|
Blair
says no attack on Iraq without UN assent
(Andrew Grice and David Usborne, The Independent, 10 May 2002)
Tony Blair has privately reassured his Labour Party critics
that Britain will not back US military action against Iraq
unless it wins the backing of the United Nations Security
Council. . . . Despite Mr Blair's solid public support
for President George Bush's threats to take military action,
there is evidence that London and Washington are pursuing
diverging strategies behind the scenes. . . . Blair
aides admit privately that widespread concern in the party
about the Prime Minister's hawkish stance is not confined
to "the usual left-wing suspects". Yesterday 10
MPs tabled a Commons motion saying that "any offensive
military action against Iraq can only be morally justified
if it carries a new and specific mandate from the United Nations
Security Council".
Inside
Saddam's World
(Johanna Mcgeary, Time.com, April 4, 2002)
The U.S. likes to portray Iraq's regime as shaky. But TIME's
reporting inside Iraq suggests Saddam isn't losing his grip.
. . . The White House has concluded that Saddam poses a clear
and present danger that must be eliminated. "He is a
dangerous man possessing the world's most dangerous weapons,"
President Bush has said. . . . As Bush repeatedly telegraphs
his intention to finish Saddam, the Iraqi leader is not exactly
sitting on his hands. "He's not so naive as to ignore
the seriousness of this threat," . . . There are
signs Saddam is bracing for attack: beefing up his personal
security, bucking up the ruling Baath Party and repositioning
his military while playing at diplomatic delay with the U.N.
. . . Saddam has limited knowledge of the West and
surrounds himself with yes-men who tell him only what he wants
to hear. But he shows an eager appetite for certain kinds
of information. He constantly monitors CNN and BBC news programs,
likes American thriller movies and admires Stalin and Machiavelli.
He writes romance novels, supposedly without assistance .
. . All the capital's buildings, bridges and roads damaged
in the 1991 war and in follow-up American attacks in 1998
have been rebuilt. Fancy shops selling the goods of globalization
line the posh streets of the al-Mansur neighborhood, and even
the poor man's market in the Washash neighborhood peddles
plentiful fruit and cheap Chinese TVs. . . . For years, Saddam
ruthlessly milked the suffering of the Iraqi people to erode
the global determination on maintaining the U.N. sanctions.
Now he has shifted gears to meet a different objective:
to keep those same long-suffering Iraqis from rebelling against
him. So the taps have opened: more of the money from his legal
oil sales and illicit oil smuggling, once reserved for the
purpose of bribing regime loyalists, is now being spread around
to the populace. . . . If Saddam's hold on power is
as tenuous as some officials in Washington claim, that is
not visible in Baghdad. . . . Saddam appears to be preparing
for war. . . . Like his hero Stalin, Saddam sees weapons of
mass destruction as the great equalizers that give him the
global position he craves. A nuke plus a long-range missile
make you a world power. Deadly spores and poisonous gases
make you a feared one. These are the crown jewels of his regime.
He sacrificed the well-being of the Iraqi people and billions
of dollars in oil revenues to keep the unconventional weapons
he had before the Gulf War and to engage in an open-ended
process of acquiring new ones. . . . He appears to have not
so much a strategy as a concept of grandeur.
U.S.
Envisions Blueprint on Iraq Including Big Invasion Next Year
(Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, t r u t h o u t, April
28, 2002)
The Bush administration, in developing a potential approach
for toppling President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, is concentrating
its attention on a major air campaign and ground invasion,
with initial estimates contemplating the use of 70,000 to
250,000 troops. . . . The administration is turning to that
approach after concluding that a coup in Iraq would be unlikely
to succeed and that a proxy battle using local forces there
would be insufficient to bring a change in power. . . . senior
officials now acknowledge that any offensive would probably
be delayed until early next year, allowing time to create
the right military, economic and diplomatic conditions. These
include avoiding summer combat in bulky chemical suits, preparing
for a global oil price shock, and waiting until there is progress
toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . Even
before Mr. Bush's tense meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah
of Saudi Arabia on Thursday, the Pentagon was working on the
assumption that it might have to carry out any military action
without the use of bases in the kingdom. . . . The planning
now anticipates the possible extensive use of bases for American
forces in Turkey and Kuwait, with Qatar as the replacement
for the sophisticated air operations center in Saudi
Arabia, and with Oman and Bahrain playing important roles.
. . . Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld and their senior aides contend that Arab leaders
would publicly protest but secretly celebrate Mr. Hussein's
downfall - as long as the operation were decisive - and that
ousting him would actually ease the job of calming violence
between Israel and the Palestinians. They believe that
warnings of uprisings among Arab populations are overblown
and compare them to similar warnings before the gulf war,
which proved unfounded.
U.S.
has completed 'basics' of plan to attack Iraq
(World Tribune.com, April 19, 2002)
"Component commanders of each service are now at their
forward headquarters in the region with more than 1,000 war
planners, logistics experts and support specialists. This
operations plan is being refined regularly and the target
list is being validated and updated daily." . . . The
center said in its report that the United States will probably
launch an offensive against Iraq in the spring of 2003. The
earliest the U.S. military would be ready for an attack would
be the "mid-fall of 2002." . . . Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia and Turkey would be the most likely staging grounds
for an offensive . . . "The general expectation
among U.S. military planners - but not a given - is that Iraqi
air defenses, command and control facilities, the Iraqi army
and Republican Guard would be rapidly overwhelmed and defeated
swiftly," the report said. "The threat of biological
or chemical weapons targeting Israel, neighboring countries,
or U.S. troops will be a major concern. Handling this threat
will be one of the hardest, most challenging missions in Iraq."
Oil
is the reason America wants to be rid of Saddam
(Adrian Hamilton, The Independent, 12 April 2002)
US reach for secure oil supplies is as much behind Washington's
determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein now as any question
of Saddam's danger to the world. . . . a country as dependent
on imports as America is bound to take a strategic view of
its interests, all the more so when it is headed by a president
from an oil state who has earned most of his personal fortune
from the commodity. It would be astonishing if America didn't
plan to tie up oil reserves for itself. It always has in the
past, which is why it (and the British and French) supported
Saddam Hussein for so long, when he was using chemical weapons
against his own people. . . . as an oil producer, Saudi
Arabia has nevertheless reached its peak. Its finances,
thanks to gross overspending and endemic corruption, are in
a mess. The balance of power within the royal family has shifted
to the isolationists away from the pro-westerners. The
US must look to alternative sources at the very least
to secure its future increase in imports and to keep a lid
on prices which threaten its economic recovery. . . . There
are only two unexploited sources with anything like the potential
reserves of Saudi Arabia. [Editor's Note: These areas are
Iraq and the Caspian Sea area, which requires a pipeline through
Afghanistan.] . . . The demand for security of oil supplies
almost invariably leads to support for the more unpleasant
regimes of the world. There can be few more unsavoury
than our new ally Uzbekistan, for example. Yet that is where
America is heading. Where oil is concerned, Washington has
its own interests.
US
paves way for war on Iraq - Attack base to be moved into Qatar
to bypass Saudi objections
(Julian Borger, The Guardian, March 27, 2002)
The US Air Force has begun preparations to move its Gulf headquarters
from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, to bypass Saudi objections to
military action against Iraq . . . The independent Saudi Information
Agency, based in Washington, reported that US military trucks
had been seen leaving the base at al Kharj, 50 miles south
of Riyadh, and arriving at the border with Qatar in the second
week of March. . . . The move to Qatar, which has been the
subject of speculation in Washington for the past few weeks,
would allow the US to conduct an air campaign against Iraq
in the face of Saudi refusal to collaborate . . . the Saudi
contractor said his company had been invited to make a bid
for a "multimillion dollar contract" to move the
Prince Sultan base's equipment over the border to Qatar. "That
is what we've been asked to estimate. The bid process is open
for three to four weeks, so now it is about two weeks to the
deadline," . . . The apparent preparations to evacuate
the Prince Sultan base are the latest in a series of US moves
preparing the ground for a US military operation: central
command has moved its service headquarters to the Gulf; and
special forces have set up a base in Oman and, according to
Turkish sources, have moved into Kurdish-run areas in northern
Iraq. . . . There have also been unconfirmed reports, in the
US press and from Iraqi opposition groups, of a quiet US military
build up in Kuwait to between 25,000 and 35,000 troops.
Arab
states united in rejecting attack on Saddam
(Robert Fisk, The Independent, 18 March 2002)
Rarely can an American vice-president have met such a rebuff
from America's Arab allies. Not a single Arab king, prince
or president has been prepared to endorse a US attack on Iraq.
. . . In every Arab capital, Mr Cheney has been politely but
firmly told to turn his attention to the Palestinian-Israeli
war, and forget the "axis of evil'' until the US brings
its Israeli allies into line. All Mr Cheney's efforts to pretend
that the conflict in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel is separate
from Iraq have failed. . . . One newspaper carried a front-page
article condemning US policy in the region - almost unheard
of in the kingdom - while editorials in other Gulf papers
uniformly condemned any assault on Iraq. . . . Even the small
United Arab Emirates had no time for the Cheney argument.
. . . If America wishes to pursue its "war on terror'',
what has Iraq got to do with it? Where is the evidence that
Saddam was involved in 11 September? None exists . . . Since
Mr bin Laden hates President Saddam and has gone on record
to say as much, just how the Iraqi weapons, if they exist,
would reach America's nemesis is unclear. And the Arabs have
been asking who is threatening genocide in the Middle East?
Who is being attacked?
UK
warns Saddam of nuclear retaliation
(George Jones, and Anton La Guardia, News Telegraph, 21/03/2002)
BRITAIN would be ready to make a nuclear strike against states
such as Iraq if they used weapons of mass destruction against
British forces, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told MPs
yesterday. . . . He issued his warning as officials in Washington
and London privately predicted that military action to try
to topple Saddam Hussein was likely to be launched at the
end of the year. . . . Although Mr Hoon later denied in the
Commons that any decision had been taken on military action
against Iraq, his comments about the nuclear deterrent will
add to Labour MPs' concern that such preparations are being
actively considered. . . . His forthrightness was unexpected,
because many Labour MPs are opposed to retaining nuclear weapons.
. . . The Foreign Office, in particular, is deeply worried
about the impact that a war in Iraq would have on the Middle
East. But it appears to have been overruled by Mr Blair. .
. . This week America said Anaconda had been successful, but
British officials privately spoke of "a near disaster"
and said many guerrillas appeared to have slipped away despite
American claims . . . Dick Cheney, the American vice-president,
headed home yesterday after an 11-day tour of the Middle East
in which he received little support for an attack on Iraq.
War
on Iraq Draws Near - U.S. Troops leaving Saudi Arabia
From STRATFOR.com - Situation reports March 19, 2002
U.S. military forces are moving
out of Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, according to an unconfirmed
report from the Saudi Information Agency, a Washington, D.C.-based
dissident group. The equipment is allegedly being moved to
a military base in neighboring Qatar, which also hosts U.S.
forces. The report comes after a Washington Post story in
January that quoted an unnamed Saudi embassy official as saying
the kingdom would ask Washington to move its forces out. If
true, the move may also be related to a possible U.S. military
campaign against Iraq. 1450 GMT
Does
Blair know what he's getting into?
(Christopher Hitchens, The Guardian, March 20, 2002)
[Editor's note: Since the events of September 11th, Christopher
Hitchens has been sounding more like a right-wing fanatic
than the progressive he once was. Thankfully, the following
article has a little bit of the old Hitchens in it, but overall
we remain skeptical of Hitches' opinions these days.]
The truth of the matter is that, by speaking plainly and with
intelligence, the British government could make an actual
difference not just to the way that Washington decides what
to do about Iraq, but also to what Washington decides to do.
. . . Can any attack on Iraq be justified without a parallel
settlement for the Palestinians? . . . Many Arab governments
fear that if the US attacks Iraq, and if Iraq responds by
hitting Israel, and if Palestinians are again shown applauding
the attack, then the Israeli right will seize the moment to
reoccupy or even ethnically cleanse the West Bank. In other
words, Blair and Straw are failing in their duty if they do
not insist that any drastic action in Iraq comes as part of
a regional settlement. What is the point of the US being a
superpower if it cannot discipline a government for which
it is the armourer and paymaster? The current pseudo-Augustinian
answer - that we all wish for a Palestinian homeland, but
not yet - is utterly inadequate. . . . but he [a member of
the U.S. security establishment] said quite calmly, "Yes.
We would be bringing it [Iraq's attack on Israel] on."
. . . the fact is the US is currently readying an invasion
and occupation force, and running the risk of dire consequences,
without revealing any of its political or strategic aims to
Congress, or to its formal military allies, or to the Iraqi
opposition, or to the Kurds, or to the neighbouring states.
It is doing so, moreover, without much evident regard for
the unfolding calamity, for which it bears some direct responsibility,
in Palestine and Israel. . . . The danger now is that the
Bush administration will go ahead anyway because of some concept
of "credibility": in other words because it dare
not risk looking weak.
Mr
Blair must climb out of President Bush's pocket
Echoing the US mantras on Iraq will only weaken Britain's
influence
(Hugo Young, The Guardian, March 21, 2002)
Blair came away from Barcelona without securing wider support
for military action against Iraq, for which he has been trying
to get the world prepared. . . . Most EU leaders now watch
Blair with incredulity. They see him climbing every day into
Bush's pocket. He will deny that this is what he's doing.
But it's the common perception of his peer-group. Is it his
vanity, they ask? A desire to be at the centre of the action?
An unquenchable passion to be close to Big Power? Even if
his conduct derives from none of these things, and reflects
a serious conviction about global strategy, the other leaders
do not warm to it. In fact they feel ever chillier. . . .
The pattern began last year, after his first meeting with
Bush. On returning from Camp David, the PM sent his then private
secretary, John Sawers, to convene a meeting of the EU ambassadors
in London to tell them this man was going to be a great president.
They found it as hard to credit the message as to purge their
annoyance at being required to hear it. Since then, Blair
has slipped from being the half-envied special connector with
Washington, able to get access on behalf of Europe as well
as Britain, to the apparent status of a minor cog in the American
machine. . . . For Mr Blair, in these circumstances, to go
to Texas and do no more than sooth ingly echo Bush's mantras
about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction would be a serious
political error.
Bush
wants 25,000 UK troops for Iraq war; Britain considers joint
invasion plan
(Kamal Ahmed, Jason Burke and Peter Beaumont, The Observer,
Sunday March 10, 2002)
"America has asked Britain to draw up plans for 25,000
of this country's troops to join a US task force to overthrow
Saddam Hussein. . . . The request for such a large number
of British troops shows the high stakes America is now playing
for. . . . The Government is already facing a split on the
issue of military action against Iraq. One Minister described
those who had questioned Blair's policy of fully backing a
US military campaign as 'appeasers'. . . . British troops
would be part of a 250,000-strong ground force to invade Iraq
in an operation similar to Desert Storm in 1991. . . . America
has already begun a discreet military build-up in preparation
for a ground war in Iraq. US special forces are training Iraqi
militia to be ready for a strike against Saddam in the coming
months.
[NOTE: The link below will take you to an audio in RealPlayer
format.]
Tim
Sebastian interviews Robert Baer, Former CIA Agent
(BBC Hardtalk 2002-3-4)
[TS] When America's vast intelligence networks failed to prevent
the September 11th attack, was it incompetence or bad luck?
My guest today [Robert Baer] has his own views. For more than
20 years he belonged to the CIA as directorate of operations.
He helped organise an abortive coup against Saddam Hussein
in 1995.
“Arab friends in the Middle East, said that inside Saudi
Arabia there was a terrorist plot being organised probably
against American targets or against the Saudi government.
They were non-specific but everybody seemed to know that bin
Laden was preparing something big. The rumours were out there,
and I had picked this up in Beirut actually. . . . I sent
it to the CIA. . . . I never got a response. Whether or not
they followed up on it or not I don't know. They never came
back and asked me any questions. . . . They're not listening.
They'd made up their mind before September 11th that no terrorism
was going to reach US shores. . . . It's a cultural problem.
It's not just the CIA. It's Immigration, it's the FBI, State
Department, they're all broke. The federal buerocracy in the
United States is broke. Why did those fifteen Saudis have
visas, without interviews, were wandering around the United
States going to flight schools. They could never go back and
get jobs. No one kept track of them. . . . The Clinton administration
didn't send me there to overthrow Saddam. I was sent there
to get sources inside the army . . . It terrifies me if the
Unites States attacks Iraq, destroys Saddams army, which is
what really holds the country together, it's gonna break up
into ethnic and religious groups, different groups. And you
got, you got Christian groups are against Saddam, you got
Shiia in the south, the Sunni Kurds in the north. If you destroy
the army, what happens to Iraq? Since Ottoman times it's always
been the Sunni Arabs who've controlled the country, for better
or worse. . . . And I don't think anybody's got an endgame
for this, that I've seen. I mean I'm outside though, what
do I know. But if you destroy the army, the chances of Iran
invading the south are very high. And this is what I think
scared the Clinton administration in 1995 with that March
coup. Because there was no endgame. The status quo is much
more important to the Clinton administration than getting
rid of Saddam. And I don't think anybody knows what's gonna
happen, if they destroy his army now.”
|
|
