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

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

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


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

[casi] News, 02-09/04/03 (6)



News, 02-09/04/03 (6)

DESERTS OF ARABIA

*  Why are the Americans gunning for Syria?
*  Why non-Iraqis want to join the war
*  The Arabs' stake in Iraq's resistance
*  Saudis shun lucrative contracts to US-led forces in Iraq
*  UN can only have secondary role in Iraq: Arab League chief
*  AIPAC and the Iraqi opposition
*  Arabs 'won't recognize' puppet American administration in Iraq
*  Arabs react with dismay, disbelief to news of US troops in Baghdad

PROGRESS OF THE PRETEXT

*  U.S. Troops Find Vials, Iraqi Chemical Arms Manuals
*  Marines shed their chemsuits
*  Suspected WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide


DESERTS OF ARABIA

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/02_04_03_f.asp

*  WHY ARE THE AMERICANS GUNNING FOR SYRIA?
Lebanon Daily Star, 2nd April

Arab papers sound the alarm about soaring tensions between the United States
and Syria, after three senior members of the Bush administration took turns
to issue thinly veiled threats to Damascus, telling it to fall into line
with US policy in the Middle East or else face unspecified consequences.

Commentators see the outpouring of bellicose rhetoric from Washington as a
shot across Syria's bows, following its emergence as the most vocal regional
critic of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, and the only country in the
area to openly applaud the Iraqis' dogged resistance to the invasion.

But many also warn that it could mean that Syria is being granted belated
membership of America's "axis of evil" and set up as its next prospective
target after Iraq, in furtherance of both the administration's strategy for
global dominance and the agenda and territorial designs of its right-wing
allies in Israel.

First came Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's surprise outburst, in which
he accused Syria of providing night-vision goggles and other military or
"dual-use" equipment to Iraq, and served notice that "we consider such
trafficking as hostile acts, andwill hold the Syrian government accountable
for such shipments." Rumsfeld added a warning to Iran and the anti-Saddam
Iraqi Shiite rebels it backs, advising them that if they cross the border
back into their own country then US troops there will treat them
as"combatants" and a "potential threat to coalition forces."

This was reinforced by Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to a
conference of AIPAC, Israel's main lobbying organization in the US, in which
he spoke of the "critical choice" facing Damascus. "Syria can continue to
direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein,
or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria
bears the responsibility for its choices, and the consequences," he declared
to loud applause. Powell also turned on Iran, demanding a halt to its
"support for terrorists, including groups violently opposed to Israel" and
its purported quest for weapons of mass destruction, and pledging US backing
for "the aspirations of the Iranian people."

Powell was followed by Undersecretary of State John Bolton, who told the
same AIPAC gathering that Syria, Iran and also Libya were all seeking
weapons of mass destruction, and that he hoped the invasion of Iraq would
convince them to "back off." He added pointedly that "I don't think any of
us are naive enough to think the example of Iraq alone will be sufficient."
Bolton said Washington was "keeping a close watch on Syria" for any signs of
"nuclear weapons intent" and charged that it had stocks of chemical weapons
and was pursuing a biological capability.

The Beirut daily As-Safir points out that all these American signals were
subsequently "interpreted" by the Israelis themselves, whose chief military
intelligence researcher, Yossi Kupferwasser, came up with renewed
allegations that Syria has been concealing proscribed weapons on Iraq's
behalf, coupled with recommendations that the Americans should put Damascus
and Hizbullah next on their hit list after they're done with "regime change"
in Baghdad.

According to Syrian sources quoted by As-Safir, the view in Damascus is that
the US and Britain have embroiled themselves in a fight in Iraq that "will
last for months." They contemptuously dismissed warnings about what they
were letting themselves in for, and plunged recklessly into an invasion of
the country "in compliance with Israeli doctrines and incitement."

Arab newspapers note that in replying formally to Powell, Damascus threw his
remarks about it bearing "responsibility for its choices" back at him. A
Foreign Ministry spokesman retorted that Syria was indeed responsible for
its choices, "and Mr. Powell knows that she has chosen to support
international legality as represented by the UN and the Security Council,
and its role in preserving international peace and security. Syria has
chosen to support the worldwide official and popular consensus that said no
to aggression against Iraq Š She has also chosen to stand by the fraternal
Iraqi people who are facing an illegal and unjustified aggression in which
they are being subjected to all kinds of crimes against humanity."

These sentiments are echoed by Al-Baath, daily paper of Syria's ruling
party, which sees Powell's remarks as evidence that Washington's military
adventure in the region is in large measure a proxy war being fought on
Israel's behalf, and is not confined to Iraq

"Ever since the US administration revealed that its objective is to reshape
the Middle East's political structure, it has been clear that it is
embarking on a rolling undeclared war against the countries of the region,"
the paper states in its main editorial.

"It set the stage for it by deeming all resistance to be terrorism, and
effectively recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's eternal and unified capital
and treating the West Bank and Gaza Strip as spoils of war. The idea is for
this to culminate in the Arab-Israeli conflict being deconstructed and the
fraternal relationship between Syria and Lebanon meddled with, after the
process of occupying Iraq has been completed," it says.

Accordingly, while bombing Iraq, Washington has been threatening its
neighbors and fellow Arabs by levelling "preemptive accusations" at them.

The Americans do not only a want a "devastated Iraq" but also a cowed region
that does their bidding, hence their refusal to tolerate any expression of
sympathy with the Iraqi people as they bring them "freedom on the back of a
tank," Al-Baath says.

It also wonders how the US can continue trying to claim that the war has
noting to do with Israel, when Powell chose an AIPAC podium from which to
mouth his threats against Damascus.

"Syria stands up for itself and its (pan-Arab) nation when it rejects the
latest episode of aggression in the region; but the US shrinks to Israel's
stature when it throws itself into a new occupation enterprise that is
inconsistent with either the spirit of the times or the principles of law
and justice," Al-Baath writes.

In other editorial comment, Qatar's Al-Sharq finds it puzzling that the US
should choose to open verbal fire on Syria before it has settled its battle
in Iraq. "Is this the right timing, or has the US administration been pushed
prematurely into opening a new front" in its war? the paper asks.

Other questions also come to mind, it says.

Did Syria somehow learn that "its turn will be next in the current American
war on Iraq," and opt to up the verbal ante in the hope of preempting that?

Are Israeli claims about Iraqi WMDs having been transferred to Syria based
on real information, or just part of a drive to turn up the heat on
Damascus?

And why didn't the Iranians respond to the comparable threats that the
Americans levelled at them as vehemently as the Syrians did, seeing as Iran
is also on the Bush administration's hit list?

"These questions boil down to one," Al-Baath suggests. "Have the American
and Syrian sides really opted for a showdown? In other words, has the
former's need for the latter, in all sorts of areas that Washington has
talked about in the past, been abandoned, with such speed and at such a
highly delicate juncture, while the fate of the war on Iraq remains far from
decided?"

As the UAE daily Al-Khaleej perceives things, Rumsfeld and Powell have been
saying aloud what junior figures in the administration have been whispering
for some time -  namely, "That Syria will be the next target of the new
colonial onslaught that began in Iraq."

The paper sees Powell's remarks as particularly "grave." He made them to
AIPAC, implying a commitment to the Zionist lobby that wields great
influence in the White House, and accompanied them with fresh pledges of
support for Israel, which on the same day engaged in renewed "incitement"
against Syria by accusing it of taking delivery of proscribed Iraqi weapons.

"Just as destroying Iraq and preventing it from standing on its feet for
decades to come is a Zionist objective, which the US and Britain are
undertaking to realize, in spite of the entire world, Syria is similarly
targeted" because it stands up to Israeli expansionism, as is Lebanon by
association.

"If Syria and Lebanon were to be targeted after Iraq, that would bring
everlasting comfort to the war criminals who raped Palestine, enabling the
tripartite American-British-Israeli alliance to settle the Arab-Zionist
conflict by eliminating the Palestinian cause, the Golan Heights and the
Shebaa Farms, and the Israeli octopus to extend its tentacles in any
direction it pleases," the UAE paper warns.

That is what the Americans mean when they predict that the war on Iraq will
"reshape" the entire Middle East, Al-Khaleej says.

Egyptian columnist Assayed Zahra says the US message to Syria can be summed
up in a single sentence: "Either you support the aggression, or you
yourselves will become targets of aggression."

Writing for the Bahrain daily Akhbar al-Khaleej, Zahra states that the
Americans began by claiming that Syria was sending aid and material to Iraq
such as night-vision goggles. "Even if this were true, it would not have
been a crime other than by America's designation. But it was demonstrated
that what they said was just another of their innumerable lies," he remarks.

Zahra says one reason the Americans are menacing Syria is in deference to
the Zionist lobby, which "conceives and directs" the Bush administration's
Middle East policy, was the chief driving force behind the invasion of Iraq,
and is fighting hard for Syria and Lebanon to be targeted next in order to
destroy all remaining bastions of resistance to Israel's occupation of Arab
territory.

The second reason is that Syria opted to condemn the invasion of Iraq
unequivocally and "without beating about the bush," he explains.

"It chose to stand by the Iraqi people's resoluteness and resistance without
reservations or conditions. The invaders don't want any Arab country to dare
even condemn the aggression in public, or any Arab government to dare even
praise the steadfastness of a fellow Arab people. They would not have dared
think and act in this way themselves had not the vast majority of Arab
governments opted for ignominious silence.

"That is why - because of the disgraceful position taken by most Arab
governments. Syria won't be the first or the last of them to be threatened
with aggression. But, in any case, the stand taken by Syria and its
leadership deserves to be saluted and commended," says Zahra.

Reflecting on developments on the ground in Iraq, Ameen Qammouriyeh writes
in the Beirut daily An-Nahar that the Americans have five options now that
their march on Baghdad has been blunted.

They can wait for reinforcements and then proceed to flatten the Iraqi
capital. They can lay siege to it until it implodes from within, exposing
their forces out in the desert to attacks by tribesmen. They can leave
Baghdad alone and concentrate on controlling the northern and southern oil
fields, which is what they are mainly after. They can encourage the Kurds
and Shiites to rebel and promise to help them set up separate enclaves Š And
they can "reverse the strategic blunder that the Pentagon planners made" and
"pull out of the Iraqi quagmire."

Qammouriyeh writes that while the latter option is by far the most
preferable for everyone concerned, and is still theoretically possible,
"Bush will never do it." Instead, he will "continue waging war on Iraq and
on everyone else who disagrees with him and his policies."

The outcome, he predicts, will be a series of "mini-wars spawned by the big
war, some of them American-made and others blowing up in America's face. For
Iraq is like a Pandora's Box. Once you open it, you unlock the gates of hell
from Turkey to Saudi Arabia and from Egypt to Pakistan."

This is guaranteed to turn the Islamic world into a "sea of hostility" to
the US, matched only by the resentment felt toward Israel, which will find
expression in ways that may sometimes be organized but will more often take
the form of indiscriminate violence against Americans. This to a backdrop of
worldwide fear and loathing of the US, which is likely to prompt other
countries to join forces in order to protect themselves against America's
addiction to force and its contempt for international law.

The upshot, Qammouriyeh predicts, will be an America that is "mighty in
terms of treasures and weapons, but completely isolated and friendless."


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035780241335&call_pageid=968332188854&col=9683500607
24

*  WHY NON-IRAQIS WANT TO JOIN THE WAR
Toronto Star, 2nd April

DAMASCUS‹Ahmed Abdullah is ashamed to say he is one man who won't be
answering Saddam Hussein's call to jihad. Not just now at least.

Abdullah, 23, a third-year college student in the Syrian capital, was all
set to make the journey to Baghdad this week. He said his goodbyes to
friends, schoolmates, his girlfriend. He would give his life for his Iraqi
brothers, even if it meant strapping a suicide belt to his waist and blowing
himself to paradise.

Abdullah went home to pack, only to find his tiny Damascus student apartment
ransacked. The essential ingredients for getting to Baghdad ‹ passport,
Syrian identity card, money ‹ were gone.

A greater shock still came with the ring of his telephone. It was his
mother. Claiming responsibility for the "robbery." Apologetic, yet firm, she
told him a cousin had been dispatched to remove his things and ship them to
the family home, four hours away in the city of Deir Ezzor. He would make
Holy War over her dead body, she told him.

Abdullah sat forlornly in a Damascus coffee shop yesterday staring for two
hours at his untouched cup of tea as he spilled out his story for the Star.
He was the portrait of wounded Mideast machismo.

"I feel betrayed. I feel ashamed. I feel like a coward. How can I face my
friends at school, my girlfriend? I have a duty to go, but my own mother has
taken it away."

Fearing Syrian security police will catch him out, Abdullah chose this
pseudonym himself. It is not his real name. He asked also that his chosen
field of study not be published, nor the school he attends.

But in every other respect, Abdullah spared no detail in explaining what
motivates an upper-middle-class Syrian such as he to throw down his life in
defence of a regime he readily admits is run by "a real son-of-a-bitch."

Indeed, Abdullah was unmoved by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's statement
yesterday calling for jihad against "aggression on the religion, the wealth,
the honour and the soul and aggression on the land of Islam."

"It is not really about Islam. Because I am not a very good Muslim. I drink
sometimes. I can't even remember the last time I went to mosque," he said.

"It is not about Saddam, either. We know he is bad. But when I see the Iraqi
people being bombed, I feel I have to do something.

"These are my brothers and sisters. I cannot just sit here and pretend
otherwise."

In the weeks leading up to war, Abdullah and his activist classmates did do
something. They undertook an informal project to infiltrate Internet chat
rooms on behalf of the cause. He describes spending as much as six hours a
day in various online cafes in Damascus, surfing for Americans.

"We were always polite, just trying to have a conversation, just trying to
explain our view of American policy and what this terrible aggression might
trigger," he says.

But within days of the first air strikes on Baghdad, two of his classmates ‹
both from Yemen ‹ made the leap, announcing they were leaving for Iraq as
volunteer fighters. Two more followed last week. Abdullah was next.

The eldest of four brothers, Abdullah said he forbade two eager siblings
from volunteering because they are still in their teens. But he considers
himself fit for battle.

"In Syria, you don't do your two years of army service until after college.
But even so, one month each summer we go into the desert with the army and
train.

"So I am very good with a Kalashnikov. And also with the RPG
(rocket-propelled grenade). And I have worked in tanks enough to know what
to do," he said.

Abdullah spoke in glowing terms of the surge in Arab nationalist sentiment
at his college. Both Christian and Muslim students alike, he said, are
fervently against the war. But the Kurds in his class are another matter.

"The Kurds say they are against the war, but I think deep down they are for
it," he said. "Sometimes we see them speaking quietly together in Kurdish.
People get angry, and tell them to speak Arabic. But what can you expect?
They want their own country. I don't blame them."

Israeli intelligence sources indicate as many as 4,000 volunteers have
crossed the Syrian border to Iraq, the only route available to those bound
for Baghdad.

Abdullah dismissed the number as "a fabrication," but in the same breath
admitted he has no idea how many have joined the war.

"Syria is becoming a beacon because our president (Bashar al-Assad) is the
only Arab leader who dares stand up to the Americans and tell them this war
is a mistake," he said.

Assad added to Syria's increasingly bitter war of words with America
yesterday, telling an Austrian newspaper that Washington "has lost touch
with the world."

The English language Syria Times, meanwhile, added fuel to the fire, saying
in an editorial that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a "fiasco" and
warranted investigation for "crimes against humanity."

For Abdullah, the political crossfire implies he may yet have his day to
fight.

"The Americans thought this would be over already. But we are all beginning
to realize this fight is far from over," he said.

"Today, I am ashamed not to be fighting. Now that the opportunity has been
taken away from me, I feel maybe my time wasn't now. But it will come.
Eventually I will be there."


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/03_04_03_f.asp

*  THE ARABS' STAKE IN IRAQ'S RESISTANCE
Lebanon Daily Star, 3rd April

Syria is not overly alarmed by the bellicose rhetoric the administration of
George W. Bush has been directing at it, and won't be cowed into abandoning
its vociferous opposition to the American invasion of its eastern neighbor,
Waleed Shoucair reports for the Saudi-run pan Arab daily Al-Hayat from
Damascus.

He says the thinking in Damascus is that the "warnings and threats" voiced
by the US secretaries of state and defense have less to do with Syria's
anti-war stance and its alleged supply of military equipment to Iraq, than
with finding excuses for the setbacks the US military campaign has suffered.

"They're looking for someone to accuse to justify their failure" to achieve
a quick and easy victory, say Shoucair's "informed sources." Syria had
warned from the outset that an invasion of Iraq would be "no picnic" and
that the Iraqis would fiercely resist.

Are Washington's warnings an endeavor to deter President Bashar Assad from
supporting the Iraqi resistance? Shoucair asks. The sources reply that the
president "did not talk about supporting the resistance" in his policy
statements on Iraq.

As to reports that US forces have deployed just across the Syrian-Iraqi
border to intercept Iraq-bound military equipment and convoys of volunteers,
Syria's position is that the border is open and anyone whose documents are
in order is free to cross, including Western journalists and Syrians and
Arabs with business in Iraq. "There are no convoys or military equipment,"
and if there are any volunteers, "they don't have it written on their
foreheads or passports that they are volunteers." If the Americans object to
that, they are rewriting international law.

Shoucair says the Syrians intend to persist with their diplomatic efforts to
rally international opposition to the invasion, and are relieved that a
period of tension with Egypt appears to have been overcome. Cairo lodged a
formal protest when anti-war protesters in Damascus chanted slogans
denouncing President Hosni Mubarak's stance on Iraq, but he recently
reiterated Egypt's commitment to its "strategic" relationship with Syria.

Al-Hayat commentator Ghassan Sharbel says Washington's latest
charges-cum-threats regarding Syria's support for Iraq, "terrorism" and its
quest for weapons of mass destruction cannot be viewed in isolation from the
hawkish noises that have been coming Syria's way from Israel.

The Israelis and Americans are jointly trying to cow Damascus and prevent it
from "banking on the ultimate failure of the invasion that is currently
targeting Iraq," he writes.

Sharbel suggests the two sides want to deter Syria from adopting the same
role in Iraq as it did in Lebanon, where its support was instrumental to the
success of the armed resistance that overcame Israel's overwhelming military
superiority and ended its occupation of the south.

Perhaps it is to exact revenge for Lebanon that the Israelis are hoping to
turn the clash of interests between Syria and the US in Iraq into "a
confrontation of sorts," he remarks.

Sharbel writes that while Damascus is well aware of the short-term dangers
of standing up strongly to the US over Iraq, it understandably feels it has
no other option. If an American client regime were to be installed in
Baghdad, "the Arab-Israeli imbalance of power would become deadly." And if
Iraq were to "explode under the pressure of American blows" it would be a
disaster for all the Arabs.

These longer-term factors must inevitably outweigh "considerations of
immediate safety or short-term interest" for Syria. Damascus may not be able
to alter the course of the war, but it can object to it, and refuse to
acquiesce to its conduct or its consequences, Sharbel says.

Jordanian columnist Yaser Zaatra links Washington's fury at both Damascus
and Tehran to the efforts they made during the buildup to the war to
galvanize opposition to the US invasion among Iraqi Shiites.

He writes in the Amman daily Ad-Dustour that the anti-invasion stand taken
by Iraqi Shiite groups opposed to the Baghdad regime bore clear hallmarks of
lobbying by Syria, Iran and Hizbullah. It also helps account for the
effectiveness of the Iraqi resistance that US forces have encountered,
contrary to the expectations of American military planners.

"Being placed top of the post-Iraq hit list prompted Syria and Iran -
especially Syria - to take a number of steps to encourage Iraq's
steadfastness, so as to ensure that the country does not fall easy prey to
the invaders, and thus whet their appetite for more." Hence Syria's fulsome
backing for Iraq at the UN Security Council and its advocacy of a "defiant"
Arab stand, "followed by the stories about volunteers and martyrdom-seekers,
which further infuriated the Americans," Zaatra explains.

"The Syrian and Iranian response to the American challenge in Iraq has been
clever as well as compelling," he notes. It amounts to trying to turn Iraq
into a quagmire for them, and a liability for the hawks in the Bush
administration.

"And if the American hawks are in a predicament, Israel's Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon and Co. feel it even more deeply," Zaatra remarks. US Secretary
of State Colin Powell "addressed AIPAC, Israel's main lobbying organization
in America, in an effort to reassure them about a future that they have
staked on the war, in the hope that it will vanquish all their enemies and
make them lords of the region. But the dream dissipates further with every
report of an Iraqi istishhadi or the death of an American or British soldier
on the battlefield."

Israel's influence is highlighted by the Syrian government-run daily
Tishrin, which writes, "While speculation abounds about the likely duration
and cost of the US invasion of Iraq and its ultimate outcome, the one
constant is that it has as many, if not more, Israeli objectives than
American ones."

The Damascus paper recalls how hard the Israelis lobbied to persuade the
Bush administration to adopt the idea of invading Iraq as policy, and then
to translate it into practice as quickly as possible. This resembles the
efforts they exerted to ensure continued US backing after the end of the
Cold War by playing up the "Iraqi threat" and the "terrorist threat."

The picture was completed by Powell when he took the platform at AIPAC to
"list the services his administration has rendered Israel, even while waging
a war on Iraq, and level threatening statements at Syria and all those who
are hostile to Israel," Tishrin writes. He promised an extra $10 billion in
aid to a nuclear-armed serial violator of UN resolutions that is waging a
war of genocide against the Palestinians, while Iraq is being subjected to a
full-scale invasion on the pretext of disarming it of doomsday weapons it
does not possess.

"Israel is the only threat in the region Š behind everything being hatched
against the Arabs," Tishrin writes. "No one can separate the aggression
underway in Iraq from Israel's aggressive plans against the Arabs. The
danger thus doubles up, and it becomes both a national and pan-Arab duty to
confront this American aggression."

Jordanian columnist Tarek Massarwa says the position adopted by Syria and
Iran is one reason why the Iraqis believe that, so far, "the battle is going
according to plan" for them.

He writes in the Amman daily Al-Rai that both countries are shifting from a
position of "positive neutrality" to one of "negative neutrality" at the
invasion. Washington has served notice that it will settle scores with them
once it is finished with Iraq, so supporting Iraqi resistance has become a
matter of self-defense where they are concerned, he argues.

Meanwhile, the opening of a "northern front" has been effectively blocked,
Massarwa remarks. The Turks, including the army, are furious with the
Americans, and may even deny their warplanes overflight rights, he suggests.
Their threat of military intervention has meanwhile prevented Iraqi Kurdish
forces allied to the US from advancing on Kirkuk.

Massarwa says how "enthusiastically" the Americans bombarded the Ansar
al-Islam enclave in northeast Iraq, which Kurdish warlord Jalal Talabani's
men had failed to capture, after declaring it a chemical weapons production
site allied to Saddam Hussein. But "not even a pharmacy" was found in the
ruins of the little groupof impoverished villages.

"It is starting to be whispered in the Pentagon that the Kurds 'have let us
down' just as the Turks did," Massarwa says. "The whispers in the American
media about how the Iraqi people 'let them down' are growing louder. We
wouldn't be surprised if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were to repeat
after the Kuwaiti university professor that the millions of anti-war
protestors who took to the streets of every world capital were merely
Saddam's hirelings!" he quips.

Massarwa concludes that despite the intensity of the American blitz, Iraq is
faring well. "It has blunted the ground offensive. The Iraqis have proven
that they are not Sunnites, Shiites, Arabs and Kurds but Iraqis first and
foremost. And Saddam Hussein's regime has shown that it is capable of
fighting a third war against a superpower and rescuing the region from fear
and arousing its living forces."

Meanwhile, there appears to be little mileage in Saudi Arabia's latest
contribution to developments in Iraq: Foreign Minister Prince Saud
al-Faisal's call on American TV for Saddam Hussein to resign in order to
spare his country further devastation.

The idea elicited an instant rebuke from the Iraqis, with Vice-President
Taha Yassin Ramadan describing its Saudi proposer as "an agent." Rumsfeld
also implicitly dismissed it when he insisted that the US would accept
nothing short of the Iraqi leader's "unconditional surrender."

Abdelbari Atwan, publisher/editor of pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi, is appalled
that the Saudis should call on Saddam to stand down and "hand over his
country to the invading forces" at a time when Iraqis are uniting in its
defense and mounting brave resistance that has forced the attackers to
rethink their military plans.

"We don't know the reason for this Saudi addiction to coming up with
initiatives aimed at demoralizing the Arabs and driving them to surrender
and submit to American and Israeli dictates," he writes in a front-page
commentary.

It reminds him of the "famous normalization initiative," which the Saudis
launched last year and "imposed" on the Arab summit in Beirut, only to see
it "crushed by the Israeli tanks which reinvaded the West Bank" two days
later.

"Saudi Arabia has no right to propose initiatives or ideas relating to
Iraq," says Atwan. "First, because it is itself a party to the aggression,
with American warplanes and missiles launched from its territory; secondly,
because it has not maintained diplomatic relations with Iraq; and above all,
because it does not possess the stature it had in the past, and which it
acquired by using the oil weapon in the Arabs' battles against their
enemies."

Atwan recalls that the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki
al-Faisal, admitted Riyadh tried before to engineer a military coup to
topple the existing regime in Baghdad. Having failed to manage that, it is
scarcely in a position to demand that the Iraqi president "stop leading his
country's steadfastness and resistance to the aggression, and flee to a safe
haven abroad under the pretext of protecting the Iraqi people and stopping
the war."

He is also critical of Mubarak's stance, and suggests his call for
establishing a "new Arab order" based on modern principles is suspiciously
in tune with Washington's professed desire to "reshape" the Middle East
after its occupation of Iraq.

"What kind of Arab order does he want to establish, when he is allowing the
American warships Š to transit the Suez Canal in broad daylight?" Atwan
wonders.

"To those who want to establish a new Arab order on the ruins of Iraq's
steadfastness and resistance in line with American and Israeli directives,
we would say this: Move away and let this nation face up courageously and
manfully to its fate and its invaders. You should disappear in disgrace for
having conspired against it and colluded with its enemies," he says.

"The ones who ought to be resigning, before the angry masses force them to,
are those Arab leaders - and they are all, incidentally, commanders in chief
of their armed forces - who watch American missiles rock Baghdad and crush
the skulls of children in Basra without doing anything," Atwan writes.


http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/news_show.phtml?id=1268&search=&find=

*  SAUDIS SHUN LUCRATIVE CONTRACTS TO US-LED FORCES IN IRAQ

RIYADH, April 5 (AFP) - A leading Saudi dairy company Saturday said it has
turned down an offer to supply coalition forces fighting in Iraq amid
reports that Saudi transport firms have rejected 40 potential contracts with
US-led troops.

Al-Safi Dairy Co., a subsidiary of Al-Faisaliah Group, said it would not
support the war in any way.

"We believe in the importance of peaceful solutions in keeping the danger of
war and its misery away from this region," said Prince Mohammed bin Khaled
al-Faisal, head of Al Faisaliah, the 16th largest group in Saudi Arabia.

"The company has refused a request by a company responsible for supply of
provisions to the coalition forces because this contradicts the company's
humanitarian policies," Prince Mohammed said in a statement.

The company did not specify the nature of the contract or its value. Al-Safi
has the world's largest integrated dairy farm with some 32,000 cows and
produces various types of dairy products and juices.

A newspaper meanwhile said Saturday that transport firms in the Saudi
eastern province have turned down offers and cancelled at least 40 contracts
to rent their trucks for US British forces.

The offers were made by Kuwaiti intermediaries to transport unspecified
material through the Kuwaiti-Iraqi borders in favour of the coalition
forces, Al-Eqtissadiah business daily reported, quoting unnamed sources.

Saudis are overwhelmingly opposed to the US-led war against neighbouring
Iraq, seen by many here as a new colonisation of an Arab country.


http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/

*  UN CAN ONLY HAVE SECONDARY ROLE IN IRAQ: ARAB LEAGUE CHIEF

BERLIN, April 7 (AFP) - The United Nations can only really play a "secondary
role" in rebuilding Iraq, Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said in an
interview with German television late Sunday.

Mussa told ARD public television that the United Nations could no longer
play the central role that many European Union states want it to have
because it was unable to prevent the US-led war from starting.

"If it gets there after the facts, then (its role) can only be a secondary
one," he said.

Mussa travels to UN headquarters in New York on Wednesday to discuss "issues
related to regional peace and security and ways to improve cooperation
between the United Nations and regional organisations."

The Arab League opposes the war and has repeatedly called for a ceasefire.

In Brussels last Thursday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the
United Nations would play some part in rebuilding Iraq but he said the
"coalition" doing the fighting would have the leading role.


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=281270

*  AIPAC AND THE IRAQI OPPOSITION
by Nathan Guttman
Haaretz, 8th April


[.....]

Last week, the United States decided to alter the flight paths of its
Tomahawk cruise missiles, which had been passing above Saudi Arabia, in
response to Saudi complaints that four of the missiles had fallen in its
territory and endangered residents of the kingdom. A similar request was
voiced by Turkey, after it developed that the IQ of some of the smart bombs
was not high enough for them to find their way to Baghdad, and they landed
on Turkish soil.

The Saudi request to cease firing the missiles above its territory is
illustrative of a fact that all of the sides are trying to conceal - that
from the outset Saudi Arabia agreed to place its air space at the disposal
of the Americans for the purpose of launching missiles at Iraq from ships in
the Red Sea.

Saudi Arabia is the hidden player in the American war on Iraq. Prior to the
outbreak of combat, it made it publicly clear that it opposed the war and
declared that it would not cooperate with the Americans. As opposed to the
first Gulf War, in which Saudi Arabia was a major partner and a main base of
departure for the military forces in Iraq, it is now sitting on the
sidelines, ostensibly uninvolved. Nevertheless, well-informed American
sources report that the two countries agreed it would be better to obscure
the military cooperation between the two sides, which have reached agreement
to allow America to exploit many of Saudi Arabia's strategic assets.

The trajectory of the cruise missiles above Saudi Arabia is but one example.
It is further charged that the Saudis are also permitting the United States
to use Saudi air space for intelligence flights and that the main U.S. Air
Force base in Saudi Arabia is assisting by providing flight control of the
aircraft conducting bombing missions in Iraq. This American base was
supposed to play a major role in the war, and serve as a home base for most
of the bombing sorties, but in the early stages of preparations for war
about six months ago, the Saudis made it clear they would not permit the
Americans to take off from Saudi soil to bomb Saddam. However, once the
crisis atmosphere faded somewhat, the Americans realized it would be
possible to reach quiet understandings with the Saudis. One if them is that
while America would not take off from Saudi Arabia, it would be able to use
its air space, and provide flight control from its territory.

Another understanding has to do with oil. American war planners feared that
one of the immediate repercussions of the war would be a steep spike in oil
prices, due to both the suspension of albeit limited Iraqi oil exports (of
1.7 million barrels a day) and the generally nervous wartime market. In this
case, Saudi Arabia again entered the picture. Many weeks before the first
shot was fired in the Gulf, the Saudis stepped up the pace of oil production
in order to compensate for a possible shortage, reaching a rate of
production higher than anything in the past 20 years.

The United States is buying up the surplus and laying in a stockpile, while
simultaneously ensuring that world oil prices remain stable. When the war
ends, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will again be able to out their relationship
from the closet.

One American source declared that the American public would be surprised to
discover just how critical was the Saudi contribution to the American war
effort. The kingdom is not enjoying much support from American public
opinion. On the day after, Washington and Riyadh will have to find a way to
overcome the other obstacles that have hurt relations of the two countries
in the past two years: the attitude toward Crown Prince Abdullah's peace
plan, the issue of Saudi cooperation in the terror investigations, and the
continued massive presence of American soldiers on Saudi soil.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/08_04_03_f.asp

*  ARABS 'WON'T RECOGNIZE' PUPPET AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION IN IRAQ
Lebanon Daily Star, 8th April

As the US military pounds Baghdad and prepares to unveil its plans for
running the areas of Iraq it has already conquered, the Beirut daily
Al-Mustaqbal states that most Arab states will refuse to recognize any new
government that is established in the country under American auspices.

The paper says that a recommendation to that effect was made by a "legal and
political committee" set up by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa to
"consider available options in the event of US forces managing to seize
Baghdad and topple the Iraqi regime." The committee concluded that no
recognition should be extended to any "government established under
occupation," even if that means suspending Iraq's membership of the Arab
League.

The legal rationale is that Arab League membership is only open to
independent states, the paper quotes senior league sources as saying - which
is why it had only seven members (including Iraq) at its inception in 1945,
with the other Arab countries joining as soon as each achieved its
independence over the course of the next quarter of a century.

The sources say the committee considered previous cases in which Arab
countries had faced "recognition problems," such as Somalia, which continued
for years to be represented at the league by envoys of the pre-civil war
regime after it ceased to exist in Mogadishu, until a consensus was reached
in favor of recognizing President Abelkader Sallad Hassan's government.

But the Iraqi case is without precedent, the sources add. If the American
and British invaders get their way, it will be the fist time ever that an
Arab state has "lost its independence after achieving it," and this calls
for a collective stance by the other Arab League members.

The sources add that "the only case in which the Arabs would recognize a new
regime in Iraq" is if a conference were held under UN auspices to arrange
for the election of a new Iraqi government. "But having American army
generals in charge is unacceptable. There is no way they could have
representation at the League, and none of the Arab states would recognize
them - except perhaps one or two," the sources add.

Al-Mustaqbal adds that Arab governments have agreed "not to discuss this
possibility openly" so as not to give the impression that they are complying
with American demands to "come to terms with the post-Saddam era." They also
want to avoid undermining the brave resistance that the Iraqis are mounting
to the invasion. While the league has publicly applauded that resistance,
and is firmly opposed to the principle of changing ruling regimes by
external force," that does not mean it shouldn't consider all the
possibilities and prepare to face up to the different scenarios," the
paper's sources explain.

Washington's plans for Iraq are meanwhile seen to be taking a new twist with
the purported airlifting of hundreds of so-called "free Iraqis" affiliated
to the Pentagon-backed Iraqi National Congress (INC) into southern Iraq -
including its controversial leader, Ahmed Chalabi, who has been relocated
from the Kurdish north to the southern town of Nassiriya.

Rajeh al-Khoury writes in the Lebanese daily An-Nahar that the Bush
administration seems to be opting for what he calls the "Rumsfeld-Myers
scenario" for Iraq's immediate future, which envisages setting up a
surrogate "Iraqi government" in the south as soon as possible - probably
with Chalabi playing a lead role.

Khoury says he believes such a move would serve American purposes in a
variety of ways, not least by signaling that "the war has been settled, at
least psychologically." Just as the seizure by US forces of Baghdad airport
was intended to impress on everyone that the regime's end is nigh, the
establishment of an Iraqi government to "control" the country outside the
capital would indicate that it is all but finished, he reasons.

Setting up a puppet administration in the south would also "complement" the
military siege of Baghdad, and would explain why the Americans think they
won't have to storm the capital city, with all the extra blood-letting that
would entail. Their aim is evidently to isolate the capital and leave the
regime to disintegrate within it, while subjecting the city to air strikes
and lightning raids, and wagering on a popular uprising or military
rebellion to eventually topple the Iraqi leadership. This presages a
prolonged and bloody siege, and Washington would be much better placed to
counter international objections if it had an "Iraqi government" in place in
the south, in whose name it could claim the war was being waged against a
"former regime," Khoury acclaims.

Such a government would also be designed to bestow "Iraqi legitimacy" on US
operations to mop up resistance throughout the country, with the aim of
eventually being able to claim that the new administration "controls" most
of Iraq and is thereby the de facto authority in the country.

Khoury suggests the Americans may set up a headquarters for this new
government at Baghdad's airport, or in some other part of the capital that
their forces overrun. That way this new government can claim to be in charge
in the capital, and that Saddam Hussein's regime has been reduced to "an
isolated pocket of resistance."

This government is also likely to be credited with any relief, aid or
reconstruction work the Americans undertake, in a bid to earn it some public
support among Iraqis "even though it will not, of course, be capable of
lifting a finger without orders from the American high commissioner."
Meanwhile, Washington can be expected to lobby hard for other countries to
recognize the new government.

But, perhaps most importantly of all, the speedy formation of a puppet
government of this kind would be aimed at preventing anyone else from having
a say in the shape of post Saddam Iraq, and blocking efforts by the
Europeans to ensure that the UN is given a central role.

Such a government would be no more than a "local fig leaf" while the US
assumes total control of Iraq, and places its administration "in the hands
of retired army general Jay Gardener - a friend of Ariel Sharon and admirer
of his methods of crushing the intifada - who is currently in southern Iraq
along with a team of fellow hard-liners, such as James Woolsey, the CIA
graduate who is tipped to succeed (Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed
Saeed) Sahhaf!"

In Muscat, a news analysis in the Omani daily Al-Watan says Washington's
"hidden agenda for Iraq" is likely to become more perceptible once the
debate is resolved about the UN's future role in the country - which is
supposed to be top of the agenda at President George W. Bush's meeting with
his British comrade-in-arms Tony Blair.

The paper remarks that although the US administration consents to a UN
humanitarian role in Iraq, even its most "dovish" figure, Secretary of State
Colin Powell, has made clear that the administration intends to retain the
final say in determining the country's future in every respect.

Had Washington's goal merely been to "liberate Iraq from dictatorship and
rid it of weapons of mass destruction," it would not have refused to apply
the "East Timor model," under which the country would be placed under
temporary UN administration until free elections were held, the paper
reasons.

"But the reality, which has long been visible to everyone, is that
Washington has its own agenda in Iraq that is linked to its plans for
reshaping the Middle East and is at odds with the UN agenda and the
requirements of Resolution 1441. The picture is completed by the political
signals that the US has been sending out: whether by excluding opposition
forces from the 'war of liberation' on the ground, or by systematically
upping the ante against Syria and Iran," Al-Watan says.

The Omani paper says the Americans seem incapable of understanding that "the
opposition of Iraqis to dictatorship does not make them accepting of
occupation, and that slowly but surely an Iraqi consensus will develop that
rejects both." This is likely to become increasingly noticeable over the
days to come, especially if the period of direct rule the Americans envisage
drags on, and they try to install "Washington's clients" by force as
post-war Iraq's governors.

And if Washington's relations with Damascus and Tehran continue
deteriorating to a backdrop of Iraqi rejection of the occupation, "that
rejection could quickly turn into resistance, which with time could find
support and sustenance from Iraq's irate regional milieu," Al-Watan
predicts.

Other Arab dailies highlight the Bush administration's continuing "verbal
escalation" against Syria, following a series of US television appearances
by Pentagon super-hawk Paul Wolfowitz in which he reiterated warnings to
Damascus to stop supporting Iraq, abetting "terrorism" or pursuing weapons
of mass destruction, and alluded to the need for "change" in Syria as well
as Iraq.

The "direct threats to Syria" mouthed by Wolfowitz (on NBC's Meet the Press)
are seen by Talal Salman, publisher of Beirut's As-Safir, as a warning to
all Arab and Muslim countries that they will risk "meeting the same fate as
Iraq" if they dare oppose America's occupation of the country and the
"political project" that underlies it.

"Could there be a more effective way of marketing American democracy?"
Salman asks, adding that it is a strange "coincidence" that the Americans
and British are talking about setting up an "Iraqi government" under their
military occupation at the same time as promoting, along with the Israelis,
the idea of a Palestinian government operating under Israeli occupation.

"It's as though the Arabs are not competent to govern themselves, and must
have their countries occupied so they can be given 'governments' appointed
by the occupying armies," he remarks.

Salman states that while figuring out how to run Iraq, the Americans have
been sending out different messages to different sections of the population,
addressing them not as Iraqis but as separate religious or ethnic
communities, and saying conflicting things to different groups.

Thus, while allocating to their British partners the task of supervising the
Shiite south - on the strength of the "expertise" the British gained
"inventing" a royal dynasty for the Iraqi state in the 1920s - they intend
to subject the Kurds to their own direct sponsorship. "They affirmed that in
blue Kurdish blood on Sunday, when one of the sons of the late Kurdish
leader, Mulla Mustafa Barzani, became the first 'martyr' of that
sponsorship," he remarks.

"The leaders of the aggression are not minded to justify their bloody plans
for occupying Iraq and scorching it to anyone: not to the world, whose
peoples continue to reaffirm their opposition to this unjust war daily and
around-the-clock, and not to religious leaders be they the Pope or the
Sheikh of Al-Azhar (whose stature makes it essential for him to issue a
jihad fatwa, even if that conflicts with the regime's official position).
And they are least of all minded to justify it to the Arabs, other than by
wielding the stick against any who disobey," writes Salman.

"This is the most shameless invasion in history," Salman writes.


http://www.jordantimes.com/Tue/news/news4.htm

*  ARABS REACT WITH DISMAY, DISBELIEF TO NEWS OF US TROOPS IN BAGHDAD
Jordan Times, 8th April
      
RIYADH (AP) ‹ Arabs reacted with dismay and disbelief to television images
of US tanks in the heart of Baghdad, with some dismissing the news as
American propaganda and others signing up for jihad.

While few Arabs believed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime could
indefinitely hold out against the allied onslaught on Baghdad, many had
expected the capital to put up a more ferocious fight than the southern city
ofBasra, which had taken British troops two weeks to dominate.

That is why news of US troops in central Baghdad left many shocked and
wondering whether President Saddam had been bluffing when he promised to
slaughter the invading troops at the gates of Baghdad.

Over a breakfast of croissant and coffee at a men's only cafe, Saudi
accounting instructor Haitham Al Bawardi said he was having a hard time
believing the TV reports.

"How can we know this is for real and not just coalition propaganda?"
Bawardi, 30, said.

"But if this is true, it's quite frustrating," he added.

"We had hoped Saddam would inflict as many casualties on the invaders as
possible to teach them a lesson and make them think twice before striking
another Arab country."

In Cairo, the news made some more determined to join other Arabs who have
gone into Iraq for jihad, or holy war, alongside Iraqis fighting invading
forces. The Lawyers' Syndicate, a professional union that has been
organising people to join the war, began filling up with volunteers shortly
after the news was broadcast.

"As Arabs, we cannot see this and not move," said a man in his early 30s who
was too worried about government retribution to give his name. "We are
selling ourselves for a higher cost, for God, not for Saddam."

Another volunteer, Abdelfattah, 41, a worker in a regional city council,
refused to believe the Americans were in Baghdad, saying the reports were
"all lies."

"It is a psychological war," said Abdelfattah. "If it is true then it is
only a military strategy, to lure the American forces into a trap."

Despite the light resistance to Monday's incursion into the city,
Abdelfattah insisted "Saddam himself will fight until the very end. ... He
will remain standing until he dies while fighting for Iraq."

Amjad Mohammad, a 23-year-old Syrian hairdresser, said he feels "very sad."

"The Americans can never stay in Baghdad," said Mohammad. "Baghdad is noble
Arab land."

Ali Oqla Orsan, head of the Arab Writers' Union, described the US incursion
as a "propaganda parade," and said he hoped the allied troops would face
"total defeat."

"They are practising terrorism against a sovereign country," said Orsan, a
Syrian.

"If the allied forces occupy Iraq, it would signal the beginning of a
liberation war against the colonialists."

In Muscat, Oman, scores of men watched the news from Baghdad with angry and
resentful faces. One shouted, "Where is your army Saddam?"

Another, not believing the television pictures, grumbled: "These Americans
are relying on false propaganda!"

In Iran, state-run Tehran Radio referred to the "beginning of the end of
Saddam's regime" in its report on the Americans in President Saddam's
palaces.

Sona Maralani, 28, said she was happy to see Saddam and Baghdad falling.

"Iraqis are now paying for invading Iran in 1980. Iranians will never forget
when Iraqis were killing our children and using chemical weapons against our
troops and people."

But Mohammad Abdolghani, 36, an Afghan worker in Iran, was not happy with
the way the war was going.

"Americans didn't do anything good in our country after toppling the
Taleban. Now, I think they will not do also anything for the Iraqi people,"
he said. "Americans are arrogant. I hope they suffer heavy casualties so
that they will not invade other countries."

In Lebanon, most citizens stayed close to their TV sets or radios to follow
the news. Many refused to believe the Americans' reports, opting for Iraqi
Information Minister Mohammad Said Al Sahhaf's version of events.

"Al Sahhaf said they were not yet in Baghdad, didn't you hear him?" said
Hisham Moniyyeh, 27, who runs a currency exchange shop in the southern port
city of Sidon. "The Americans have been lying a lot since the beginning of
this campaign so I don't believe them."

Merhej Shamma, a 39-year-old Lebanese architect, said he was shocked at how
easy it has been for the Americans to enter Baghdad. "I thought some of the
fiercest fighting was supposed to take place in Baghdad. Where are the
Republican Guards?" he asked.

Shamma said he was "disconcerted by the events" but still hoped the Iraqis
had "some surprises up their sleeves." "I hope they are preparing for a
counterattack that would turn the tables once again," he said.

Two Saudi university students echoed the same sentiments.

"The Iraqi people will resist and turn Baghdad into another Vietnam for the
Americans, a trap from which they will not emerge alive," said Saleh Al
Nuaim, 20.

His friend, Husam Al Baghdadi, 20, nodded in agreement.

"Every Arab and Muslim is upset at what they see on television," said
Baghdadi. "But, God willing, Baghdad will bring about the Americans'
destruction. It will be their end."


PROGRESS OF THE PRETEXT

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2509193

*  U.S. TROOPS FIND VIALS, IRAQI CHEMICAL ARMS MANUALS
by Luke Baker
Reuters, 4th April

NEAR BAGHDAD: U.S. troops have found thousands of boxes containing vials of
unidentified liquid and powder as well as manuals on chemical warfare at two
sites near Baghdad, a U.S. officer said Friday.

"It's unclear at this point what the vials contain and we're sending a team
of experts to examine them," Capt. Kevin Jackson told Reuters near Baghdad.

The United States and Britain invaded Iraq on March 20, accusing President
Saddam Hussein of hiding chemical and other weapons of mass destruction and
vowing to topple him. They have so far found no evidence to back their
accusations.

One plant, which was shown on U.S. military maps as including underground
storage facilities, was south of the town of Latifiya, east of the Euphrates
River and southwest of Baghdad.

The vials were about 4 1/2 inches long. Some contained liquid, some powder.
The books and manuals were in a safe, Jackson said.

Later, U.S. troops said they found a second site nearby containing vials of
unidentified liquid and white powder.

Separately, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a news briefing at U.S. Central
Command in Qatar that special forces in Iraq's western desert had found what
they believed to be a training school for handling chemical warfare.

"We know that the Iraqis have conducted chemical training," he said, adding
that initial evidence suggested that this was not a site housing weapons of
mass destruction.

Lt. Col. Vincent Quarles, of the engineers brigade of the 3rd Infantry
Division, said near Latifiya that a Sensitive Site Team was being sent to
examine the liquid and powder.

"I have to emphasize that we don't know what this is. There's something
there, but the specialists will have to determine that (what it is)."

Iraq used mustard gas against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war of
1980-88. It is also believed to have used sarin, a lethal nerve agent,
against Kurdish Iraqis in the 1980s.


http://www.haveeru.com.mv/english/

*  MARINES SHED THEIR CHEMSUITS
Haaveru Daily, Maldives, 7th April

US Marines driving on Baghdad joyously shed their chemical protection suits
for the first time Monday after being told the threat of a chemical or
biological attack was no longer considered serious.

"It's great to have them off," Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla, commander of
the 1st marines battalion, said after his troops stripped down to lighter
camouflage garb.

US military officials said an order allowing removal of the suits, which
troops said felt like heavy raincoats and thick rubber boots under a hot
sun, had come down for the 20,000 strong 1st Marine Division.

"They made an assessment and they determined there was not a serious threat
right now," Padilla said.

Brigadier General John Kelly, assistant commander of the 1st Marine
Division, said field commanders would take the final decision whether their
troops could take off the cumbersome garb.

But the order was welcome news to the marines pushing towards Baghdad from
the southeast in a bid to complete the encirclement of the capital.

The possibility a cornered Saddam Hussein might unleash his suspected
arsenal of chemical or biological weapons has haunted the US-led forces
since they launched their invasion of Iraq on March 20.

But after crossing a much-vaunted but unspecified "red line" around Baghdad
that was said to be the trigger for the use of such arms, US forces have
become increasingly confident the threat was much reduced if not eliminated.

Commentators said the Americans had driven too close to the Iraqi defenders,
who would be hesitant to throw any chemical weapons at them for fear they
may blow back in their own faces.

Kelly said the speed of the US movements also provided a margin of safety.

"In order for him (Saddam) to unleash chemical weapons, he needs to know
where you are," the general told AFP. "If you are moving, it makes it more
difficult."

The fact also remained that with US and British forces in control of a
substantial part of Iraq 19 days into their offensive, they have yet to find
any hard evidence of chemical or biological arsenals.

They have found Iraqi gas masks and chemical protection suits; they also
discovered what they believed was a training school for nuclear, chemical or
biological warfare. But they have yet to turn up a "smoking gun."

US military officials told AFP last week the threat of an Iraqi chemical or
biological attack had been greatly diminished. The 101st Airborne Division
gave its troops the green light four days ago to doff their protection
suits.

"Now that we have penetrated Baghdad's outer ring, the likelihood (of such
an attack) is negligible," said Captain Adam Mastrianni, the intelligence
officer of the division's Aviation Brigade.

US war planners had feared Saddam might launch a chemical attack when
invading troops reached three zones: the holy Shiite city of Karbala 100
kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Baghdad, the capital's outskirts and the
city interior.

But US forces have moved into all three without any chemical riposte.
Mastrianni also saw politics as a factor.

"We think that, quite frankly, even if Saddam Hussein is in control, which
is still debatable, he's paralysed by the fact he knows he will be
prosecuted over war crimes," Mastrianni said.

"If he somehow survives this, and if he doesn't use them, then he looks kind
of like the victim to the Arab world," he added.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-8apr2003-13.htm

*  SUSPECTED WMD SITE IN IRAQ TURNS OUT TO CONTAIN PESTICIDE
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 8th April

A facility near Baghdad that a US officer had said might finally be "smoking
gun" evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons production turned out to contain
pesticide, not sarin gas as feared.

A military intelligence officer for the US 101st Airborne Division's
aviation brigade, Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP news agency that
comprehensive tests determined the presence of the pesticide compounds.

Initial tests had reportedly detected traces of sarin - a powerful toxin
that quickly affects the nervous system - after US soldiers guarding the
facility near Hindiyah, 100 kilometres south of Baghdad, fell ill.

Captain Mastrianni said a "theatre-level chemical testing team" made up of
biologists and chemists had finally disproved the preliminary field tests
results and established that pesticide was the substance involved.

He said that sick soldiers, who had become nauseous, dizzy and developed
skin blotches, had all recovered.

The turnaround was an embarrassment for the US forces in the region, which
had been quick to say that they thought they had finally found the proof
they have been actively looking for that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass
destruction.

A spokesman for the US army's 3rd Infantry Division, Major Ross Coffman, had
told journalists at Baghdad's airport that the site "could be a smoking
gun".

"We are talking about finding a site of possible weapons of mass
destruction," he said.

The fact that the coalition forces have come up with no clear evidence of
WMD after capturing much of Iraq in 19 days of fighting has raised questions
over the war's justification.




_______________________________________________
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


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]