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]
US strategy, 13-22/12/01 (2) * Washington hawks get power boost [Guardian article on the impetus currently enjoyed by the warmongers] * NSC head: Iran, Iraq, Syria must be confronted [This is actually about Israeli strategy but the distinction between Israeli and US strategy with regard to keeping Arabs in line is becoming a little blurred] * `U.S. has no plans to strike Iraq at present' [Condoleeza Rice addressing a conference in Israel] * Liberate Iraq, Unleash Democracy [This article gives an interesting account of the 1995/6 debacle in the Kurdish zone, indicating that the INC were comprehensively betrayed by the CIA. It doesn¹t mention that Iraqi troops entered the autonomous zone at the invitation of the KDP because the PUK was effectively supporting an invasion from Iran. We can only assume that the US breathed a huge sigh of relief when S.Hussein intervened to sort the whole thing out (Œclean it up¹, as the Americans might say), despite the massacre of the INC presence which ensued. The article also shows the academic specialist in Muslim fundamentalism, Bernard Lewis, as a supported of the goal of US world hegemony] * The march to Baghdad [Extract expressing Israeli unease that if Saddam is faced with certain death nothing will restrain him from doing something unimaginably terrible] * U.S. massing its troops near Iraq * Middle Israel: The Babylonian Option[A comparatively benign Jewish vision of the post Saddam settlement, leaving us wondering how the ŒMiddle Israel¹ phrase crept into the title] * The spymaster's prescription [A really nasty piece of work from James Woolsey, speaking in Israel. It leaves me regretting that literature from the Nazi and Fascist eras is not more readily available. It would make for interesting comparisons, for example with the following: 'When this is over, either we are going to be held in contempt in the Mideast as we are now, or we are going to be feared and respected. There is nothing in between.' In one respect, Woolsey does differ from Hitler, perhaps learning from his experience, when he advises Israel that ŒOccupations of a hostile population are not easy to run¹. He suggests, as if Israel needed the advice, dividing the Palestinians into Œself-governing¹ bantustans entirely at Israel¹s mercy and rigorously excluded from access to the Israeli economy. In fact much like the Nazi ghetto system. He concludes, however, with what one assumes is a light-hearted touch of satirical humour: "For democracies, war is the last resort. It's the first resort for dictators who need foreign enemies."] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,619784,00.html * WASHINGTON HAWKS GET POWER BOOST by Julian Borger The Guardian, 17th December The gathering for a recent dinner at an expensive Washington hotel was officially to honour the "Keepers of the Flame" - US security officials deemed by their more conservative colleagues to have fought the good fight for bigger defence budgets and tougher policies. It was also a celebration. The mostly casualty-free military successes in Afghanistan have significantly boosted the power of Washington's "super-hawks" - a tight-knit group of former cold warriors who have returned from more than a decade in policy exile to grasp the levers of power once more. "It's taken us 13 years to get here, but we've arrived," the evening's host, Frank Gaffney, the head of a hawkish Washington thinktank, declared to applause and murmurs of agreement. The new defence establishment clustered around the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, is clearly winning the policy debate against the state department. In the latest of a string of setbacks for Colin Powell's multilateralist approach, the secretary of state's attempts to keep negotiations going with Moscow over missile defence was abruptly brought to an end last week with the announcement that the United States would withdraw from the anti ballistic missile (ABM) treaty. Meanwhile, the hardliners are capturing key squares on the chessboard of Washington power, at the expense of the moderates at state. Barring a military disaster in the Afghan endgame, the Pentagon is almost certain to win its battle to pursue the war of terrorism into Iraq and suspected terrorist havens across the world. "This is the third significant military campaign, after Desert Storm and Kosovo, in which air power has been the decisive element and where casualties have been negligible," John Pike, the chief analyst at the online security newsletter GlobalSecurity.com, said. "To the extent that the administration now can't tell the difference between a war and a firepower display, there is a greater temptation to resort to force." But the hawk ascendancy has had other far-reaching implications. Significant foreign policy issues have been annexed by the Pentagon and its militant allies, including the negotiation of key international treaties and the handling of the Israel Palestinian conflict. John Bolton - the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group's own man in the state department - was forced on Mr Powell despite the secretary of state's strenuous objections. Mr Bolton is under secretary of state for arms control and international security. He serves as senior adviser to the president on non-proliferation and disarmament - a role which causes grim amusement in the state department as he opposes multilateral arms agreements on principle. Inserted into the department to oversee the destruction of the ABM treaty, Mr Bolton was also instrumental in torpedoing international negotiations in Geneva earlier this month aimed at enforcing the toothless 1972 biological weapons convention. Mr Powell does not have a counterweight to Mr Bolton in the Pentagon, and he is about to lose an important ally in the White House. Bruce Reidel, a Clinton holdover who has echoed the state department's emphasis on the need to maintain an Arab coalition, is due to leave his job as head of the national security council Middle East desk next week. The hawks' candidate to take over is Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-American with little experience in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whose empire will include the Middle East, Iran and Iraq. Three years ago, he co-signed a letter to the then president, Bill Clinton, calling on him to throw his weight wholeheartedly into an effort to topple Saddam Hussein. The letter was also signed by Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Wolfowitz, Mr Bolton and others. And for the Washington hawks, Israel is a strategic ally which should not be bullied into giving ground - a view promoted by Doug Feith at the Pentagon, and Frank Gaffney, his former colleague at the Centre for Security Policy (CSP). "The so-called Middle East 'peace process,' which began with secret Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Oslo, has materially contributed to the present, catastrophic situation," the CSP argues on its website. "Successive concessions made in the name of advancing the 'peace process' by both Labour and Likud-led governments of Israel have not appeased demands for further concessions, only whetted Arab appetites for more." The CSP has now established itself as an influential player in Washington, a policy powerhouse focused on establishing a radical, unilateralist and aggressive new defence doctrine. The ballroom for the "Keepers of the Flame" gathering was packed with the high priests of the new security establishment. They included Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Feith and another Pentagon advisor, JD Crouch, sitting alongside the former CIA director, James Woolsey, a leading proponent of a new war against Saddam. Among them was Richard Perle, known as the "prince of darkness" in the Reagan-era arms race, who has been reborn as the chairman of the defence policy board. Mr Rumsfeld was the night's keynote speaker. He declared his happiness at being able to speak his mind "among friends" and embraced the mood by telling a cheering audience that after finishing off al-Qaida and the Taliban, "we'd best go after the rest of the terrorists". For the time being, at least, there is little in Washington to stop Mr Rumsfeld chasing America's foes all the way to Baghdad. America's top sabre-rattlers Donald Rumsfeld - A veteran of the cold war chosen by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, in the face of opposition from Colin Powell, now secretary of state. His radical policies and abrasive manner initially provoked resistance from the Pentagon generals. But the war on terrorism has made him the most powerful member of the cabinet and he is expanding his influence into foreign policy fields normally managed by the secretary of state. Paul Wolfowitz - Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, and the foremost exponent of a new war against Saddam Hussein. He is a former academic with a wide-ranging network of travellers and sympathisers, commonly referred to in Washington as the "Wolfowitz cabal". Doug Feith - The Pentagon's policy supremo and a former director of the Centre for Security Policy (CSP), who has led the charge for a more pro-Israel Middle East policy. Frank Gaffney - a former defence policy official and Rumsfeld acolyte who now runs the CSP - a thinktank and ideological seminary for young hawks. He advocates the scrapping of the Oslo peace process, the forceful promotion of the national missile defence system, and a settling of scores with Baghdad. Richard Perle - Known as Ronald Reagan's "prince of darkness" for his distaste for disarmament treaties, and his hawkish attitude towards the Soviet Union. Mr Perle retains an important role in the defence policy board, a Pentagon thinktank which he chairs. John Bolton - The hawks' man inside the state department. Despite the objections of Colin Powell, he was appointed undersecretary of state for arms control, non-proliferation and international security, even though he is a committed unilateralist who opposes global arms treaties on principle. Zalmay Khalilzad - the top Afghan-American in the administration. Three years ago, he signed a joint letter with Donald Rumsfeld and other hawks, calling on the Clinton administration to topple Saddam. He is seeking to take over the Middle East portfolio when Bruce Reidel steps down later this month. http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/12/17/LatestNews/LatestNews.40086.html * NSC HEAD: IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA MUST BE CONFRONTED Jerusalem Post, 17th December National Security Council head Uzi Dayan said this morning that, "Iran, Iraq and Syria must be confronted on the international level." "These three countries mix terror, weapons of mass destruction, and threaten the State of Israel," Dayan said. "Farther down the road, we are going to operate against groups and terrorist states Iran, Iraq, and Syria. "We must pay attention to .. these groups and states.. They must be dealt with on an international level as soon as possible," Dayan said at the Herzliya Conference on the Balance of National Strength and Security last night. Mossad head Ephraim Halevy said at the conference that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat seems to lack the desire to take a strategic decision to end the violence in the territories and fight Islamic extremism, as the international community and Israel have demanded http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=107304&contrassID =2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y * `U.S. HAS NO PLANS TO STRIKE IRAQ AT PRESENT' by Amnon Barzilai Ha'aretz, 18th December The U.S. has no plans to strike at Iraq at present, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday, speaking by satellite to a select audience at the Herzliya Convention for National Security. Rice said the U.S. will focus its military operations against the terrorist organization Al Qaida in Afghanistan and around the world until it is demolished and its leaders brought to justice. Rice also addressed U.S. policy toward Palestinian terror in Israel. "You can't fight Al Qaida and at the same time, hug Hamas and Hezbollah," said Rice. The convention this week is being attended by Israel's top security chiefs, including the defense minister, the Israel Defense Forces' chief-of-staff, and the heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet security service. It is being sponsored by the Institute for Strategy and Policy of the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. When asked by one of the participants whether the next stage in the war against terror will involve a war against Iraq, Rice responded that despite the fact that Iraq poses a threat to the stability of the Middle East and even to the United States, plans for attacking Iraq are not being considered at present. The Israel Air Force's former commander, Major General Eitan Ben-Eliahu (Res.), addressed the possibility of increasing military cooperation between Israel and the U.S. Rice commended the cooperation between the two countries. She stressed the high level of coordination in the development of anti-missile technology, mentioning the Arrow anti missile system as a common project of Israel and the U.S. She also noted that the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S. military habitually stage joint exercises. Rice said she endorsed further expansion of cooperation between the countries on development of anti-missile technology. Former Mossad chief Shabtai Shavit asked the national security adviser how America's close ties with the fundamental Islamic state Saudi Arabia fit with America's moral beliefs. Rice responded that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have a deep friendship, which was brought to light in the Gulf War, and again in America's war against terror. Rice said that the U.S. does not attempt to impose its values on its friends despite differences in belief. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=95001608 * LIBERATE IRAQ, UNLEASH DEMOCRACY by Robert L. Bartley Wall Street Journal, 17th December As fighting winds down in Afghanistan, Ahmad Chalabi is moving from obscurity to the biggest issue in the next step of the war against terrorism. He's president of the Iraqi National Congress, the anti-Saddam group "dedicated to the institution of constitutional, democratic, and pluralistic government in Iraq." U.S. officials up to and including President Bush have suggested that the war against terrorism is likely to include Iraq. Saddam is clearly developing weapons of mass destruction, has actually used poison gas and sent terrorists trying to assassinate former President George Bush. But in thinking about military action against Iraq, you come quickly to the question of the INC, with military proposals and political ambitions highly controversial here and abroad. I remember a dinner, for example, where Mr. Chalabi recounted his conversations with the authorities in Saudi Arabia. Yes, they kept telling him, we will help your attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Yes, we are willing to spend money. But late in the week came the caveat: But of course, you will have to forget all this business about installing a democracy. The Iraqi National Congress asserts, further, that the Iraqi people so hate the Saddam dictatorship that they would rise in revolt and rally to its banner if only the U.S. gave it unambiguous backing. Would a new war against Iraq require the 500,000 troops the U.S. deployed in 1991? Or could it be more like the Afghan fighting, with a local militia backed by U.S. airpower and special forces? Pentagon civilian planners, it's widely reported, give Mr. Chalabi enough credence to consider the INC as a potential umbrella group for bringing together an armed resistance. Mr. Chalabi, a University of Chicago mathematics Ph.D. from a wealthy Shi'ite family that left Iraq when the Hashemite monarchy was overthrown in 1958, also enjoys the support of the U.S. Congress, which earmarked $29 million for the INC's use last year. The CIA and the State Department, by contrast, regard Mr. Chalabi and his ideas with deep suspicion. State refuses to release money to the INC except for activities outside of Iraq, for example, using the Congressional funds not as support but as a leash. The CIA animus is notorious, perhaps deriving from charges of financial improprieties surrounding the 1989 closing of a bank Mr. Chalabi ran in Jordan. More likely Jordanian authorities were intent on keeping him from exposing their then-substantial financial dealings with Saddam Hussein, and the real root of CIA feelings is that in the past it was burned in dealings with the INC. Or perhaps a bigger sin, that the INC was burned by the CIA. For Mr. Chalabi and his allies are no armchair revolutionaries. They took advantage of the U.S. "no fly" zone to establish a presence in northern Iraq, attract defectors, momentarily unify the perpetually feuding Talabani and Barzani Kurds, and in 1995 launch a meaningful offensive. Just before the offensive opened, Washington withdrew offers of U.S. support offered by a CIA operative in the field, and the Kurds started fighting each other instead of Saddam. After an abortive coup attempt sponsored by the U.S. and Saudis the following year, Saddam sent tanks into the Kurdish zone to expel the INC; some 150 of its defectors were executed or killed in the fighting. The U.S., that is, chose to support a palace coup rather than a popular uprising. It did the same thing in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War, when insurrection broke out in all but three or four of Iraq's 18 provinces. The U.S. decided let an abjectly defeated Saddam fly armed helicopters to suppress the revolts. Bush administration planners apparently felt the uprising interfered with a planned coup, and may even have thought the helicopters were part of the anti-Saddam plot. The lesson seems to be that Saddam is much better at coups than the CIA and Saudis are. Backing a popular uprising certainly carries risks. John Foster Dulles pretty much stopped talking of "roll-back" in Eastern Europe, for example, when he found himself unable to justify the risk of supporting the 1956 Hungarian uprising. But the prospects of both military success and political democracy in Iraq deserve to be reassessed in the light of experiences since September 11. The Afghan fighting goes far to vindicate visions of a new era of warfare, with the decisive factor being not massive formations but small, mobile and exceedingly precise strikes. And the spectacles of the Afghans greeting U.S. troops as liberators and Iranian students demonstrating in favor of the U.S. suggest that even among Muslims democracy, or at least freedom in some form, may not be so wild a dream. In the past couple of weeks I've talked to two authorities who find Mr. Chalabi's hopes quite plausible, both militarily and politically. Former CIA director James Woolsey has in his private capacity become something of an INC advocate, for example representing some of its members in disputes with immigration authorities. He stresses that since the Gulf War airpower has become much more deadly‹only one in 10 bombs dropped then was a smart munition, now even the gravity bombs have a lot of guidance. Regular troops massing to confront a citizen militia would be devastated from the air. A second and even more impressive believer is Princeton historian Bernard Lewis. His warnings of Muslim rage in 1990 and Osama bin Laden's jihad against the U.S. in 1998 confirm him as our pre-eminent expert on the Middle East. As recently as 1996, he wrote pessimistically about the prospects of democracy in the Middle East. That, he now says, was before he got to know the Iraqi National Congress. He divides Middle Eastern nations into three categories: In those with anti-American dictatorships, Iraq and Iran, public opinion is pro-American. In those with pro-American dictatorships, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, public opinion is anti-American. And finally, in the democracies, Israel and Turkey, both governments and people are pro-American. He adds that Saddam has let his conventional military degrade while investing in weapons of mass destruction, which makes him more dangerous every year he remains in power. An anti-terrorist offensive against Iraq would of course be no light thing, given his capabilities with poison gas and threats to attack Israel. But it's far from clear a popular uprising need fail. And it's entirely clear, at least to me, that the objective should be not to enthrone a Saudi-approved strongman, but to create a pluralistic and modernizing Iraq. Mr. Bartley is editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/12/20/Columns/Columns.40304.html * THE MARCH TO BAGHDAD by Ron Dermer Jerusalem Post, 20th December [.....] But here is where it gets tricky.During the Gulf War, by making clear that a non-conventional strike against its citizens will be answered by a massive non-conventional counter-attack, Israel deterred Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction. But should Saddam's head already be on the American chopping block, such deterrence will prove ineffective. Put simply, a man who is certain to die once is not threatened by the prospect of a second certain death. We should have no illusions that a man willing to kill thousands of his own countrymen will have any qualms about killing tens of thousands of Jews.That is why a dying Saddam is likely to be a deadly Saddam. It is also why preparing the Israeli public for America's march to Baghdad is surely the most pressing issue now facing the country. http://www.canada.com/toronto/news/story.asp?id={1E0998FE-D41D-4CB0-95A5 E9ABDCB1F9ED} * U.S. MASSING ITS TROOPS NEAR IRAQ by Michael Higgins National Post (Canada), 20th December More than 20,000 American troops have been moved into Qatar and Kuwait in a possible sign the United States is shifting its focus on terrorism to Iraq. Also yesterday, the Czech parliament approved a plan to send up to 400 anti-chemical warfare and medical troops to help the United States. It is believed some of the troops could be sent to Kuwait. Analysts say stationing troops in Kuwait, where similar Czech units fought during the Gulf War, is a signal the campaign is shifting from Afghanistan and might be broadened to include Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein. The United States moved the headquarters of its 3rd Army to Qatar two weeks ago and defence analysts have reported large numbers of troops being moved into the region since. The 3rd Army is the ground component of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees America's military operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan and was in charge of coalition forces during the Gulf War. The Pentagon has insisted it is merely rotating troops but defence analysts say about 24,000 troops have been moved in with barely a brigade, about 4,000, moving out. [.....] Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defence Secretary, said on Tuesday Somalia had hosted al Qaeda leaders in the past. He said Yemen and Sudan were also known to harbour active al Qaeda cells. "The only way to deal with a terrorist network that is global is to go after it where it is," said Mr. Rumsfeld. He added the alliance should "prepare now for the next war." Yesterday Mr. Rumsfeld said a senior German official was "flat wrong" when he said the United States had marked war-ravaged Somalia as its next target. Meanwhile, Abdi Guled Mohamed, the Somali Transport Minister, said yesterday the government wants to be an ally of the United States in the war on terrorism. Somalia is home to the Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, or "Islamic Union," a fundamentalist group that has been linked to al-Qaeda. On the other side of the Gulf of Aden, Yemen yesterday sent special army troops led by the son of its president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to search for Muslim militants linked to bin Laden in what was believed to be a bid to pre-empt any U.S. strike. The action was taken a day after clashes killed at least 18 people from both sides. http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/12/20/Columns/Columns.40306.html * MIDDLE ISRAEL: THE BABYLONIAN OPTION by Amotz Asa-El Jerusalem Post, 20th December "This may be your last visit here," an official Iraqi escort told a Western journalist during a recent visit to Baghdad's Saddam Tower, destroyed by Allied bombings during the Gulf War, only to be rebuilt twice as tall. Now the Iraqis say this tower will be among the first targets of the United States' attack which they believe is just a matter of time.ÊThe blows ahead for Iraq seem almost as arrogantly invited and hopelessly irreversible as a Greek tragedy's foregone conclusion. United States President George W. Bush did not mince words when he said that Saddam had better allow United Nations inspectors into his country, or else. Saddam, for his part, lost no time flatly rejecting the American demand, making it clear for those who still doubted it that even 32 years after seizing power and one morning after Taliban's dismemberment, the Iraqi leader still enjoys nothing more than the smell of fire, blood and guts. And so, an impressive group of notables, ranging from former CIA head James Woolsey to former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, now openly call for an attack on Iraq, and intelligence agencies predict one by March. What remains to be explored is just what an attack should actually seek, avoid, and accomplish. MILITARILY, Iraq is incredibly vulnerable. The US Army is intimately familiar with it, its Air Force is positioned in nearby Turkey, and Saddam's troops, unlike the Taliban's, are mostly deployable only in easy-to-target flatlands. Politically, however, Iraq might prove more slippery. What, then, should Washington do? Create the first Arab democracy? Slice off a Kurdish state? Replace Saddam with a pro-Western despot? Iraq was sinfully conceived in the aftermath of World War I, as Britain and France carved up the fallen Ottoman Empire's spoils, lumping together enemy populations so that the colonialist masters could divide and rule. That this was disastrous, not only in Iraq, has since become obvious. The question now is whether an attack on it will merely change Iraq's leadership, or also its historic direction. Back in '91, Washington's assumption was that Saddam's threat remained essentially regional and affected the broader world only insofar as the free flow of oil was concerned. Since then the US has learned, the hard way, that despots like Saddam can threaten world stability itself, and can never be assumed to have been "taught their lesson." THE CHALLENGE ahead of America now seems even more tricky, considering that Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia oppose an attack on Saddam. Fortunately, America is less concerned today with such a lack of sympathy for its designs than it was before the Afghan campaign. If it managed there with no more than lip service from myriad Arab regimes, it may do so in Iraq, too. But what if it over-kills, and loses political currency in the Arab world and moral altitude in the free world? There is an alternative to all out war. The US can leave the Iraqi people largely unscathed and aim its guns instead at the regime's hard core, which comprises only a few hundred people whose removal will, in one fell swoop, leave Iraq in a political vacuum. America should then allow regional forces to re-shape Iraq politically, and foreign powers to help it to its feet economically. Politically, once Saddam is overthrown, America can make one of two choices: Either leave Iraq intact or redraw its borders. If it opts for the former, the US might prod a new regime to create a federation in which minorities and regions long neglected, abused and tormented by Saddam would have a role in shaping their own destiny. Alternatively, Iraq's borders may be re-drawn so as to create a Kurdish state. Such a move would have to involve traditionally anti-Kurdish Turkey and Iran. Ankara can be coaxed into accepting such a deal by persuading Brussels to realize Ankara's supreme foreign policy goal, which is to join the European Union. Iran can be lured by granting it advantages it has long been seeking in the Shat-el-Arab area and a special relationship with Iraq's Shi'ite minority. Whichever of these options is chosen, it would delegate Iraq's redefinition to Mideastern powers and inhabitants, and thus not only avoid the colonial era's tragedies, but also help heal the fundamentalism, terrorism and despotism that festered in its aftermath. Yet Iraq's political re-invention would mean nothing if not coupled with an economic gospel. The new regime in Baghdad should be expected to cooperate with a major international reconstruction program. Iraq is the only Middle Eastern country blessed with both water and oil, a population that is neither too big (like Egypt's) nor too small (like most Gulf states'), and a middle class that, while not large enough, is still broader than any other Arab country's. With such a rare balance of resources, Iraq could long ago have been turned into a Near Eastern tiger economy, if only it had not been abandoned to the devices of thugs who worship honor, power and conquest, and don't care a fig for prosperity, stability and progress. There were times - entire centuries - before and after its embrace of Islam when the land between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers was among the world's richest and most cosmopolitan. The Jews monumentalized those times by creating the Babylonian Talmud back when Mesopotamia was famous for the very common sense, affluence and tolerance, whose restoration should be the hallmark of a post-Saddam Iraq. http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/12/20/Features/Features.40326.html * THE SPYMASTER'S PRESCRIPTION By Jeff Barak Jerusalem Post, 20th December Measuring the different degrees of fraud Former CIA chief James Woolsey tells Jeff Barak why the next step in the US war on terrorism must be to bring down Saddam Hussein Former CIA chief James Woolsey has no doubt as to what should be the next objective in the war against terror: The destruction of Saddam Hussein. Fighting a global war against terrorism without targeting Iraq, he says, "is sort of like Hamlet without the prince." Woolsey was here this week for a 13-hour stay in Israel to give the keynote address at the opening of the Herzliya Conference, a speech that won the plaudits of Israel's military and intelligence community. Talking off the cuff "I haven't written out a speech since I was 12, except for times when I was speaking in an official capacity" the ex-CIA head charmed his audience with a mixture of dry humor and tough talk. In the bar of the Dan Accadia afterwards, nursing a glass of red wine during an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Woolsey was continually praised by passers-by for the sharpness of his lecture. Unlike his Israeli counterparts, such as Mossad head Ephraim Halevy who spoke before him, or former Mossad head Shabtai Shavit, for whom lecturing is a serious business, Woolsey enjoys entertaining his audience: "Mr Chairman," he begins his speech, "I was deeply honored to be asked to be with you here tonight, but to tell you the truth since I'm: a) a lawyer, b) from Washington DC and c) I've spent some time out in the CIA, I'm prettywell honored to be invited into any polite company for any purposes whatsoever." But the message he brought with him was far from polite conversation. "We are at war to the death. There should be no mistake about this. September 11 galvanized us into serious action in exactly the same way that December 7, 1941, did." Most of the time, Woolsey notes, American foreign policy is seen as a contest between three schools of thought: Jeffersonianism, which sees the US as a model of democracy and very reluctant to interfere abroad "Colin Powell is classified as a Jeffersonian;" Hamiltonianism, which puts commerce and business first; and Wilsonianism, which advocates idealism at home and abroad, a strong commitment to international organizations, and a strong involvement in human rights abroad. But now, he says, there is a fourth school: Jacksonianism. "Jacksonians," according to Woolsey, "share the characteristic of [the seventh US president] Andrew Jackson, where, whenever crossed in any way in which he thought his honor or the country's honor had been fundamentally attacked, Jackson was absolutely and totally ruthless in destroying his enemies. And, I might add, universally successful. "Jacksonians instinctively understand something that a Mideast scholar said to me a few days aftern September 11. 'When this is over, either we are going to be held in contempt in the Mideast as we are now, or we are going to be feared and respected. There is nothing in between.' " With the 80 percent to 90 percent support ratings for President Bush and the approximate 80 percent support for taking out Saddam Hussein's regime,"the Americans are Jacksonians today," Woolsey insists. For Woolsey, Iraq is the "center of gravity" of world terrorism and weapons proliferation. "If you break it, a lot of other things may fall too," he predicts. CONTAINMENT of Iraq, which was the Clinton policy, is "a mug's game," he maintains. "The problem is while you are containing them, they are working on ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction." Indeed, Woolsey who resigned as CIA director in December 1994 after two years in the job due to the fallout in the Aldrich Ames case, has few kind words to say about the former American president's handling of the Iraqi regime. "In 1993, Saddam tried to kill former President Bush in Kuwait, and President Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles into an empty Iraqi intelligence headquarters in the middle of the night. I have never understood why killing Iraqi cleaning women and night watchmen was supposed to be a lesson to Saddam." The ex-CIA head accepts that there might be logistic reasons for delaying an attack on Baghdad, but notes that even given the experience of the Vietnam war, President George Bush does not have to worry about waning public support for such an operation, should it drag on. "Particularly given the [September 11] attack, I think the president has years more than three. I mean, there'll be setbacks, and blips in the polls and those sorts of things, but generally speaking people will cut him a lot of slack." Woolsey also has little doubt Iraq was implicated in the wave of anthrax letters that hit the US after September 11. As he ironically told the audience at Herzliya: "It is possible that there is no tie between the anthrax mailed in the US and those who perpetrated September 11, that it is entirely the product of, let's say, a crazed, American Nazi Ph.D. microbiologist in a well-equipped laboratory in a cave somewhere under Trenton, N.J. That's possible. "But if this crazed microbiolo-gist had nothing to do with September 11, then it is a coincidence that he was ready to mail the anthrax one week later. Or, he was thinking about it and then after September 11 very quickly organized his laboratory and started mailing anthrax in one week. "Now if you think both of those scenarios are pretty unlikely, as I do, then the only other alternative is that September 11 and the anthrax had something to do with one another. And if those who suggest that if there is an American or an independent terrorist group involved, that means that Iraq is not involved, that's nonsense. There is no sole source of contracting requirement for international terrorism. Joint ventures are entirely allowed." While overthrowing Saddam would take more effort than destroying the Taliban, Woolsey is confident it is possible, and less difficult than in 1991 because of the depleted state of the Iraqi military and defense systems. And this time, Woolsey maintains, there is no need for a broad coalition "in which we listen to the lowest common denominator." In fact, "only one ally is essential Turkey for access to Arab land bases near Iraq and land access to northern Iraq and for the expertise of its military. We would have other countries with us I believe, I trust this one [Israel] and Britain, but we do not need a crowd to do this." WOOLSEY is less clear when it comes to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. While he says that earlier he had some hope that Arafat "might have had a tiny shred of Anwar Sadat in him, just enough maybe to get some kind of deal done," this hope was extinguished when Arafat rejected then-prime minister Ehud Barak's offer at Camp David. But this does not mean Arafat should receive the same treatment as Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. In fact, like many others, Woolsey seems to grope towards unilateral separation. "If it stays as hopeless as it looks right now, some way of doing the fencing off option seems to me something that has to be considered." Acknowledging that he doesn't have a grasp of the details of which roads go where, which settlements are where, "but in principle, it seems to me Israel would be able to hold on to strategically important territory and make sure that no more weapons came into the PA. But the key thing is: Are you going to let Palestinians come and go into Israel working, because as long as they can come and go, they can have suicide bombers... I don't know how you keep the suicide bombers out unless you separate the economies." Perhaps Israel should go back into the PA-controlled areas and take them over? Woolsey is not convinced that that is the best option. "Somebody is going to have to end up governing the Palestinians. If it's Israel, that is a huge, terribly debilitating burden to undertake. Maybe Israel is willing to do it, maybe it's the only option but it sure would not be the first one I would take... Occupations of a hostile population are not easy to run." Returning to his favorite theme of regime change in Iraq, Woolsey points out that Baghdad helps support Palestinian terror, with the donations it sends to the families of suicide bombers and those wounded in clashes with IDF soldiers. "I continue to think, although I can't be sure, good things will happen if we start overthrowing regimes that back terrorism. However we phase it, we've got about half a dozen loci of terrorisms that, in one way or another, have to be changed: change the policy, change the people or change the structure. In Iraq, I think you have to change the whole structure." For other terror centers, such as the PA and Libya, the measures need not necessarily be so harsh. "Mr Qadaffi has already gotten the message" he says. "If you read anything he has written since September 11, he sounds not a little bit, but exactly like Tony Blair." Iran, too, is changing, Woolsey says, and not just in elections which routinely deliver, 70 percent to 75 percent votes for reformers, but in demonstrations of young people after soccer games in Iran over the course of the last month or so. "The chants have been "Long Live Freedom," "We love America," and my favorite recent one "Death to the Taliban in Kabul and in Teheran. "Something is happening in Iran. It has not happened yet, but there is some hope, not for reform by the mullahs but for the tumult of another revolution, not tomorrow, perhaps not even within the next few months, but the Mullahs are afraid and they should be. If the Baathist regime is replaced in Iraq, we will have begun to reshape the Middle East." In a quick survey of the new leaders in the Middle East, Woolsey has scant regard for Bashar Assad: "I had some hopes for him for a few months... but it sure doesn't look like it's borne out at all. He's a big disappointment for anybody who hoped for change in Syria." By contrast, Woolsey says he's "impressed" with Jordan's King Abdullah. "He's about as good as you could possibly do for a potential partner in an Arab state. He's got some real constraints on him because the majority of his population are Palestinian, but his instincts are reasonable." IN THE argument about whether the US security services should have been better prepared for bin Laden's attack, Woolsey comes to the CIA's defense. "Given the operational security that this September 11 thing was under, very few people knew about it, it would have been very hard to penetrate it. Our best shot was probably having broken into his satellite telephone communications, which I don't think he thought we were reading, and then in '98 that some-how came out and of course he stopped using it." Woolsey does think, however, that his successor, John Deutch, did make life more difficult for the CIA. "We placed too many restrictions on human intelligence in the United States. We went for nearly six years with these stupid guidelines that my successor issued that made it more difficult to recruit spies if they had some violence in their background." For the CIA, he points out, "and I imagine it's true for the Mossad, we get a lot of people trapped inside bad governments who are willing to work for us. Probably two-thirds of the Russian agents that Ames got killed were essentially patriotic Russians who weren't in it for money, but just hated Communism. "But inside terrorist organizations or criminal organizations, that's not true. There's nobody in al-Qaida who doesn't want to be a terrorist. So it's kind of crazy have to go through some extra hoops to recruit somebody if they have some violence in their background... That's like telling the FBI they should penetrate the Mafia but be real careful and try not to recruit anybody who's an actual crook. It's crazy." In the espionage world, "an awful lot of what's useful is a combinationof human intelligence and technical intelligence. If you're spying on a drug cartel, probably the best person to recruit would be the systems administrator for the drug cartel's banks computer system. When we've done a lot of stuff on proliferation, finding particular times when individual ships were leaving port and so forth... it's often a combination of human intelligence and either reconnaissance or signals intelligence." According to Woolsey, Israel and the US are hated"because we are free. We are hated by the Islamists I prefer the totalitarian sounding formulation rather than the religious one, so I say Islamist rather than Islamic fundamentalism because we believe in the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the education of women and openness, and everything that makes life worth living in modern Israeli and American society." He traces the roots of al Qaida to both the Wahabi branch of Islam, exported by Saudi Arabia, and the influence of the ideology of the 1930s and '40s Moslem Brotherhood. "I think the Saudi establishment gets itself a pass from the Wahabis by helping the Wahabis set up madrasses in Pakistan, mosques in the United States, and I think that's part of the problem. The Saudi establishment is part of the problem because they've been exporting this extremely angry form of Islam, which" he is clear to point out,"itself is not terrorist... "Al-Qaida bears about the same relationship to mainline Moslem believers as Torquemada bears to Jesus. There's no Sermon on the Mount in Torquemada... "I would add there is the same kind of relation the guy who assassinated [prime minister Yitzhak] Rabin bears to the Judaism I know in the States. All the religions in one way or another can come up with nutcases, a fairly large number of nutcases." Woolsey notes that a few years ago, one could already see the signs of Islamism in the United States. "Those who were active in American churches and synagogues began to perceive it when these churches and synagogues would go to local mosques to put together fundraising events for Bosnian Moslems and for the Moslems of Kosovar, and would be told that the mosques in the United States, because a number are Wahabi, could not cooperate with infidels such as you and me, even in order to help fellow Moslems. That struck many Americans as being not the Islam they thought was dominant." Now that the identity of the enemy is known, Woolsey says America has to prepare itself for "a very long and bloody war, including on the American home front." Moreover, unlike 1991 and the end of the Gulf War which left Saddam still in power, "the keything is that we cannot abandon the cause of democracy in the Mideast... We tried realpolitik with dictators and it got us September 11 and it got us the second intifada here." Democracies, he points out, rarely fight one another. "For democracies, war is the last resort. It's the first resort for dictators who need foreign enemies." While accepting the democratization of the Middle East is a "tall order," Woolsey is convinced that in post September 11,"America is back, and it's back with a spirit that the world has not seen since 1945." -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all postings.