all over the world, the US was trying to clean up its act, at least for public consumption. Today America is shamelessly having it both ways, to the point where a Democrat such as Dick Gephardt can insist that the no-assassination policy is intact. . . . Much of American foreign policy seems to owe its genesis to a turf war inside the Beltway, which is at least as complicated as anything in the Middle East. But with so much at stake in Iraq and the Middle East, it is disastrous that America appears unable to elaborate a coherent policy which goes beyond the excited rhetoric of smart bombs and covert action.
posted by Lorenzo 9:30 AM
