The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Iraq Likely To Be Next

Hello all,
these articles come from Ken Freeland []
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:29 AM
To: christiansocialist; Not In Our Name; Barry'sList; hprt
Subject: FW: Iraq Likely To Be Next "Phase"
They're interesting, so I pass them on to the CASI-list.
Dirk Adriaensens.
PS: strange things happened to mij computer lately. I regularly send messages to Iraq. I start having terrible problems with my PC. It seems like they're bombing me with viruses. And I'm not the only one !! And what's worst: the viruses come not in attachments, but IN the mail, AND they are not recognised by Norton Antivirus or Norton Firewall. I'm not paranoid, but I start to think, that these viruses (and they come on daily basis!!!) are deliberately put on the net to try to stop the contacts between Iraq and anti-sanctions militants. You might think this is a crazy thought, but I believe "they" are capable to do this. Has anyone of you had trouble with viruses or trojan horses? If anyone needs proof: this virus-message came today:
15/10/2001 - Detected Virus List -Time,Infected File Name,Virus Name,Action on Virus,User Name,Scan Type 20:37:38,The World does not know much about,PE_MAGISTR.B,Clean failed. The file was passed.,observer <>,Real-time Mail Scan
The following articles will repay close reading. The first and third article report the growing momentum in the Bush adminstration to launch an attack against Iraq, using the anthrax scare as the pretext. When you read the first article, which reviews all the "evidence" against Iraq, you will not believe what you're reading. This whole argument is so suppositious that any seventh-grader should be able to see through it. It is just one long list of innuendo. In the third article, we read:
'In a conversation on Wednesday, Mr. Woolsey suggested that he was building a legal case against Iraq.
'"The first thing we have to do is develop some confidence that Iraq is involved in terrorist incidents against us, not meaning Sept. 11," he said.'
Note that Mr. Woolsey is not in the slightest interested in determining whether or not Iraq is guilty, only in demonstrating the "fact." Who's Bush kidding with this one?
The third article also makes clear the US intent to seize Iraqi oil wells.
The second article provides an update on the many demonstrations against the war taking place in Europe over the weekend

-----Original Message-----
From: MER [mailto:MERL@MiddleEast.Org]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:40 AM
Subject: Iraq Likely To Be Next "Phase"

   _______   ____   ______
  /  |/  /  /___/  / /_ //    M I D - E A S T   R E A L I T I E S
 / /|_/ /  /_/_   / /\\         Making Sense of the Middle East
/_/  /_/  /___/  /_/ 
\\(c)            http://www.MiddleEast.Org

  News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
       and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know!
   To receive MER regularly and free -




www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 10/14:

A powerful coalition of "hawkish" government officials, lobbyists (especially those connected with the Israelis and the arms corporations), conservative press publications and columnists, many of the national Jewish organizations, as well as millions of Christian fundamentalists associated with Pat Robertson and his daily TV "700 Club" program, is mobilized to make sure that "America's new war" does not end with Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. Amazingly the persons in official Washington considered most "moderate and reasonable" are a four-star General who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon before becoming Secretary of State, followed by former right-wing Secretary of Defense, now Vice-President
Plans for further war "phases" beyond Afghanistan have already begun to be seriously made not only at the Pentagon but throughout the American capital. In many ways that's what the war mobilization, the call out of the National Guard, and the preparations for a kind of low-scale "permanent warfare" on the "homefront" are really all about. Some of the best experts in Washington believe the basic decision to attack Iraq and replace the Bathist regime there -- and then to go after Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all other major forces in the Middle East that have the will and capability to oppose American/Israeli designs in the region or to topple any of the key American "client regimes" -- has already been made, "telegraphed" in various not-so-ambiguous ways to Washington's political establishment. But Cheney and Powell have prevailed so far at least in trying to hush public discussion of what is to come because of the very sensitive situation known as "coalition building" needed to carry out Phase 1 -- very sensitive indeed with key American Arab and Muslim allies practically pleading with Washington not to move on to further "phases" involving military attacks on any countries beyond Afghanistan.
Except when it comes to public relations and timing these pleas -- however genuine or made up of crocodile tears -- are not resonating; and are certainly not likely to prevail. When King Abdullah came visiting hoping to help out the Americans at a tense time and make sure of the U.S. commitment to protect his regime's hold on power, he returned to the region to state that he had obtained an American promise not to attack any Arab country. But he was very quickly and very publicly humiliated by the Bush Administration saying the King was simply wrong and must have "misunderstood" the discussions he had in Washington. The Saudis and Egyptians too have been similarly toyed with, but they are too weak, too scared, and too co-opted to really do anything about it.
As for the Pakistanis, the U.S. will support General Musharraf as long as he is compliant and in firm command; but should that situation change it is certainly possible the Americans, urged on by both the Israelis and the Indians, could turn their warplanes on Pakistan and at least destroy Pakistan's "Muslim bomb" nuclear weapons capabilities. This is no longer a totally fictional scenario should chaos erupt in Pakistan and it truly be "in danger" of becoming a "Muslim State", which it already is by constitution. That same powerful coalition now mobilizing for Phase 2 against Iraq surely has this potential scenario in mind for when further phases in the new unending "war against terrorism" begin to emerge from their usually secret deliberations.
More on the Pakistani situation in our next article.

  Pentagon hardliners press for strikes on Saddam Britain's GPs put on full alert over deadly disease
By David Rose and Ed Vulliamy
[The Observer - London, New York - Sunday October 14, 2001]: American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York believe they have all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack - and have named Iraq as prime suspect as the source of the deadly spores.
Their inquiries are adding to what US hawks say is a growing mass of evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the 11 September hijackers.
If investigators' fears are confirmed - and sceptics fear American hawks could be publicising the claim to press their case for strikes against Iraq - the pressure now building among senior Pentagon and White House officials in Washington for an attack may become irresistible.
Plans have been discussed among Pentagon strategists for US air strike support for armed insurrections against Saddam by rebel Kurds in the north and Shia Muslims in the south with a promise of American ground troops to protect the oilfields of Basra.
Contact has already been made with an Iraqi opposition group based in London with a view to installing its members as a future government in Baghdad.
Leading US intelligence sources, involved with both the CIA and the Defence Department, told The Observer that the 'giveaway' which suggests a state sponsor for the anthrax cases is that the victims in Florida were afflicted with the airborne form of the disease.
'Making anthrax, on its own, isn't so difficult,' one senior US intelligence source said. 'But it only begins to become effective as a biological weapon if they can be made the right size to breathe in. If you can't get airborne infectivity, you can't use it as a weapon. That is extremely difficult. There is very little leeway. Most spores are either too big to be suspended in air, or too small to lodge on the lining of the lungs.'
As claims about an Iraqi link grew, senior health officials in Britain revealed they warned all the country's GPs last week to be vigilant about the disease. 'I think we have to be prepared to think the unthinkable,' said the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Dr Liam Donaldson. The Department of Health confirmed the Government is conducting an urgent review of Britain's ability to cope with chemical or biological attacks.
It also emerged last night that three people who worked in the Florida buildings at the centre of anthrax scares are now in the UK and undergoing tests for the disease. And in America a letter sent from Malaysia to a Microsoft office was found to contain traces of anthrax.
In liquid form, anthrax is useless - droplets would fall to the ground, rather than staying suspended in the air to be breathed by victims. Making powder needs repeated washings in huge centrifuges, followed by intensive drying, which requires sealed environments. The technology would cost millions.
US intelligence believes Iraq has the technology and supplies of anthrax suitable for terrorist use. 'They aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan,' the CIA source said. 'This is prima facie evidence of the involvement of a state intelligence agency. Maybe Iran has the capability. But it doesn't look likely politically. That leaves Iraq.'
Scientists investigating the attacks say the bacteria used is similar to the 'Ames strain' of anthrax originally cultivated at Iowa State University in the 1950s and later given to labs throughout the world, including Iraq.
According to sources in the Bush administration, investigators are talking to Egyptian authorities who say members of the al-Qaida network, detained and interrogated in Cairo, had obtained phials of anthrax in the Czech Republic.
Last autumn Mohamed Atta is said by US intelligence officials to have met in Prague an agent from Iraqi intelligence called Ahmed Samir al-Ahani, a former consul later expelled by the Czechs for activities not compatible with his diplomatic mission.
The Czechs are also examining the possibility that Atta met a former director of Saddam's external secret services, Farouk Hijazi, at a second meeting in the spring. Hijazi is known to have met Bin Laden.
It was confirmed yesterday that Jim Woolsey, CIA director from 1993 to 1996, recently visited London on behalf of the hawkish Defence Department to 'firm up' other evidence of Iraqi involvement in 11 September.
Some observers fear linking Saddam to the terrorist attacks is part of an agenda being driven by US hawks eager to broaden the war to include Iraq, a move being resisted by the British government.
The hawks winning the ear of President Bush is assembled around Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and a think tank, the Defence Policy Advisory Board, dubbed the 'Wolfowitz cabal'.
Their strategy to target Iraq was hammered out at a two-day seminar in September, of which the dovish Secretary of State Colin Powell had no knowledge.
The result was a letter to President Bush urging the removal of Saddam as a precondition to the war. 'Failure to undertake such an effort,' it said, 'will constitute a decisive surrender in the war against terrorism'.
In a swipe at Powell's premium on coalition-building, it continues: 'coalition building has run amok. The point about a coalition is "can it achieve the right purpose?" not "can you get a lot of members?"'
Administration officials close to the group told The Observer : 'We see this war as one against the virus of terrorism. If you have bone marrow cancer, it's not enough to just cut off the patient's foot. You have to do the complete course of chemotherapy. And if that means embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, that's what we're doing.'

[Associated Press, 13 October, LONDON]: -- An estimated 20,000 people marched through central London in the largest of several demonstrations in Europe on Saturday against the military strikes in Afghanistan.
Some sang, others chanted, a few attempted to burn American and British flags, but police said the march, on an unseasonably warm day, was peaceful.
The organizers, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, welcomed the large turnout, saying they hope to a create a broad coalition with protesters abroad.
"It is just remarkable of the high level of interest," said Nigel Chamberlain, spokesman of CND. "We might be in a minority in public opinion, but we are here to show that there are thousands of people against the war."
London police estimated that 20,000 people joined the march from Hyde Park, Piccadilly and Trafalagar Square. Police intervened to stop attempts to burn an American flag and a paper or cardboard Union Jack flag of Britain.
In Germany, more than 25,000 peace protesters took to the streets. The largest turnout was in the capital, Berlin, where some 15,000 protesters held a protest in the central Gendarmenmarkt square, police said. The rally was preceded by several peace marches held throughout the city under the motto "No War - Stand Up for Peace."
Demonstrators from peace, church and student groups, as well as some unions, called for an immediate halt to the attacks, warning of an escalation of violence in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. They also called on world leaders to encourage development in the region as a way to "root out terrorism at its base."
The U.S.-led coalition began its military campaign against Afghanistan on Oct. 7 after the ruling Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants to the United States. Bin Laden, a Saudi exile, is the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington in which about 6,000 people were killed.
In the southern German city of Stuttgart, about 10,000 peace protesters called on the United States to leave Afghanistan and for Germans to stand together against the war.
"This war threatens to spread a fire of hatred," Sybille Stamm, local head of the giant ver.di service union told a crowd gathered for a rally in downtown Stuttgart. Stamm criticized the government for increasing spending on state security, at the cost of social programs.
Before the rally, police said about 80 people took part in a protest vigil near the barracks where the U.S. military's headquarters for Europe are stationed. No incidents were reported.
In Sweden, several thousand people marched peacefully in the country's three biggest cities Saturday to protest the bombings.
"It's absolutely unacceptable that the world's richest country bombs the world's poorest people," said Ann-Cathrin Jarl of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
In Italy, youths demonstrated peacefully in Rome, Naples and several smaller cities. The biggest turnout was in Naples, with about 2,000 people. Many of the protesters were preparing to head on Sunday to Umbria, in central Italy, for a peace march organizers predict will draw tens of thousands of people.
In Glasgow, Scotland, around 1,500 people gathered in George Square for an anti-war protest.
Thousands of people across Australia rallied Saturday for peace. The demonstrations in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide had been planned for more than a year to protest the militarization of space, but became forums to oppose the military offensive in Afghanistan.
"No one supports the Sept. 11 attacks but no one supports what's happening now in Afghanistan, either. The way to remember the dead of Sept. 11 is not by building another mound of innocent people's bodies," said Denis Doherty, a rally organizer.

[New York Times - WASHINGTON, Oct. 11]: A tight-knit group of Pentagon officials and defense experts outside government is working to mobilize support for a military operation to oust President Saddam Hussein of Iraq as the next phase of the war against terrorism, senior administration officials and defense experts said.
The group, which some in the State Department and on Capitol Hill refer to as the "Wolfowitz cabal," after Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, is laying the groundwork for a strategy that envisions the use of air support and the occupation of southern Iraq with American ground troops to install a Iraqi opposition group based in London at the helm of a new government, the officials and experts said.
Under this notion, American troops would also seize the oil fields around Basra, in southeastern Iraq, and sell the oil to finance the Iraqi opposition in the south and the Kurds in the north, one senior official said.
"The takeover would not be dissimilar to the area we occupied in the gulf war," the official said.
The group is building its case despite President Bush's declaration that the war against Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, Al Qaeda, must be fought first. The idea is to prepare for what its members see as the coming debate over the next phase of the war.
The group has largely excluded the State Department, where Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has adamantly argued that such an attack would destroy the international coalition that President Bush has assembled. Both Mr. Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney have said there is no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks.
"Our focus is on Afghanistan and the terrorist network hiding in Afghanistan right now," Mr. Bush said tonight at his news conference. But he called Mr. Hussein " an evil man."
"After all, he gassed his own people," Mr. Bush added. "We know he's been developing weapons of mass destruction." He said the administration was watching Mr. Hussein "very carefully."
On Sept. 19 and 20, the Defense Policy Board, a prestigious bipartisan board of national security experts that advises the Pentagon, met for 19 hours to discuss the ramifications of the attacks of Sept. 11. The members of the group agreed on the need to turn to Iraq as soon as the initial phase of the war against Afghanistan and Mr. bin Laden and his organization is over, people familiar with the meetings said. Both Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz took part in the meetings for part of both days.
But while the group agreed on the goal of ousting Mr. Hussein, they presented a range of views, including a discussion of the many political and diplomatic obstacles to military action.
"If we don't use this as the moment to replace Saddam after we replace the Taliban, we are setting the stage for disaster," Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and a member of the group, said in an interview.
Richard Perle, who shares Mr. Wolfowitz's view that the Iraqi regime should be overthrown quickly with military force, said, "This has never been a fringe issue."
Neither Mr. Gingrich nor Mr. Perle discussed the substance of the meeting.
Other members of the group expressed concern that they might be pawns in what had become a bureaucratic battle. "Both Pentagon and State are probably using us to continue to support their arguments," said one member of the group.
The 18-member board includes Harold Brown, President Jimmy Carter's defense secretary; former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger; R. James Woolsey, director of central intelligence in the Clinton administration; Adm. David E. Jeremiah, the former deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Vice President Dan Quayle; and James R. Schlesinger a former defense and energy secretary.
The State Department, including officials who work on Iraq policy, was not briefed on the two-day meeting.
There are other signs of bureaucratic disarray with regard to setting policy regarding the war on terrorism. The White House inserted a far-reaching sentence into a letter from Ambassador John D. Negroponte, the chief United States envoy to the United Nations, to the Security Council last Sunday, senior administration officials said.
"Powell was surprised to find out about it and he was quite distressed," a senior administration official said. "Somebody should have called him."
The State Department determined that Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, inserted the sentence, and that Mr. Negroponte and at least two senior officials in the State Department saw the final version of the letter but did not change it, officials said.
The letter put the Security Council on notice that the United States might be forced to retaliate against other state sponsors of terrorism if it turned up new evidence, stating, "We may find that our self-defense requires further action with respect to other organizations and other states."
In another development, the Knight Ridder newspaper group reported today that senior Pentagon officials authorized Mr. Woolsey to fly to London last month on a government plane, accompanied by Justice and Defense Department officials, on a mission to gather evidence linking Mr. Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks.
The State Department was unaware of the trip but confirmed that it did take place, a senior State Department official said. Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon's chief spokeswoman, said, "We just don't have any information on it." Mr. Woolsey did not return phone calls seeking comment.
In a conversation on Wednesday, Mr. Woolsey suggested that he was building a legal case against Iraq.
"The first thing we have to do is develop some confidence that Iraq is involved in terrorist incidents against us, not meaning Sept. 11," he said.
Mr. Woolsey cited Iraq's alleged involvement in the assassination attempt against former President George Bush in the spring of 1993, together with its work to develop weapons of mass destruction as terrorist acts that made them "a prime candidate for regime replacement."
Mr. Woolsey added that eventually Mr. Hussein would fall if subjected to a military offensive that would give the United States control of the south, support from the Kurds in the north, defections of crucial Iraqis and well-supported insurgencies.
The United States must be "willing to put up with criticism from European states and other governments," Mr. Woolsey said.

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]