[casi] News, 31/8-6/9/02 (1)

[Peter Brooke <pbrooke@DELETETHISukonline.co.uk>]

News, 31/8-6/9/02 (1)

US OPINION

*  Antiwar protesters picket [US Senator, John] Kerry's office [in Boston]
*  Americans turn their backs on Iraq attack
*  US in disarray over Iraq as Powell backs call for weapons inspectors
*  Remaking Iraq looks like a tall order
*  Cheney: What Was Behind His Outbursts on Iraq?
*  No Conflict on Iraq Policy, Fleischer Says
*  Poll shows most Americans support a U.S. attack on Iraq
*  Bush's Reverse Psychology?
*  Case for invading Iraq is full of holes
*  Attack on Iraq makes little sense
*  History isn't repeating-- U.S. must oust Saddam
*  Lawsuit: Iraq Knew of 9/11 Attacks
*  Clinton: Get Bin Laden Before Saddam
*  Bush to Seek Congress' O.K. on Iraq
*  Who wants to occupy Iraq for 30 years?
*  Saddam is stiffing the world, says Bush
*  The troubling new face of America
*  The world has drifted apart from U.S.
*  Rumsfeld ordered strikes on Iraq after 11/9: TV



US OPINION

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/243/metro/Antiwar_protesters_picket_Kerry_
s_office+.shtml

*  ANTIWAR PROTESTERS PICKET [US SENATOR, JOHN] KERRY'S OFFICE [IN BOSTON]
by Chris Tangney
Boston Globe, 31st August

Denouncing the prospect of war with Iraq, protesters rallied outside US
Senator John Kerry's office in downtown Boston yesterday while members of an
antiwar group met with the junior senator's policy aides.

Carrying signs of ''Say No to War'' and ''Attack Iraq - NO,'' about 80
demonstrators crowded the sidewalk and handed out fliers arguing against a
US invasion against Saddam Hussein. They called for more weapons inspections
and said a unilateral move by the United States would have devastating
effects in the Middle East.

''There's no evidence that Saddam Hussein is an imminent danger,'' said Mike
Tannert, a retired GTE employee and a veteran of World War II and the Korean
War. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should ''focus
on homeland security, like protecting our nuclear plants from being
attacked,'' Tannert added.

After meeting for an hour with Kerry's senior policy adviser, Mark Sterman,
10 members of MoveOn.org, which organized the rally, said they were
encouraged that the senator supports their right to ask questions and voice
concerns. They said Sterman urged them to lobby congressional members and
enlist peers to demonstrate their dissent.

In a statement, Kerry said that ''while I've expressed my clear desire to
eliminate the threat that Saddam Hussein represents, I want us to arrive at
a policy that does that and advances the cause of America.''

Kerry also accused Bush of failing to make a case in the international arena
or to the American public that would justify initiating a conflict with Iraq
or to detail an exit strategy in the event of war.

The demonstrators, many of them from suburban towns, protested quietly,
waving to a few passing motorists who honked their horns in support. But
they were largely ignored by passersby. Group members said they are
dedicated to nonconfrontational tactics.

''People with our opinion can be intelligent, rational, and
non-confrontational,'' said local MoveOn.org organizer Diane Jones. ''Our
message will be heard by a far larger audience with passive demonstrations
and a strong organization.''

They chastised Bush for pursuing war and failing to consider the thousands
of innocent Iraqi lives that could be lost and the potential for significant
American casualties in a second war in Iraq. Most said that the only
justification for war would be if the United States was attacked.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-401530,00.html

*  AMERICANS TURN THEIR BACKS ON IRAQ ATTACK
by Katty Kay in Washington, Melissa Kite in Maputo and Philip Webster
The Times, 2nd September

SUPPORT for a US ground invasion of Iraq has declined rapidly in the United
States during the past few months with nearly half of all Americans opposed
to such a strike.
 
A Time Magazine/CNN opinion poll released yesterday showed that support for
sending US troops to oust President Saddam Hussein of Iraq fell dramatically
from 73 per cent last December to just 51 per cent last month.
 
The poll showed that, while most Americans agreed that the US would be
morally justified in invading Iraq, almost half (49 per cent) believed it
would lead to a long and costly war. One in seven believed the United States
would eventually be forced to withdraw from Iraq without a victory.
 
President Bush's own standing among the American people has also fallen. He
is now less popular in the polls than the former Mayor of New York, Rudolph
Giuliani. On foreign policy specifically, Mr Bush's approval ratings fell
from 64 per cent in July to 56 per cent last month, according to the Time
poll.
 
[......]


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=329676

*  US IN DISARRAY OVER IRAQ AS POWELL BACKS CALL FOR WEAPONS INSPECTORS
by Andrew Gumbel and Marie Woolf
Independent, 2nd September

The Bush administration's internal differences over military action in Iraq
became glaringly apparent yesterday as Colin Powell, the cautious-minded US
Secretary of State, said he supported the return of UN inspectors as a
"first step" towards neutralising Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction.

Mr Powell's words directly contradicted a series of speeches by
Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said the time for inspections was over and
that a pre-emptive strike was the only viable solution.

Mr Powell, speaking in an interview with the BBC to be aired next weekend,
insisted that the President was in favour of sending in the inspectors,
although he did not necessarily expect that to solve the problem.

"Iraq has been in violation of these many UN resolutions for most of the
last 11 or so years. So as a first step, let's see what the inspectors find,
send them back in, why are they being kept out," Mr Powell said.

The Secretary of State also acknowledged the need to sell the rationale for
war to America's allies. "The world has to be presented with the
information, with the intelligence that is available," he said. "A debate is
needed within the international community so that everybody can make a
judgement about this." It was not immediately clear if Mr Powell's words
reflected a growing hesitation within the administration. A spokesman for
the administration yesterday denied any rift.

[.....]


http://www.iht.com/articles/69363.html

*  REMAKING IRAQ LOOKS LIKE A TALL ORDER
by Thomas L. Friedman The New York Times
International Herald Tribune, from New York Times, 2nd September

WASHINGTON: Is Iraq a totalitarian dictatorship under a cruel, ironfisted
man because it is an Arab Yugoslavia - a highly tribalized, artificial state
drawn up by the British, consisting of Shiites in the south, Kurds in the
north and Sunnis in the center - whose historical ethnic rivalries can be
managed only by a figure like Saddam Hussein? Or has Iraq by now congealed
into a real nation? And once the cruel fist of Saddam is replaced by a more
enlightened leadership, Iraq's talented, educated people will slowly produce
a federal democracy.

Any U.S. invasion of Iraq will leave the United States responsible for
nation-building there. So Americans need to understand what kind of raw
material they will be working with.

Iraq's history is a saga of intrigue, murder and endless coups involving the
different ethnic and political factions that were thrown together by the
British.

In July 1958, King Faisal was gunned down in his courtyard by military
plotters led by Brigadier Abdel Karim Kassem and Colonel Abdul Salam Arif. A
few months later Kassem ousted Arif for being too pro-Nasserite. Around the
same time a young Saddam tried, but failed, to kill Kassem, who himself
executed a slew of Iraqi Nasserites in Mosul in 1959. In 1963, Arif came
back from exile and killed Kassem. Soon Arif and the Ba'ath Party thugs
around him savagely slaughtered and tortured thousands of left-wingers and
Communists all across Iraq.

Arif ruled until 1966, when he was killed in a helicopter crash and was
succeeded by his brother, who was toppled in 1968 by Saddam and his clan
from the village of Tikrit. That was when Saddam first began sending away
his opponents to a prison called Qasr al Nahiya - "the Palace of the End."

Since 1958, every one of these Sunni-dominated military regimes began with a
honeymoon with the Kurds in northern Iraq and ended up fighting them.

The point here is that we are talking about nation-building from scratch.
Iraq has a lot of natural resources and a decently educated population, but
it has none of the civil society or rule-of-law roots that enabled the
United States to quickly build democracies out of the ruins of Germany and
Japan after World War II. Iraq's last leader committed to the rule of law
may have been Hammurabi - the King of Babylon in the 18th century B.C.

So once Saddam is gone there will be a power vacuum, revenge killings and
ethnic pulling and tugging between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.

This is not a reason for not taking Saddam out. It is a reason to prepare
for a potentially long, costly nation-building operation and to enlist as
many allies as possible to share the burden. There is no avoiding
nation-building in Iraq. To get at Iraq's weapons of mass destruction we
will need to break the regime open, like a walnut, and then rebuild it. The
Bushies seem much more adept at breaking things than building things. To do
nation building you need to be something of a naive optimist. I worry that
the Bushies are way too cynical for nation-building.

My most knowledgeable Iraqi friend tells me he is confident that the morning
after any U.S. invasion, U.S. troops would be welcomed by Iraqis, and the
regime would fold quickly. It's the morning after the morning after that we
have to be prepared for.

In the best case, a "nice" strongman will emerge from the Iraqi army to
preside over a gradual transition to democracy, with America receding into a
supporting role. In the worst case, Iraq falls apart, with all its
historical internal tensions - particularly between its long-ruling Sunni
minority and its long-frustrated Shiite majority. In that case, George W.
Bush will have to become Iraq's strongman - the iron fist that holds the
country together, gradually redistributes the oil wealth and supervises a
much longer transition to democracy. My Iraqi friend tells me that anyone
who tells you he knows which scenario will unfold doesn't know Iraq.


http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/02/time.cheney/index.html

*  CHENEY: WHAT WAS BEHIND HIS OUTBURSTS ON IRAQ?
by John F. Dickerson
CNN, 2nd September

Dick Cheney is usually the man the Administration brings out to calm a
frenzy. But last week it was the Vice President who was stirring up the
fuss, with two bellicose speeches that laid out the case for war against
Iraq. What was Cheney up to? With such eminent members of the G.O.P.
foreign-policy establishment as former National Security Adviser Brent
Scowcroft, former Secretary of State James Baker and Senator Chuck Hagel all
advising a go-slow approach on Iraq, the Vice President was worried that the
debate was being lost. "We had to restate the case," says a senior adviser.
"This was a place holder." Despite some grumbling at the White House that
Cheney had gone off on his own at a time when the Administration was
frantically trying to get off the topic, a Veep aide said the speech had
been okayed by the President. Bush and Cheney discussed the text, and the
President even made additions and edits. But the Vice President didn't share
his speech with some other key members of the Administration's foreign
policy team, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Though Cheney offered no new evidence about Saddam Hussein's purported cache
of weapons of mass destruction, hawks in the Administration promise that new
intelligence will serve as a smoking gun. They are holding back on
specifics, they say, until the moment the President must make his case for
war. But that doesn't mean Cheney is finished speaking his mind. He plans to
give another version of the same speech next week.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27581-2002Sep2.html

*  NO CONFLICT ON IRAQ POLICY, FLEISCHER SAYS
by Dana Milbank
Washington Post, 2nd September

The White House yesterday played down publicly aired differences among top
Bush advisers about an attack on Iraq, as President Bush's press secretary
dismissed apparent disagreements as "much ado about no difference."

The appearance of a rift among the most senior American officials has grown
after the release Sunday of excerpts of an interview by Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell with the BBC. In it, Powell said weapons inspectors should
return to Iraq as a first step in dealing with Saddam Hussein. That seemed
to contradict remarks made by Vice President Cheney indicating that
inspectors would be of no use.

The views expressed by Bush's two highest-ranking lieutenants appeared to
elevate a dispute between hawkish administration officials -- particularly
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and civilian Pentagon officials -- and
others, particularly Powell's State Department and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, who are more cautious. "They haven't spoken differently, they've
spoken the same," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said aboard Air
Force One en route to Pittsburgh for a Labor Day speech by Bush.

Pressed further, the spokesman added: "The American position, as the vice
president said in his remarks, and Secretary Powell said, and as the
president has said, is that arms inspectors in Iraq are a means to an end,
but the end is knowledge that Iraq has lived up to its promises that it made
to end the Gulf War, that it has in fact disarmed, that it does not possess
weapons of mass destruction."

Bush, on a Labor Day visit to a worker-training facility outside Pittsburgh,
said nothing about Iraq in his public remarks today, and he declined to take
questions from reporters during a tour of the center. As aides have offered
competing views in a variety of public formats, Bush has avoided direct
comments on Iraq for 12 days.

[.....]


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1557933

*  POLL SHOWS MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT A U.S. ATTACK ON IRAQ
Houston Chronicle, 2nd September

WASHINGTON - Nearly 60 percent of Americans support military action to oust
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but a majority of those believe the United
States should win international backing first, according to a poll released
today.

A Los Angeles Times poll showed an even larger majority, 64 percent,
supported a ground attack on Iraq if President Bush decided to launch one.
Twenty-eight percent opposed it.

Of the 59 percent of Americans who favored military action, 61 percent said
it should be contingent on the support of the international community. The
United States has met strong resistance to an attack on Iraq, even from its
closest allies.

The poll found 29 percent of Americans opposed any U.S. military action
against Iraq and 12 percent were unsure.

The Times poll also found that support for war with Iraq might drop
significantly if U.S. forces suffered significant casualties. When asked
whether they would support a ground attack on Iraq if casualties were high,
45 percent said yes and 41 percent said no.

Other findings include:

-- 60 percent of the public believes Bush is considering an attack against
Iraq because he genuinely believes Hussein is a threat to U.S. security,
against 27 percent who say the president is acting for political motives.

-- 79 percent said they believe Hussein supports the al-Qaida terrorist
group that launched the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.

-- 77 percent of the public believes that U.S. military action against Iraq
is likely in the next year.

-- 66 percent believe that if a war occurs, it will increase the likelihood
of terrorism against Americans.

-- 64 percent said they expect more terrorist attacks in the United States
within the next six months.

The nationwide poll of 1,372 adults, interviewed from Aug. 22 to 25, had a
margin of error of 3 percentage points.

It followed two polls released Friday, from Newsweek and Time Magazine/CNN,
that showed similar figures for those in favor of an attack but
significantly less support -- 51 percent and 49 percent -- for a ground war.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27698-2002Sep2.html

*  BUSH'S REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY?
by William Raspberry
Washington Post, 2nd September

Here's an explanation for the anti-Iraq saber-rattling now building in
Washington: The Bush administration, though it would dearly love to have
Saddam Hussein out of power, has no intention of taking unilateral military
action against him. The sword-rattling is designed to make Hussein's
military leaders see him as too dangerous for their own good.

Remember, this is no pre-1990 Iraqi army harboring thoughts of
invincibility. The Iraqi military, including its crack (supposedly)
Republican Guard, was routed in Desert Storm. The remnants, the generals
know, exist only because the U.S.-led allies allowed them to walk away. They
know they wouldn't be allowed to walk away again.

Ergo: If the Iraqi generals believe an American attack is imminent, they
will stage a coup to depose or kill Hussein. And all will live happily ever
after.

Here's another explanation: The Iraqi president has been so determined to go
forward with his biological and other weapons, and so unreliable regarding
his commitment to permit international inspections of his efforts, that the
only thing left is to put him in realistic fear of a U.S. military
unrestrained by the limp hands of our allies.

Once he understands that another cavalier promise to allow United Nations
inspectors back into Iraq won't stop the impending assault (and he already
understands that the next assault will be total) he'll be positively begging
not just for U.N. inspectors but for American inspectors with full authority
to look wherever they choose. We will -- reluctantly, of course -- accept
the offer, voicing whatever misgivings seem appropriate, and other nations
will come to see Hussein as the weakling, us as the good guys, and the world
as a safer place.

I could offer other possible explanations, and so could you. But why?

My reason is simple. It is to convince myself that there's no reason to
believe that our government really intends to do what it says it intends to
do, or that our leaders, elected and appointed, would move forward on such a
brutish and lawless course on such a thin rationale. Let's just say it
comforts me to believe that the people we look to for guidance in these
perilous times have the brains and the patience to play a deep game.

I'm like Spike Lee in that years-ago TV commercial for Nike, watching some
incredible gravity-defying, I-can't-believe-I'm-seeing-this move by a
basketball genius, and reaching for a non-obvious explanation. "It's got to
be the shoes," he concluded.

Same here. The alternative is to take Vice President Cheney literally when
he calls for a preemptive strike against a regime that, apart from breaking
its promise regarding inspections, really hasn't done anything to us in the
past dozen years -- certainly not during the tenure of the present
administration. But, says Cheney, the Iraqi president doesn't like us,
might, now or in the future, have links to anti-American terrorist
organizations and might someday have the weaponry to do us serious harm.

"What he wants," Cheney suggested, "is time, and more time to husband his
resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program,
and to gain possession of nuclear weapons. Armed with an arsenal of these
weapons of terror and a seat atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves,
Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire
Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies,
directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the
United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Don't you see, we
have to take him out.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice similarly made the case for
unilateral attack during an interview with the BBC. But the best she could
come up with was (1) Saddam's interest in acquiring nuclear capability, (2)
his use of chemical weapons against other Iraqis, (3) his invasion of his
neighbors and (4) his potshots at U.S. planes attempting to enforce the
no-fly zones over Iraq.

All of it is true. But none of it is recent, and none of it seems to put
America in imminent danger. It cannot possibly be the basis for an attack on
Baghdad.

It's gotta be the shoes.


http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal
op.chapman03sep03.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines

*  CASE FOR INVADING IRAQ IS FULL OF HOLES
by Steve Chapman
Baltimore Sun, 3rd September

CHICAGO - In the usual sequence, a nation is presented with a powerful cause
for war and then proceeds to fight.

After Sept. 11, Americans didn't need tortured explanations of why the
United States should invade Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, the Bush
administration began by making plans to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and
realized only later that it might need to explain why. Judging from Vice
President Dick Cheney's recent effort to rally support, it's still groping
for a good excuse.

Mr. Cheney went before the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars to announce that Mr. Hussein is a bad man who has chemical and
biological agents and hopes to develop nuclear weapons as well. Nobody
really denies that, but most of the world views the prospect without undue
hysteria.

The vice president said it would be intolerable for Mr. Hussein to expand
his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because "he is amassing
them to use against our friends, our allies, and against us."

If he were to get nukes, Mr. Hussein would "seek domination of the entire
Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies,
directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the
United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail," Mr. Cheney said.

But several countries have nuclear weapons, and none has found them very
useful in making others do their bidding. Israel hasn't been able to force
its neighbors to accept its treatment of the Palestinians. India hasn't
coerced Pakistan to give up its claims to Kashmir. China hasn't succeeded in
reclaiming Taiwan.

The argument is that Mr. Hussein is so reckless that he would be more
successful. But what stops a nuclear power from carrying out a nuclear
attack, or attempting nuclear blackmail, is not inborn self-restraint. It's
the prospect of nuclear retaliation.

What evidence do we have that the Iraqi tyrant is influenced by such piddly
considerations? Only his own behavior. We don't have to wonder if he can be
deterred from using weapons of mass destruction. He already has been. During
the Persian Gulf war, he had chemical and biological weapons that he could
have used against Saudi Arabia, against Israel or against U.S. forces. But
he knew the United States and Israel had nuclear missiles that could reach
Baghdad, and himself.

The administration makes much of Mr. Hussein's use of poison gas against
Iran and against Kurdish insurgents at home. But he did so on the assumption
that his opponents couldn't respond with anything comparable. He won't have
that assurance if he threatens a nuclear attack on us or our friends.

The New Republic heaps contempt on the notion that "there is the rational
gassing of innocents and the irrational gassing of innocents," preferring
"to insist that the use of weapons of mass destruction denotes a general
derangement." Oh? Was President Truman deranged when he dropped the bomb on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If Mr. Hussein were crazy, he would have used his
weapons of mass destruction in 1991 rather than swallow a humiliating
defeat.

It's argued that a nuclear-armed Hussein could invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia
and force the United States to stay out by threatening to vaporize New York.
If that strategy were feasible, though, the Soviet Union would have overrun
Western Europe during the Cold War.

Besides, after more than a decade of economic sanctions, Iraq no longer has
the offensive capability to mount any serious military campaign. For that,
Mr. Hussein would need a lot of tanks, aircraft and other weapons.

But as University of Chicago strategist Robert Pape points out, "Unlike
biological weapons, he can't use tanks if they're buried in the sand. He can
use them only if they're out in the open and he conducts training with
them."

And if he does that, we can easily blow them to pieces before he can use
them.

If the problem were that Mr. Hussein could threaten his neighbors, you would
expect his neighbors to be even more worried about him than we are. In fact,
nearby countries such as Saudi Arabia are among the most vocal opponents of
a U.S. invasion. Aside from Israel, other countries in the Middle East see
him as no great danger.

So why does Mr. Hussein want weapons of mass destruction? For their only
real function - deterring other countries from attacking him. If he had
nuclear weapons, the United States would have to drop the idea of invading
Iraq to overthrow its government. But if the only value of an Iraqi bomb is
Mr. Hussein's self-preservation, it's hardly worth going to war over.

For months, we've been wondering why the administration has been so
reluctant to make the case for invading Iraq. Now we have the answer:
Because there isn't one.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a Tribune Publishing
newspaper. His column appears Tuesdays in The Sun.


http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/03Sep2002_news38.html

*  ATTACK ON IRAQ MAKES LITTLE SENSE
by Doug Bandow
Bangkok Post, 3rd September

President George W. Bush says he hasn't made up his mind about "any of our
policies in regard to Iraq". But to not attack after spending months talking
about regime change is inconceivable.

Unfortunately, war is not likely to be as simple and certain as he and many
others seem to think.

Lots of arguments have been offered on behalf of a US strike on Baghdad. For
instance, Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has brutalised his own people.
True, but the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own
people. Indeed, Washington ally Turkey and its treatment of its Kurds is
scarcely more gentle than Iraq's Kurdish policies.

Slightly more plausible is the contention that a democratic Iraq would
provide a model for the rest of the Middle East. But that presupposes
democracy can be easily planted and sustained.

Professions of unity from an opposition once dismissed by retired General
Anthony Zinni as "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London" offer little
comfort and are likely to last no longer than have similar promises in
Afghanistan.

Also problematic are Kurdish demands for autonomy and Shiite Muslim
resistance to the central government. One US defence official told the
Washington Post: "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a
campaign against the Kurds and Shiites."

Similarly worrisome would be action by Iran, with which Baghdad fought a
decade-long war. Teheran might consider intervention against a weakened Iraq
as an antidote to political unrest at home.

Moreover, while Americans might see America's war on Iraq as a war for
democracy, most Arabs would see it as a war for Washington. If the US
deposes Mr Saddam, but leaves in place despotic, pro-American regimes
elsewhere _ such as Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia _ few Arabs would take
Washington's rhetoric seriously.

Mr Saddam's complicity in the Sept 11 attacks would present a good argument
for devastating retaliation, but there's no evidence that he was involved.

The best argument for overthrowing Mr Saddam is the prospect of Baghdad
developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet if non-proliferation should be
enforced by war, Washington will be very busy in coming years.

The problem is not just countries like Iran and North Korea, which seem to
have or have had serious interest in developing atomic weapons. It is India,
Pakistan and Russia, which face unpredictable nationalist and theological
currents, enjoy governments of varying instability, and offer uncertain
security over technical know-how as well as weapons.

Potentially most dangerous is Pakistan's arsenal. The government of General
Pervez Musharraf is none too steady; Islamabad long backed the Taliban, and
its military and intelligence forces almost certainly contain al-Qaeda
sympathisers. It is easy to imagine Pakistan's nuclear technology falling
into terrorist hands.

In contrast, Mr Saddam would not use such weapons against America, since to
do so would guarantee his incineration. Israel possesses a similarly
overbearing deterrent. Would Baghdad turn atomic weapons over to terrorists?
Not likely.

First, to give up a technology developed at such a high price would be
extraordinary. Second, Baghdad would be the immediate suspect and likely
target of retaliation should any terrorist deploy nuclear weapons. Third,
al-Qaeda holds secular Arab dictators in contempt and might target Mr Saddam
as well as America.

Of course, the world would be a better place without Mr Saddam's
dictatorship. But that's no reason to initiate war against a state which
poses no direct, on-going threat. Especially since war often has
unpredictable consequences.

Washington would have to bear most of the burden, a task made more difficult
and expensive without European support and Saudi staging grounds. If Iraq's
forces didn't quickly crumble, the US might find itself involved in urban
conflict that would be costly in human and political terms. Mr Saddam would
have an incentive to use any weapons of mass destruction that it possesses,
since Washington is dedicated to his overthrow.

Further, the US would be sloshing petrol over undemocratic Arab regimes
stretching from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Riots in Egypt, a
fundamentalist rising in Pakistan, a spurt of sectarian violence in
Indonesia, and who knows what else could pose a high price for any success
in Iraq.

War is serious. Making war on a country which does not directly threaten the
US or anyone else is particularly serious.

Even if the optimists who think a campaign against Iraq would be easy are
right _ and we can only hope they are _ war should be a last resort. As US
House Majority Leader Richard Armey warned, an unprovoked attack "would not
be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a
nation".

There are times when Washington and its allies have no choice but to fight.
Iraq is not such a place and now is not such a time.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington DC. He is
a former special assistant to President Reagan and the author and editor of
several books.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul03.html

*  HISTORY ISN'T REPEATING-- U.S. MUST OUST SADDAM
by John O'Sullivan
Chicago Sun Times, 3rd September

If you have access to a search engine, if you type in "Neville Chamberlain"
plus such names as the former national security adviser to the first
President Bush, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Republican wannabe statesman Sen.
Chuck Hagel, or the executive editor of the New York Times, Howell Raines,
or any other names of those expressing doubt, disquiet or denial over a U.S.
invasion of Iraq, and if you finally press the "Find" button, a galaxy of
items will burst forth.

Almost all of these items, sad to say, denounce the firm of Scowcroft, Hagel
and Raines for their warnings that President Bush's presumed invasion of
Iraq is rash adventurism inviting disaster. And they cruelly denounce the
trio as heirs and successors to Neville Chamberlain, British prime minister
1937-40, timorous appeaser of Adolf Hitler, and byword for pusillanimity and
strategic dimwittedness.

So let me be the first to say it: This is grossly and unforgivably unfair.

To Neville Chamberlain.

It is generally argued that Chamberlain's great failure was his agreement to
the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany at the Munich conference
in 1938.

Even if we accept this general verdict, however, we must accept that
Chamberlain had strong and persuasive reasons for not going to war over the
Sudetenland in 1938. In no particular order, they were as follows:

1. The British rearmament program, begun in 1934, had not yet restored the
nation's armed forces to the strength levels that would have been needed to
take on Nazi Germany with reasonable confidence of victory.

2. Senior British military advisers were against a war--preferring to wait
until 1942, when they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the military
advantage would have shifted in Britain's favor.

3. The British Empire was threatened not simply by Germany in the West but
also by Japan in the East--as was demonstrated all too vividly in 1941, when
the Japanese overran Britain's Asian colonies simultaneously with their
attack on Pearl Harbor.

4. Britain had no reliable allies in 1938. The French were even more
reluctant to wage another Great War than the British, the United States held
aloof from "European quarrels," the Soviets were a dangerous revolutionary
enigma, and the independent British Dominions such as Canada and Australia
were not disposed to fight for a Czechoslovakia that was even more of a
"faraway country" to them than it was to Chamberlain.

Now, some of the above arguments can be contested. Some historians maintain,
for instance, that Germany rearmed even faster than Britain in the year
after Munich. But my argument is not that Chamberlain acted rightly but that
he acted reasonably. His appeasement was hard-headed, based on rational
calculations, and quite divorced from any general notions of feebleness,
cowardice or strategic idiocy.

Let us now compare the appeasement of Hitler with the appeasement of Saddam
Hussein:

1. America may need to rearm if Bush wants to fight several wars at once.
But we are perfectly capable of taking on Saddam with our present level of
forces. That is not to deny that the United States might suffer serious
casualties. But a defeat at the hands of Iraq can be fairly plausibly ruled
out. Hitler and Saddam may be moral equals, but Hitler in 1938 was a far
greater threat to Britain than Saddam today is to the United States, to
Europe, or to his neighbors.

2. Whereas Hitler was not growing stronger relative to his neighbors in 1938
(or at most was gaining a little relative ground), Saddam will almost
certainly obtain weapons of mass destruction in the next few years. That
would be, ahem, a quantum leap in the threat he poses.

3. America is threatened by terrorism and might conceivably lose hundreds of
thousands of citizens in a terrorist attack using weapons of mass
destruction. It is well worth taking precautions against such a possibility.
But we are not seriously menaced by even one major power, let alone by two,
as Britain was in 1938.

4. Though Americans frequently complain that they have no reliable allies,
Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey and Israel are all allies in this
battle--and even the much-abused French have indicated that they will join
in an attack on Iraq if the United Nations Security Council votes for one.

Compare and contrast. Look upon this picture and on this. And if Bush does
not replace Saddam with a new and potentially democratic regime, then the
Senate should pass a motion to apologize to the memory of Neville
Chamberlain for all the unkind things that American politicians, journalists
and historians have said about him since--well, since the spring of 1940,
when France and he fell together.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/sep/04/090407370.html

*  LAWSUIT: IRAQ KNEW OF 9/11 ATTACKS
by Larry Neumeister
Las Vegas Sun, from Associated Press, 4th September

NEW YORK- A lawsuit filed Wednesday claims Iraq knew Osama bin Laden was
targeting the Pentagon and New York City prior to Sept. 11 and that it
sponsored terrorists for a decade to avenge its defeat in the Gulf War.

"Since Iraq could not defeat the U.S. military, it resorted to terror
attacks on U.S. citizens," according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court seeking more than $1 trillion in damages on behalf of 1,400 victims of
the Sept. 11 attacks and their families.

The suit names bin Laden, al-Qaida and Iraq as defendants. It was brought by
Kreindler & Kreindler, a New York law firm specializing in aviation disaster
litigation.

The lawsuit tries to draw a link between Iraq and terrorism that the
government has so far not alleged in public court actions.

It relies in part on a newspaper article published July 21, 2001, in Al
Nasiriyah, 185 miles southwest of Baghdad. The law firm provided The
Associated Press with a copy of the article written in Arabic and an English
translation.

According to the lawsuit, a columnist writing under the byline Naeem Abd
Muhalhal described bin Laden thinking "seriously, with the seriousness of
the Bedouin of the desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon
after he destroys the White House."

The columnist also allegedly wrote that bin Laden was "insisting very
convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already
hurting," a possible reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
Center.

The lawsuit says a former associate of Muhalhal contends the writer has been
connected with Iraqi intelligence since the early 1980s. It also says
Muhalhal was praised by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the Sept. 1, 2001,
issue for his "documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud
Iraqis have accomplished."

Jim Kreindler, a lawyer for the firm, said Muhalhal had advance knowledge of
al-Qaida's specific targets on Sept. 11 and that "Iraqi officials were aware
of plans to attack American landmarks."

"Further, we have evidence that Iraq provided support for bin Laden and his
al-Qaida terror organization for nearly a decade," he said.

The lawsuit said there have been numerous meetings between Iraqi
intelligence agents and high-ranking al-Qaida members to plan terror
attacks.

It said one of those meetings occurred in 1992 when bin Laden's chief
deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, whose whereabouts are now unknown, met with Iraqi
intelligence agents in Baghdad over several days.

An Iraqi serving with the Taliban who fled Afghanistan in the fall of 2001
and was captured in Kurdistan has corroborated the meeting and confirmed
that Iraqi contacts with al-Qaida began in 1992, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit noted that Ramzi Yousef arrived in New York on Sept. 1, 1992,
with an Iraqi passport to begin planning the 1993 trade center bombing that
killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others.

The lawsuit alleges that Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence agent who traveled
to the United States using travel documents forged in Kuwait during the
Iraqi occupation of that country in 1991.

Yousef was eventually convicted in the trade center bombing and a plot to
blow up a dozen airliners over the Far East in 1995. He is serving a life
prison term.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/sep/05/090509907.html

*  CLINTON: GET BIN LADEN BEFORE SADDAM
Las Vegas Sun, from Associated Press, 5th September

SANTA ANA, Calif.- Former President Clinton urged the Bush administration
Thursday to finish the job with Osama bin Laden before taking on Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11," he said. "Osama bin
Laden did, and as far as we know he's still alive."

Clinton, speaking at a fund-raiser for Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., said
he supported President Bush's efforts in Afghanistan, including military
actions and support of the Afghan government.

"I also believe we might do more good for American security in the short run
at far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and
elsewhere to flush out the entire network," Clinton said.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/showcase/ats
ap_top10sep04.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed

*  BUSH TO SEEK CONGRESS' O.K. ON IRAQ
by Ron Fournier
Chicago Tribune, 4th September

WASHINGTON (AP): President Bush promised Wednesday to seek Congress'
approval for "whatever is necessary" to oust Saddam Hussein including using
military force, as the White House considered giving Iraq a last-ditch
ultimatum over weapons inspectors.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Congress would vote before the Nov. 5
elections on how to deal with the Iraqi president, ensuring that Iraq is a
high-profile issue in the campaign for control of the House and Senate.

Democrats who control the Senate said the non-binding resolution is possible
but not certain because of the lack of time and Bush's failure thus far to
make his case for war. "It would not be my assumption that the military
course is the only action available to him today," said Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

"This is a debate the American people must hear, must understand," Bush said
after a Cabinet Room meeting with 18 Democratic and Republican congressional
leaders. "And the world must understand, as well, that its credibility is at
stake."

After weeks of conflict and criticism, Bush began a public relations
campaign to convince Americans and wary allies of the need to overthrow
Saddam and secure his weapons of mass destruction program -- perhaps by
opening a second, perilous front on the war against terrorism.

Essentially seeking a blank check, Bush told lawmakers, "At an appropriate
time, and after consultations with the leadership, I will seek congressional
support for U.S. action to do whatever is necessary to deal with the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein's regime."

[.....]

Bush's lawyers have said he does not need congressional approval to wage
war, but his political aides concluded a nonbinding resolution would
probably pass in the heat of the campaign and the vote is needed to build
support. Asked whether he was giving lawmakers a veto, Bush demurred: "I'll
be able to work with Congress to deal with this threat."

Sensitive to the political pitfalls of bucking a wartime president,
Democratic lawmakers cautiously accepted Bush's talk of consultations and a
sense-of-the-Congress vote. But they said Bush has yet to justify war with
Iraq.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who attended the White House meeting, said he does
not think there is time for a resolution before the election.

"I think everyone acknowledged this is a good start, but I don't think
anyone walked out of there ready to invade," he said.

[.....]

The president is strongly considering a U.N. Security Council resolution
that would set a deadline for Iraq to open its weapons sites to unfettered
inspection and to apply punitive action if he refuses, three administration
officials told The Associated Press on condition they not be identified.

To get the resolution past a threatened veto by China or Russia, the
resolution likely would not spell out the threat, but it would be obvious to
Saddam, the officials said.

Some two dozen ideas are circulating within the administration, and among
them is the notion of "coercive inspections" -- forcing Iraq to open its
suspect sites to inspectors by deploying thousands of American or
multinational troops in or near Iraq who would launch an attack if
inspectors were denied, officials said.

[.....]


http://www.iht.com/articles/69732.html

*  WHO WANTS TO OCCUPY IRAQ FOR 30 YEARS?
by James Webb
International Herald Tribune, from The Washington Post, 5th September

 WASHINGTON: As America remains obsessed with Saddam Hussein, other nations
have begun positioning themselves for an American war with Iraq and, most
important, for its aftermath.

China, which has pursued a strategic axis with key Islamic nations for
nearly 20 years, received the Iraqi foreign minister just after the recent
departure from Beijing of U.S. Secretary of State Richard Armitage. The
Chinese condemned in advance an American attack on Iraq. Russia has been
assiduously courting, diplomatically and economically, all three nations
identified by President George W. Bush as the "axis of evil."

Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism, according to the
State Department, has conducted at least four flight tests of the
nuclear-capable Shahab-3 missile, whose range of 800 miles (1,300
kilometers) is enough to hit American forces in the Gulf region, Turkey and
Central Asia.

Meanwhile, American military leaders have been trying to bring a wider focus
to the band of neoconservatives that began beating the war drums on Iraq
before the dust had even settled on the World Trade Center.

Despite the efforts of the neocons to shut them up or to dismiss them as
unqualified to deal in policy issues, these leaders, both active-duty and
retired, have been nearly unanimous in their concerns. Is there an
absolutely vital national interest that should lead the United States from
containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would
such a war and its aftermath actually increase the U.S. ability to win the
war against international terrorism?

On this second point, General Peter Pace of the Marine Corps, the Joint
Chiefs' vice chairman, mentioned in a news conference last week that the
scope for potential anti terrorist action included Iran, Iraq, Yemen,
Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia, Malaysia,
Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea.

America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history
not only for how they fight wars but also for how they prevent them. The
greatest military victory of our time - bringing an expansionist Soviet
Union in from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust - was accomplished
not by an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous
operations.

With respect to the situation in Iraq, they are conscious of two realities
that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein
himself. The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences.

The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require
an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish
American influence in other parts of the world.

Other than the flippant criticisms of the "failure" to take Baghdad during
the Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is
the key element of the current debate. The issue before Americans is not
simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein,
but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in
the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.

Those who push for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no
exit strategy if we invade and stay. This reality was the genesis of a rift
that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in
their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." The comparison is not
apt. U.S. occupation forces never set foot inside Japan until the emperor
had formally surrendered and prepared Japanese citizens for America's
arrival. Nor did Douglas MacArthur destroy the Japanese government when he
took over as proconsul after World War II. He was careful to work his
changes through it, and took pains to preserve the integrity of Japan's
imperial family.

Nor is Japanese culture in any way similar to Iraq's. The Japanese are a
homogeneous people who place a high premium on respect, and they fully
cooperated with MacArthur's forces after having been ordered to do so by the
emperor. The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions
who in many cases would view an American occupation as infidels invading the
cradle of Islam.

In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq,
they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. Nations such as China
can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next
generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed,
if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy, it lends
credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. One should not
take lightly the fact that China previously supported Libya, that Pakistan
developed its nuclear capability with China's unrelenting assistance and
that the Chinese sponsored a coup attempt in Indonesia in 1965. An "American
war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would
allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they
furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia. These concerns,
and others like them, are the reasons why many with long experience in U.S.
national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a
unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime
change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's
existence is clearly at stake.

It is true that Saddam might try to assist international terrorist
organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if
America invades and occupies Iraq without broad based international support,
others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of
efforts.

And it is crucial that U.S. leaders consider the impact of this proposed
action on America's long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere.

The writer was assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the navy in
the Reagan administration. He contributed this comment to The Washington
Post.


http://www.online.ie/news/irish_examiner/viewer.adp?article=1826338

*  SADDAM IS STIFFING THE WORLD, SAYS BUSH
The Irish Examiner, 5th September

US PRESIDENT George W. Bush warned yesterday that Saddam Hussein is
"stiffing the world" and he invited British Prime Minister Tony Blair to his
Camp David retreat for weekend talks on the growing Iraq crisis.

In Washington, Bush opened what he said would be a series of consultations
with politicians and US allies, including a speech to the UN next week that
he said would build on his case against Saddam.

"Today, the process starts," Bush said. "At the appropriate time, the
administration will go to the Congress and seek approval for the necessary
(steps) to deal with the threat."

Though he billed next week's UN speech as an important outline of his
intentions, Bush would not say whether he would issue Iraq an ultimatum nor
whether he would demand weapons inspectors be admitted to the Mideast
nation.

"This issue is not inspectors. The issue is disarmament," Bush said. "This
is a man who said he would not arm up. He told the world he would not
harbour weapons of mass destruction."

Bush added that the primary issue is Saddam's access to weapons of mass
destruction.

"I'll be discussing ways to make sure that is not the case. For 11 long
years, Saddam Hussein has sidestepped, crawfished, wheedled out of any
agreements he had made not to develop weapons of mass destruction," Bush
said.

"So I'm going to call upon the world to recognise that he is stiffing the
world.

"And I will lay out and I will talk about ways to make sure he follows up on
his agreements."

The president's meeting with top Democratic and Republican lawmakers comes
amid increasing signals that Bush is ready to go public with a fuller
picture of what the US knows about Saddam's weapons capabilities.

Bush aimed his remarks at reluctant US allies as well as lawmakers.

"The world must understand its credibility is at stake," he said.


http://www.iht.com/articles/69816.html

*  THE TROUBLING NEW FACE OF AMERICA
by Jimmy Carter
International Herald Tribune, from Washington Post, 6th September

ATLANTA: Fundamental changes are taking place in the historical policies of
the United States with regard to human rights, our role in the community of
nations and the Middle East peace process - largely without definitive
debates, except at times within the administration. Some new approaches have
understandably evolved from quick and well advised reactions by President
George W. Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem to be developing
from a core group of conservatives trying to realize long-pent-up ambitions
under the cover of the proclaimed war against terrorism.

Formerly admired almost universally as the pre- eminent champion of human
rights, our country has become the foremost target of respected
international organizations concerned about these basic principles of
democratic life.

We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support our
anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as "enemy
combatants," incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their
being charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel. This
policy has been condemned by the federal courts, but the Justice Department
seems adamant, and the issue is still in doubt. Several hundred captured
Taliban soldiers remain imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay under the same
circumstances, with the defense secretary declaring that they would not be
released even if they were someday tried and found to be innocent. These
actions are similar to those of abusive regimes that historically have been
condemned by American presidents.

While the president has reserved judgment, the people are inundated with
claims from the vice president and other top officials that we face a
devastating threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and with pledges
to remove Saddam Hussein from office, with or without support from any
allies.

As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and by responsible
leaders of former administrations and incumbent officeholders, there is no
current danger to the United States from Baghdad. In the face of intense
monitoring and overwhelming American military superiority, any belligerent
move by Saddam Hussein against a neighbor, even the smallest nuclear test
(necessary before weapons construction), a tangible threat to use a weapon
of mass destruction or sharing this technology with terrorist organizations
would be suicidal. But it is quite possible that such weapons would be used
against Israel or U.S. forces in response to an American attack.

We cannot ignore the development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons,
but a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer. There is an urgent need
for United Nations action to force unrestricted inspections in Iraq. We have
thrown down counterproductive gauntlets to the rest of the world, disavowing
U.S. commitments to laboriously negotiated international accords. Peremptory
rejections of nuclear arms agreements, the biological weapons convention,
environmental protection, anti-torture proposals and punishment of war
criminals have sometimes been combined with economic threats against those
who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts and assertions
increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations needed to join
in combating terrorism.

Tragically, our government is abandoning any sponsorship of substantive
negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Our apparent policy is to
support almost every Israeli action in the occupied territories and to
condemn and isolate the Palestinians as blanket targets of our war on
terrorism, while Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves shrink.

There still seems to be a struggle within the administration over defining a
comprehensible Middle East policy. The president's clear commitments to
honor key UN resolutions and to support the establishment of a Palestinian
state have been substantially negated by statements of the defense secretary
that in his lifetime "there will be some sort of an entity that will be
established" and his reference to the "so-called occupation."

This indicates a radical departure from policies of every administration
since 1967, always based on the withdrawal of Israel from occupied
territories and a genuine peace between Israelis and their neighbors.

Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to be dominant in Washington, but
they do not yet reflect final decisions of the president, Congress or the
courts. It is crucial that the historical and well-founded American
commitments prevail: to peace, justice, human rights, the environment and
inter- national cooperation.

The writer was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981. He
contributed this comment to The Washington Post.


http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20020906.F04&ir
ec=3

*  The world has drifted apart from U.S.
by Jonathan Power
Jakarta Post, 6th September
[Thoughtful essay warning the US that the rise of anti-Americanism has a
real basis to it in perceptions of US behaviour and needs to be taken
seriously, even if 'Few maybe have yet stopped watching the violent and
sexually loaded films or the pornographic Spam that America pours out to the
word.']

The tragedy of September 11th was not just the incinerated bodies and the
shock to the political nervous system of our one and only superpower, it is
that a year later it has led to America becoming separated from the world at
large. Governments may still pay formal allegiance to Washington, but behind
the fagade of politeness few have a kind word.

As for the people, who last had a conversation where real empathy for
America's predicament was readily apparent? Even the most sympathetic or
most loyal have their doubts. It was not that "America had it coming to it".
That would be to exaggerate (although a poll published today reports that a
majority of Europeans think that U.S. policy is partially to blame for the
September 11th attack).

But having been hit so hard in the solar plexus America then seemed to rear
up like a wounded elephant and trample everyone's grass, while bellowing
that "who is not with us is against us". The world suddenly saw America in a
sharper light. What had been fuzzy before became less ambiguous, the
contours sharper and the image clearer -- the pizazz of American life,
cultural, political or militaristic, at one time considered stimulating,
reassuring, even envy-making, now seemed, depending on the vantage point, a
bridge too far, a highway to damnation, a path to perdition or, at the very
least, simply a road map to where people did not want their own societies to
head. One didn't have to be an earnest Muslim to feel this.

Hypocrisy is a tribute which vice pays to virtue. Few maybe have yet stopped
watching the violent and sexually loaded films or the pornographic Spam that
America pours out to the word. No one, apart from a few anxious Saudis, has
pulled out their fortunes from their American investments.

No one, even the more economically and political secure Europeans, dare
challenge America directly in a way it hurts, like announcing the closure of
NATO assets for use in a war against Iraq. But underneath there is an ebb
tide that Americans should ignore at their peril. To win a round, whether it
be in Afghanistan or in Iraq, but lose the world is not a very clever thing
to do.

Americans like to think of their country, to quote Ronald Reagan, as "a
shining city on a hill". Maybe in Madison, Wisconsin, there is something of
that. But in most American big cities there is the most appalling racial
discrimination (despite the remarkable emancipation of a black middle
class), crime, social and family disintegration, school violence and urban
decay. America's prisons can offer the worst of the Soviet gulag and
American justice is reserved for those with deep pockets.

Its propensity to see violence as the preferred political solution is no new
philosophy of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld but runs like a ribbon through
the recent history of the fratricidal Central American wars, the long
running tribal war in Angola, the initial war in Afghanistan when Osama bin
Laden and his friends were operating against the Soviet army under the
tutelage of the CIA, back to the wars of Vietnam and Cambodia, which even
many on the right in America now consider a terrible mistake, so pointless
became the carnage relative to what was largely an imagined problem of
hostile communist takeover. Yet on every occasion God is regularly invoked
as a support and sanction, reminding us of Olusegun Obasanjo's apt and
penetrating remark, "God is quite capable of upholding his own causes".

The threat from global terrorism is "at least partly a reaction to the
looming global presence of the United States", as Prof. Steven Walt of
Harvard has succinctly put it. "Some Americans are likely to ask if the
danger might also be reduced if it were not as visibly and actively engaged
in trying to run the world." Only when voices from within like his are
seriously listened to will America avoid the disaster it is now on course to
head into. A war with Iraq, as former National Security Advisor, Brent
Scowcroft, has wisely argued, will throw the whole of Middle East into a
period of serious political disturbance.

If America does manage to depose Saddam Hussein it is quite likely on past
performance to end up putting its weight behind an equally malevolent
figure. (After all it is not so long ago since Washington gave satellite
intelligence and military guidance to Saddam in his war against its neighbor
Iran.) The outwards waves thrown up by the turbulence of a war with Iraq is
also likely to embolden the extremists in Pakistan who could with a deft
assassination throw that nuclear-armed country into the hands of the
politically irresponsible.

America may bully its way past its European allies and over and round the
despairing council of its Arab friends all the way to Baghdad. Conceivably
it will pull off the regime change, perhaps the democratization, it says it
wants. But the chances of success are slim. This operation even more than
Vietnam has too many uncertain and difficult elements that could make it go
badly wrong.

Last time everyone said "come home America" and friends and partners from
all over the world rushed to help bind up the psychological wounds and help
America simply (too simply) put Vietnam behind it.

But this time if things go wrong the tide has already turned. When America
loses its chutzpah and looks for support it could well find itself beached
on a long and desolate no man's land. Who any longer will want to stand up
and be seen as a friend of America?


http://www.dawn.com/2002/09/06/int1.htm

*  RUMSFELD ORDERED STRIKES ON IRAQ AFTER 11/9: TV
Dawn, 6th September

WASHINGTON, Sept 5 (AFP): Hours after a hijacked airliner struck the
Pentagon last Sept 11, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld began telling
his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq, CBS television reported
on Wednesday.

According to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National
Military Command Center on September 11, Rumsfeld was outside helping the
injured 15 minutes after the hijacked plane hit the Pentagon, the report
said.

At that time, the National Security Agency intercepted a phone call from one
of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the
former Soviet Republic of Georgia, CBS News said.

The caller said that he had "heard good news" and that another target was
still to come, an indication he knew about the airliner that eventually
crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

At 12:05 pm, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told Rumsfeld
about the intercepted conversation. But according to the report, Rumsfeld
felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something" and that there was
"no good basis for hanging hat."

With the intelligence all pointing toward Osama bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered
the military to begin working on strike plans.

And at 2:40 pm, the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info
fast. Judge whether good enough (to) hit SH at same time. Not only UBL," CBS
News quoted the notes as saying.

SH, in Pentagon parlance (language), stands for Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein, and UBL for Osama bin Laden.

Nearly one year after the September 11 attacks, there is still very little
evidence that Iraq was involved in the strikes, CBS News said. But if these
notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up - things
related and not."




_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk