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]
News, 2/2/02-8/2/02 In US warns NATO alliesı below, George (³Lord²) Robertson is quoted as complaining about Europeıs military pygmyı status. So the pressure is on to trail after the insane military budget that Bush is proposing for the US. A degree of military spending that is alarming even some generally pro-US commentators (Robert Scheer: An orgy of defense spending; Anatole Kaletsky: Arrogance and Fear, both in the New World Order supplement). Anyone remember the chatter there was after the fall of the Berlin wall about the peace dividendı? Most notable tendency in what follows is the Israeli anxiety to deflect attention away from Iraq (which is already crushed) and on to Iran (which isnıt). Oh. And a somewhat cavalier use of the word evilı. INCITEMENT TO HATRED * Iraq's next, NATO told [Evil Paul Wolfowitz and John McCain enjoy treating their evil European allies with the contempt they deserve] * Rogue state delusions [Editorial from the evil Washington Times attacking articles by one Michael Dobbs - articles we appear to have missed - in the evil Washington Post, arguing that the threatı posed to the evil US by evil Iraq, N.Korea and Iran is very exaggerated, as it obviously is. The Washington Times argues that the US must eliminate all threats, however small, since a small threat now could be a big threat in the future. Evil Germany had better watch out!] * Allies Give Little Support on Iraq [Evil George (³Lord²) Robertson thinks that the evil US canıt take on all the evil in the world without some help from its evil allies. Well, if evil NATO proved to be redundant, what would h do for a living?] * Saddam a smokescreen for the bin Laden fiasco [This article from the Sydney Morning Herald has one short paragraph that is spot on. Here it is: Saddam, for all his faults, has acted as an effective balance for Iranian power. Having ousted him, the US would have to remain engaged in Iraq for as long as it took to rebuild a fully functioning state able to resume that role. Iraq's neighbours have always been reluctant for America to push Iraq too hard because they fear America would not stick around long enough to put Iraq back together again.ı The rest of it isnıt much worth bothering over.] * US: Iraq is a strategic threat to implementing US policy in the Middle East [A slightly more reasoned, less hysterical statement of the case for bombing Iraq than weıre used to. Also incidentally a tribute to the courage, determination and political skill of the present Iraqi leadership.] * US warns Nato allies they may be sidelined [The best defence is a good offenseı, says Paul Wolfowitz. Which is a justification for S.Husseinıs invasion of Iran, if not of Kuwait; the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour; Hitlerıs invasion of Poland. Do these people ever think what theyıre saying?] * U.S. unlikely to launch war on Iraq, Iran [Some surprisingly sensible remarks from former CIA director, Robert Gates: for example, this: "My own view is that so far the U.S. has not really advanced in combating the roots of terrorism ...Hopelessness and despair are two major sources of terrorism" (I bet they hated him).] * CIA has its own view of Iraq [which is that Iraq isnıt, and hasnıt been for some time, engaged in the business of terrorism. Terrorism against evil Iran, of course, doesnıt count] * Iran poses greater threat than Iraq, Israelis warn [Israeli leadership perhaps wondering if its friends in the US havenıt been pointing the guns in the wrong direction] * Sharon and Bush to meet on moves against Iraq [Short extract revealing existence of joint Israeli/US exercises against the eventuality of a war with Iraq] * 'Evil Axis' Tests Relationship [Mainly about the probability of a US attack against on Iraq. Felgenhauer, who writes as one who knows, thinks it likely, but not before the Autumn; and he thinks Russia should get in on the act.] * Ben-Eliezer: We'll strike back if Saddam attacks us [Another good reason for the US to hesitate about attacking Iraq. The article is quite interesting on general US/Israel military relations.] * Iraq Kurds unconvinced U.S. has Saddam alternative [Tough talking from Barzani and Talebani who arenıt jumping at the chance to play Northern Alliance to Iraqıs Taliban. And in wanting to know what the alternative might be to Saddam Hussein they make one thing plain. They donıt think it is Ahmad Chalabani.] URLs ONLY: http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/05/opinion/opinion2.html * Rousing the troops to another strike for freedom Sydney Morning Herald, 5th February This dull article, proposing that evil Australia should join the evil US in a war that will almost certainly extend beyond Christmas - this year's, next year's and more besidesı is notable for the surprise appearance of evil Newt Gingrich, who, however, doesnıt say anything you wouldnıt expect him to say.ı http://www.iht.com/articles/47204.html * Remove Saddam? The Chore Would Have to Be Well Done by David M. Malone International Herald Tribune, 7th February The writer, on leave from the Canadian Foreign Service, is president of the International Peace Academy in New York. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.ı but the article could have been written by any hack journalist on an off day. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/08/iraq-main.htm * Officials: Afghan-style war might not work on Iraq by Jassim Mohammed USA Today, 8th February Not very interesting musings as to what Iraq might or might not be capable of in the event of a warı. AND, IN NEWS, 2/2/02-8/2/02 (2) IRAQI/MIDDLE EAST-ARAB WORLD RELATIONS * Syria denies British smuggling accusations [This article suggests, curiously, that evil Syriaıs membership of the Sanctions Committee (as a member, or rather observer, of the UN Security Council) renders it diplomatically immune from the charge evil Britain is levelling against it of smuggling Iraqi oil. When asked why he was challenging Syria and not evil Turkey, Middle East expert, Carne Rosseı replied feebly that the oil travelling to Turkey by road has dropped in recent yearsı. Has it? It declined very recently because the Iraqis stopped sending it to put pressure on Turkey. Is that what evil Carne is thinking about?] * Turkey to warn Iraq it faces threat of war, paper reports * Iraqi Labor Union Sec-Gen calls on Majlis [Iranian Parliament] deputies * Prince says Saudi would help oust Saddam [This isnıt as bad as it appears. The old torturer, Prince Turki al-Faisal, opposes a Gulf War style invasion and argues for a covert operation to instal a new Iraqi leader, of the type that has failed consistently over the past ten years. On Saudi money going to terrorism he has the temerity to remind an American audience of US money going to the IRA. What British politician would ever dare to say such a thing?] * Iraq, Tunis discuss relations * Iraq accuses Turkey of air intrusion over northern Iraq [the article calls this the first-ever report on alleged air intrusions from the neighbouring countryı. Really?] * Cheney to Visit Mideast, Iraq Neighbours in March * Iraqi president warns Turkey IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS * Italian parliamentarian confers with Iraqi minister * Russian companies to restore bombed Iraqi power station * Coddling Iraq a $40Bln Gamble {On the interest evil Russia has in ending sanctions on evil Iraq] * Iraqi oil exports to US surged in 2001 * New Zealanders Allowed to Send Humanitarian Goods Parcels to Iraq [We had another version of this last week, but since its the only piece of good news weıve had, or are likely to have, for many years we might as well have it again] * EU wants sanctions on Iraq modified * Government Says It Owes Iraq Only US $5.8m [Continuing story of Ugandan governmentıs debt to Iraq] INSIDE IRAQ * Iraq says sanctions kill 15,000 in December [The figures are of total numbers who died from particular illnesses without any attempt to calculate what could be attributed to sanctions] IRAQI/UN RELATIONS * Will Pressure Force Iraq to Admit U.N. Inspectors? * Iraq ready for dialogue with UN, says Arab League * Powell 'rejects' Iraq talks * Solution near for disputed Iraqi oil cargo MILITARY MATTERS * Four Iraqis Killed in U.S., British Air Strikes * SAS 'left soldiers to die in Iraq' [But if British soldiers arenıt willing to die on the ground, what can they do that the US canıt do for itself?] IRAQIS OUTSIDE IRAQ * Iraqi native pleads guilty to obtaining fraudulent license * Suicidal and angry: Iraqis suffer in PNG detention camp [More Australian unpleasantness towards refugees who are fleeing the consequences of the sanctions imposed by Australia, among others, on Iraq] * Man Admits Selling Papers to Iraqis AND, IN OUR SPECIAL NEW WORLD ORDERı SUPPLEMENT * An Orgy of Defense Spending: Bush's 'axis of evil' rhetoric fabricates a need [A splendid article from the Los Angeles Times, summed up in the title and in this sentence: His astonishing budget makes sense only if we are planning to use our mighty military in a pseudo-religious quest to create a super-dominant Pax Americana..ı] * 'Once It's Quiet, We Can Reach a State of Nonbelligerency' [An interview between evil William Safire and evil Ariel Sharon. The article is mostly about the need to topple evil Yasser Arafat and install a puppet Palestinian regime, but this extract looks at Sharonıs anxieties over evil Iran] * Was the Clinton Administration Soft on Terror? [Short extract from interview with evil Madeleine Albright. Less punchy than she was last week.] * Grateful Powell hails Australia's war role [Powell pats Australia on the head. And if its VERY good, he might even give it a bone.] * Power, counter-power, Part 2: The fractal war [Pepe Escobar again, writing in the Asia Times. Who is he? The article doesnıt have a lot to say about Iraq but its good stuff. This is the sort of writing we need. It is prophetic. It says that the future can be seen in in Sao Paolo. And incidentally makes the interesting point that we havenıt seen any photos of the wonderful hi-tech, surely very photogenic caves there are supposed to be in Tora Bora.] * Arrogance and fear: an American paradox [An intelligent analysis from a pro-American viewpoint. Kaletsky thinks the US should be basking in complacent self congratulation not working itself up into a state of paranoid, mouth-frothing terror: By identifying America primarily as a military power, by asserting that it will pursue its perceived national interests regardless of international laws, coalitions or treaties, by emphasising its unchallengeable superiority over every other nation and global institution, by claiming an unconditional moral hegemony over any adversary he cares to identify, and by acting so blatantly in the interests of the US business establishment, Mr Bush is weakening America and playing into the hands of its opponents.ı] * Missile Conference Opens in Paris [France proposing an international treaty to limit the proliferation of ballistic missiles.] * Moscow revitalizes its old priorities in Asia [The other side of Moscowıs apparent support for the International Coalition against Terrorismı] * Peremptory tendencies: France fires a warning shot at the US * Chavez says he's democrat not communist [This is supposed to be Chavez` backing down under pressure from Powell. But he hasnıt backed down all the way: Noting that his visit to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 2000 had "irritated some people in the world," Chavez said: "What do we care? Let them get irritated. ... We are defending the sacred interests of the Venezuelan people."ı] * The quest for balance in Eurasia [Asia Times again, this time in pro-American mode. But a cool, rational - ie non American - geopolitical approach all the same. Only extracts given here.] * Eurasia: An axis of uncertainty [from part two of the same] URL ONLY: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36140-2002Feb6.html * Questions About the Colossus by Jim Hoagland Washington, 7th February Evil Jim Hoagland in awe of evil Bushıs proposed military budget. INCITEMENT TO HATRED http://www.newsobserver.com/sunday/front/Story/907808p-905902c.html * IRAQ'S NEXT, NATO TOLD by Daniel Rubin News Observer, 2nd February MUNICH, GERMANY - U.S. officials called on NATO members Saturday to transform their military union into a terrorism-fighting alliance and consider Iraq their first target. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., urged allies to join in an effort against Iraq, but they said the United States would go it alone if necessary. "The next front is apparent, and we should not shrink from acknowledging it," McCain told 400 invitation-only attendees at the 38th Munich Conference on Security Policy. "A terrorist resides in Baghdad," McCain continued, "with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of falsifying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. A day of reckoning is approaching." Many in the audience were taken aback by the pugnacious Americans. "Action versus Iraq, it seems to me, would require incontrovertible evidence in order to justify, and I speak as a member of parliament of a country willing to put boots on the ground," said Menzies Campbell, a member of the British House of Commons. But Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., agreed whole-heartedly with his Senate colleague. "There is more than enough evidence to lead us to reach a conclusion that Iraq under Saddam constitutes a clear and present danger. As the president said the other night, in this regard, time is not on our side." But if Iraq were attacked, Campbell asked, what would happen to the Middle East, and how would Israel respond? Would Washington move against Iraq without support from Europe, Egypt and Russia, "and would it matter?" he wanted to know. Some European speakers bristled at the senators' hawkishness, and warned that the U.S. was courting trouble if it did not consult its allies in the war on terror. "There has to be a more multilateral approach in U.S. policy," Gert Weisskirchen, a member of the German parliament, said. "It cannot be that you decide on your own, and we trot along after you." Wolfowitz, filling in for his boss, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was soft spoken but blunt when he cautioned that the war against terrorism was not over. "What happened on Sept. 11, as terrible as it was, is but a pale shadow of what will happen if terrorists use weapons of mass destruction. Our approach has to aim at prevention and not merely punishment. We are at war." But in comments to reporters, Wolfowitz said that there is no plan to attack Iraq and that the tough talk is the beginning of a dialogue between the United States and its allies, not a call to battle. [.....] But Wolfowitz said NATO does not need to be involved everywhere the United States is involved, and he cited the latest U.S. military efforts to root terrorists from the Philippines. "At the end of the day, we don't need NATO in the Philippines," Wolfowitz said. "... We didn't need everyone in Afghanistan." McCain issued a sharp reply to a German lawmaker who asked why NATO did not carry more weight: "Perhaps you ought to look at how much money you are spending on defense," he said. Bush has recommended increasing U.S military spending by $48 billion next year. The increase alone is one-third more than the total defense budget of Great Britain, the second largest military spender in NATO after the United States. The New York Times contributed to this report. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020203-94951048.htm * ROGUE STATE DELUSIONS Washington Times (Editorial), 3rd February In Tuesday's State of the Union address, President Bush singled out Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being part of an "axis of evil." By pointedly using the word "axis," the formal term used to describe the World War II alliance among Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany, Mr. Bush was suggesting that the present regimes in Tehran, Baghdad and Pyongyang were brutal dictatorships intent on using violence against anyone who opposed their expansionist policies. Together with "their terrorist allies," Mr. Bush added, these regimes are arming in order to "threaten the peace of the world." During the 1990s, the Clinton administration, under pressure from a bipartisan coalition in Congress, adopted the term "rogue states" to describe these governments. Shortly before Mr. Bush's address, however, Michael Dobbs of The Washington Post wrote a number of articles apparently aimed at delegitimizing the notion that Iran, Iraq et al. ever constituted a serious national security threat to the United States and its allies. In fact, Mr. Dobbs seems to believe that this terminology emanated from a "vast right-wing conspiracy," as Hillary Rodham Clinton would phrase it. Predictably, Mr. Dobbs' vast right-wing conspiracy involved the CIA, whose analysts, he argues, ignored all evidence to the contrary when they changed their assessments of America's vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction delivered by ballistic missiles launched from "rogue states." (When referring to Iran and North Korea, two of the most despicable regimes on earth, Mr. Dobbs places quotation marks around the words "rogue states" wink, wink.) Donald Rumsfeld, who chaired a bipartisan commission that unanimously concluded in 1998 that America would be vulnerable to ballistic-missile attack by a rogue state much sooner than the Clinton administration had projected in 1995, was obviously a major force in the conspiracy. And, of course, the "Republican-dominated Congress" of the late 1990s played an indispensable role. Making the conspiracy especially right-wing, Mr. Dobbs includes the Likud-dominated government of Israel, led by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had expressed concern that the Iranian mullahs were attempting to develop a ballistic missile that could hit Tel Aviv. According to Mr. Dobbs, the American conspirators, aided by Israel's conservative government, engaged in "a concerted campaign" that greatly exaggerated "the leakage" of nuclear technology from Russia to Iran because "[c]ongressional Republicans wanted to build public support for a national missile defense system." To demonstrate the obvious paranoia of the conspirators, Mr. Dobbs quotes at considerable length Vadim Vorobei, one of the very Russian scientists who were accused by the U.S. government of egregiously violating Russia's commitment not to share nuclear technology with Iran. Not surprisingly, Mr. Vorobei insisted that American fears were exaggerated and that Iran's ballistic-missile program was in fact "a huge mess." (Even if true, the "mess" was certainly not for lack of effort on Iran's part.) In any event, Mr. Vorobei's self-serving dismissals seemed to settle the matter for Mr. Dobbs. Mr. Dobbs also cites Joseph Cirincione, a former longtime Democratic congressional staffer who accused Republicans of mounting "a conscious political strategy" to attack the Clinton administration's 1995 intelligence assessment. Mr. Cirincione laments that it was the Republicans who have politicized the intelligence process. It is a conclusion that is at the heart of Mr. Dobbs' thesis. Yet, even Mr. Dobbs reports that it was the Clinton administration that "leaked details of the still-secret [1995 national intelligence estimate] to congressional Democrats, who used it to argue the case against missile defense." So, which party politicized the intelligence process? Clearly, Mr. Cirincione's lamentation is self serving. Over two days, Mr. Dobbs used 8,000 words to describe what he obviously believes to be an ill-advised and misguided Republican-Likud conspiracy to reverse U.S. policy in favor of deploying both theater and national missile defense systems at the earliest moment. Implicit in his argument is the belief that the 1995 intelligence estimate was far more accurate than more recent ones. Specifically, the 1995 estimate asserted that "no country, other than the major declared nuclear powers, will develop or otherwise acquire a ballistic missile in the next 15 years that could threaten the contiguous 48 states and Canada." As Mr. Dobbs knows as well as anyone, his past tenure as a foreign correspondent in the Soviet Union confirmed that the ash bin of history is filled with national intelligence estimates that proved to be totally in error. For years, the CIA severely underestimated the military's share of the Soviet Union's GNP and grossly overestimated the Soviets' level of consumption. It's also worth recalling that the group of independent, nongovernment experts commissioned by then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush in 1976 and known as Team B delivered a report on the projected growth of Soviet nuclear forces that proved to be far more worrisome and accurate than the CIA's estimate. Anyone who traversed Checkpoint Charlie to spend time in East Berlin a few years before the Berlin Wall collapsed knows how utterly absurd was the CIA's estimate in the mid-1980s that the East German standard of living exceeded West Germany's. In the Middle East, intelligence estimates have also been colossally wrong. The CIA did not know of the Shah of Iran's seven-year battle with cancer, much less his imminent political mortality. Immediately preceding the Persian Gulf War, U.S. intelligence drastically underestimated how close Iraq was to developing an atomic bomb. When dealing with threats that can destroy the American homeland, U.S. policy-makers must always be proactive, preparing for the credible worst-case scenario. Even Mr. Dobbs concedes that the prospect of a "rogue state" acquiring long-range missiles is "the nightmare scenario underpinning President Bush's decision to push ahead with the deployment of a national missile defense system." How credible is such a scenario? Well, in the final analysis, what difference does it make whether it will be 15 years or five years before rogue states will have the capacity to launch ballistic missiles to deliver weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear) throughout America? Given the known intelligence failures of the past, prudence requires the United States to err on the side of caution. In his superb essay in the Weekly Standard last year "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto and the New American Unilateralism" Charles Krauthammer offered an analogy that leaves no question regarding what the U.S. response today must be to "the inevitable proliferation of missiles into the hands of heretofore insignificant enemies." It deserves to be quoted at length: "Missile technology is to the 21st century what air power was to the 20th. In 1901, there was not an airplane in the world. Most people did not think a heavier-than-air machine could in theory ever fly. Yet 38 years later, the world experienced the greatest war in history, whose outcome was crucially affected by air power and air defenses in a bewildering proliferation of new technologies: bombers, fighters, transports, gliders, carriers, radar. It is inconceivable that 38 years from now we will not be living in a world where missile technology is equally routine, and thus routinely in the hands of bad guys. It is therefore inexplicable why the United States should not use its unique technology to build the necessary defense against the next inevitable threat." If Mr. Dobbs' self-serving Russian scientist and, no doubt, Mr. Dobbs himself thinks Iran's missile program is "a huge mess," how messy does Mr. Dobbs believe the consequences for the United States will be when ballistic-missile technology becomes as commonplace in the future as airplanes were half a century ago? http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-exec/2002/feb/04/020408854.html * ALLIES GIVE LITTLE SUPPORT ON IRAQ Las Vegas Sun, 4th February [.....] Even NATO would not automatically support U.S. efforts to expand the war on terror to Iraq, Iran or North Korea, Secretary-General Lord Robertson said last week. And Germany's deputy foreign minister, Ludger Volmer, said flatly Monday: "There is no indication, no evidence that Iraq is involved in the terrorism we have been talking about for the last few months." The United States insists it can go it alone, if necessary. Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell both say Bush would consider using any aspect of U.S. power - political, diplomatic, economic or military - against countries that support terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction. But Robertson said the U.S.-led fight in Afghanistan, strongly supported worldwide, has shown that no modern military operation can be undertaken by a single country. "Even superpowers need allies and coalitions to provide bases, fuel, airspace and forces," he said. http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/04/opinion/opinion2.html * SADDAM A SMOKESCREEN FOR THE BIN LADEN FIASCO by Hugh White Sydney Morning Herald, 4th February There are two very good reasons why George Bush will not go after Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The first is the likelihood that he wouldn't succeed. The second is the consequences if he did. His State of the Union address certainly left the impression that Bush intends to undertake a major and sustained military campaign against Iraq, to finish the job left unfinished by his father a decade ago. And there is no doubt that if he had a viable military option to remove Saddam, he would have the overwhelming support of the American people in exercising it. But I do not think the United States has an effective military option against Iraq. And even more importantly, I do not think the US would be willing to pay the political and strategic costs of success because a US victory would leave the Gulf to be dominated by Iran. Let's look at the military options first. Any major campaign against Iraq could have only one objective - the removal of Saddam. For Bush to launch an all-out US assault against Iraq and not succeed in removing his father's old adversary would be a huge humiliation for the US and a political disaster for him. Could Bush depose Saddam through air strikes? The lessons of Kosovo in 1999 and Afghanistan in 2001 suggest that he could. In both cases, relatively short and casualty-free bombing campaigns led directly to America's adversaries being deposed. Is Iraq a second Serbia or another Afghanistan? I think neither. Slobodan Milosevic gave in over Kosovo because he feared that if he didn't the people of Serbia would throw him out, as they did anyway. There is no reason to think it would work like that in Iraq. Saddam does not govern with the consent of the Iraqi people but with the most effective internal security system in the world. American bombs would have little impact on that. In Afghanistan, US air strikes brought down the Taliban by encouraging powerful Taliban allies to desert - at least temporarily - to the other side. But unlike the Taliban, Saddam relies on no allies who might desert him under the pressure of US strikes. So removing Saddam would require what Kosovo and Afghanistan did not: a protracted and sustained land campaign - or rather, a co-ordinated land and air campaign. It would work like this: the US would assemble major land forces (on a Desert Storm scale) on Iraq's borders to force Saddam to concentrate his still formidable army to meet the threat. Brought together like that, Iraq's forces would be highly vulnerable to the kind of air campaign that destroyed them in Kuwait in 1991. And because, like all generals, the Pentagon has spent the past 10 years planning to fight the last war again, the US is even better prepared to wage such a campaign now than it was then. Having destroyed Iraq's army from the air, the way would be open for US tanks to drive to Baghdad. So what is the problem? First, this kind of land campaign needs major help from Iraq's neighbours and there is doubt they would offer it. Saudi Arabia would probably not allow its territory to host another troop build-up like Desert Storm in 1991. Kuwait is hardly big enough to hold the huge forces needed, let alone allow them room to manoeuvre. But let's suppose Turkey agrees to host a huge build-up of US forces - perhaps with a few allies such as Australia and Britain in coalition. Saddam assembles his land forces to respond and sees them routed from the air. US forces roll into Baghdad and capture or kill Saddam. Then what? Then Bush is back facing the same question that faced George Bush snr, and his colleagues Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, in 1991. Do you stay in Iraq indefinitely or do you leave and allow the Gulf to be dominated by Iran? That would hardly do much for America's interests, or for its allies. Saddam, for all his faults, has acted as an effective balance for Iranian power. Having ousted him, the US would have to remain engaged in Iraq for as long as it took to rebuild a fully functioning state able to resume that role. Iraq's neighbours have always been reluctant for America to push Iraq too hard because they fear America would not stick around long enough to put Iraq back together again. I do not blame them. The costs to the US - economically, politically and militarily - of a sustained occupation of Iraq could be very great. It would be isolated internationally, with little support in the UN; it would inflame Islamic and Arab anti-American sentiment even further; it would bring US-Iranian relations to the brink, with their armed forces in direct contact; and it would embroil the US in insoluble problems such as the Kurdish issue. And it may drag on for decades. For all these reasons I think Cheney and Powell, who are strategic policymakers of great experience and therefore of great caution, will be advising Bush, as they advised his father, to stay out of Iraq. So why did Bush make so much of Iraq in his State of the Union address? Well, in politics, what you do not say is as important as what you do say. The big question about Bush's address, and the big question in the whole war on terrorism, is simply this: where is Osama bin Laden? Hugh White is the director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and a former deputy secretary for strategy in the Department of Defence. These are his personal views. http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020204/2002020433.html * US: IRAQ IS A STRATEGIC THREAT TO IMPLEMENTING US POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST Arabic News, 4th February Following are excerpts from a speech deliverede on last February by US Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency on how the USA views Iraq. Admiral Wilson said that Iraq threatens the very foundation of US policy in the Middle East. This clearly makes Iraq a very strategic target of US foreign policy. Wilson said there "An increased chance that Iraq will be successful in gaining widespread support for lifting UN sanctions ... a development that would likely strain our relations with regional and European allies, allow Iraq to rearm more rapidly, and ultimately, threaten the foundation of our Middle Eastern policy." Wilson added "The potential development/acquisition of intercontinental missiles by several states of concern -- especially North Korea, Iran, and Iraq -- could fundamentally alter the strategic threat." Wilson added "So long as Saddam or someone of his ilk remains in power, Iraq will remain challenging and contentious. Saddam's goals remain to reassert sovereignty over all of Iraq, end Baghdad's international isolation, and, eventually, have Iraq reemerge as the dominant regional power. For the time being, however, his options are constrained. Years of UN sanctions, embargoes, and inspections, combined with US and Coalition military actions, have significantly degraded Iraq's military capabilities. Manpower and materiel resource shortages, a problematic logistics system, and a relative inability to execute combined arms operations, remain major shortcomings. These are aggravated by intensive regime security requirements." Wilson added Nevertheless, Iraq's ground forces continue to be one of the most formidable within the region. They are able to protect the regime effectively, deploy rapidly, and threaten Iraq's neighbors absent any external constraints." Wilson added "Iraq's air and air defense forces retain only a marginal capability to protect Iraqi air space and project air power outside Iraq's borders. Although the threat to Coalition Forces is limited, continued Iraqi confrontational actions underscore the regime's determination to stay the course. Iraq has probably been able to retain a residual level of WMD and missile capabilities. The lack of intrusive inspection and disarmament mechanisms permits Baghdad to enhance these capabilities." Wilson added "Iraq probably retains limited numbers of SCUD-variant missiles, launchers, and warheads capable of delivering biological and chemical agents." Wilson added "Baghdad continues work on short-range (150 km) liquid and solid propellant missiles allowed by UNSCR 687 and can use this expertise for future long range missile development. Iraq may also have begun to reconstitute chemical and biological weapons programs." Wilson added "Absent decisive regime change, Iraq will continue to pose complex political and military challenges to Coalition interests well into the future. Saddam has been increasingly effective during the past year at circumventing sanctions and exploiting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to garner sympathy for Iraq's plight by linking the Iraqi and Palestinian causes. Should sanctions be formally removed, or become de facto ineffective, Iraq will move quickly to expand its WMD and missile capabilities, develop a more capable strategic air defense system, and improve other conventional force capabilities. Under this scenario, Baghdad could, by 2015, acquire a large inventory of WMD -- including hundreds of theater ballistic and cruise missiles -- expand its inventory of modern aircraft, and double its fleet of armored vehicles. While this force would be large and potent by regional standards, its prospects for success against a western opponent would depend ultimately on how successful Baghdad was in overcoming chronic weaknesses in military leadership, reconnaissance and intelligence, morale, readiness, logistics, and training." Wilson added "Iraq, could field ICBMs with WMD, presenting a new strategic threat that we've not faced before." In past years, US officials have stated that Iraq will "never" see the sanctions imposed on it lifted. http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/04/int2.htm * US WARNS NATO ALLIES THEY MAY BE SIDELINED Dawn (from Reuter's), 4th February MUNICH, Feb 3: Washington stoked speculation about the next stage of the war against terrorism on Saturday amid warnings that Europe could be sidelined unless it closed a military capability gap with the United States. US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a security conference in the German city of Munich that the 19-nation Nato alliance needed a revamp to face the new challenges thrown up by the suicide hijack attacks of September 11. But he stressed that future missions in the war on terrorism would need "flexible coalitions" and not one single alliance. Former US Secretary of Defense William Cohen went further, saying Washington would feel less compelled to consult its Nato allies the more they slipped behind in military capability. "We have to narrow the gap and we have to do it as quickly as possible," he told the meeting of defence chiefs and experts from 43 nations in a message echoed by many delegates. Alarm over what Nato Secretary-General George Robertson recently dubbed Europe's "military pygmy" status was underlined on Saturday as senior US officials said US President George W. Bush would press Congress on Monday to raise defence spending by 120 billion over the next five years. The annual strategic brainstorming in the Bavarian capital was held under strict security, with police and water cannon trucks barring streets several blocks away from the elegant Bayerischer Hof hotel which is hosting the two-day meeting. More than 4,000 anti-war protesters tried to gather in a central square despite a ban by the city on demonstrations. They were driven back by a slowly advancing line of police, and when some 800 tried to return later, police detained 160 people. Police said they had arrested 45 demonstrators who tried to enter Munich to join the ad-hoc protests. Back at the conference, Wolfowitz argued that Sept 11 was a pale shadow of what would happen if terrorists used weapons of mass destruction. He said it was much better to preempt attacks than just react to them. "The best defence is a good offence," he said. "Those countries that choose to tolerate terrorism and refuse to take action - or worse, those that continue to support it - will face consequences," he said, without elaborating. Wolfowitz did not single out any nation, but referred to this week's State of the Union address in which President George W. Bush described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" that had sought weapons of mass destruction. Analysts say hawkish US policymakers, notably Wolfowitz, want to exploit the political momentum generated at home by outrage over September 11 to strike a blow against Baghdad. Asked later if he was concerned Washington's European partners would not back a new war, Wolfowitz responded: "We've made no decisions about where we're going in the specific but the President has made clear where the problems are." http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=40232 * U.S. UNLIKELY TO LAUNCH WAR ON IRAQ, IRAN by Dahi Hassan Gulf News, 6th February Dubai : Dr Robert Gates, former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), said yesterday he doubted the Bush Administration would launch a war against Iraq, Iran or North Korea, the three countries described by U.S. President George W. Bush as "axis of evil." "I do not think that the U.S. is prepared to launch a war against any of these three countries. I think that President Bush was just trying to get the attention of these countries when he described them as an 'axis of evil'," Gates told Gulf News here yesterday. Dr Gates said that the Bush Administration is divided even against targeting Iraqi President Saddam Hussain in the next stage of the war against terrorism. "The next phase of war against terrorism is already under way, as terrorists are being targeted now in the Philippines and other parts of the world," said Gates. He expressed his scepticism that Saddam had any direct links with the September 11 attacks against New York and Washington. "If anyone had any evidence or information that Saddam Hussain was involved in the attacks, he would have leaked it to the media," said Gates. Gates said that terrorism has become the major problem jeopardising world security and stability. He stressed the importance of collaboration among countries worldwide to fight terrorism. "No single country can alone deal with terrorists. The only way to arrest terrorists is to collaborate locally, regionally and globally. We need an entire collaboration, not only between intelligence agencies, but with police," said Gates, adding that criminal groups are spreading all over the world, including the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East. He said that criminal groups have succeeded in obtaining weapons of mass destruction and the most sophisticated means to implement their strategies and achieve their targets. "The Internet has become an essential part of their everyday life," he said, adding that the most significant outcome of the September 11 attacks was the realisation of the importance of cooperation between countries, establishments and individuals in fighting terrorism all over the world. Asked whether the U.S. had succeeded in combating the roots of terrorism, Gates said: "My own view is that so far the U.S. has not really advanced in combating the roots of terrorism." He believed that a strategy to deal with the factors causing terrorism should be worked out by the world community. "Hopelessness and despair are two major sources of terrorism," said Gates. Gates believed that the U.S. should immediately set up a funding bank in the occupied territories to provide jobs for the Palestinians and spare them attempts to seek jobs in Israel. "We could do that tomorrow," he said. Asked about the U.S. bias towards Israel which was obvious in that the U.S. avoided criticising Israel over developing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, Gates blamed some governments in the Middle East for "failing" to give a true picture of the cooperation between the U.S. and their countries. "It seems that some countries in the Middle East have found it more appropriate to tell their people that the U.S. was supporting Israel rather than the Arab countries," he said. He cited the examples of U.S. support for Muslims in the Balkans, working to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict, and mediating between India and Pakistan to avoid war between the two countries. Gates believed that the September 11 attacks against the U.S. would leave their impact on the relations between the U.S., on the one hand, and Arab and Muslim countries, on the other. "However, we in the intelligence field have two types of information: secrets and mysteries. I see that the relations between the U.S. and the Arab and Muslim nations following the September 11 attacks will be a mystery," said Gates. Gates was taking part in a seminar on New Challenges in IT Intelligence and Law Enforcement, organised by Datamatix in Dubai yesterday. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/06/MN5551.DTL * CIA HAS ITS OWN VIEW OF IRAQ by James Risen San Francisco Chronicle (from New York Times). 6th February Washington -- The CIA has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several U.S. intelligence officials. The officials said they believe that the last terrorist operation tried by Iraq against the United States was the assassination attempt against former President George Bush during his visit to Kuwait in 1993. That plot was disrupted before it could be carried out. U.S. intelligence officials believe that Hussein has been reluctant to use terrorism again for fear of being detected. George Tenet, the CIA director, is to testify today before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to review the global threats facing the United States. During his appearance, his first before Congress since Sept. 11, Tenet is likely to be asked about a wide range of terrorism-related issues, including Iraq. Since Sept. 11, there has been widespread speculation about possible Iraqi links to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, based largely on reports of a meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the hijacking teams, and an Iraqi intelligence officer. The reports about that meeting have been the subject of intense analysis and debate within the U.S. intelligence community, and some officials even questioned whether the meeting took place at all. Now senior U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, did take place. But they say they do not believe that provides enough evidence to tie Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. U.S. intelligence officials say they do not know what was discussed at the meeting. But some experts on Iraq say that even if Iraq were somehow involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Hussein would never have entrusted such a sensitive matter to a midlevel officer like Ani. U.S. officials say Iraqi intelligence now focuses most of its resources on finding ways to evade trade and economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iraq since the Gulf War in 1991. The officials say that their greatest concern now is Iraq's continuing development of chemical and biological weapons, covert programs that have resumed since U.N. weapons inspectors left in 1998. Hussein apparently believes that such weapons will help his regime deter any military attack by the United States and its allies. A CIA report released last week noted that Iraq is probably continuing low- level nuclear weapons research as well and that its inability to obtain enough fissile material is the biggest obstacle to becoming a nuclear power. The major threat to the United States from Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction would come instead from Baghdad's parallel efforts to develop long-range missiles, which could be tipped with chemical or biological warheads, the CIA believes. In his State of the Union address last week, Bush described Iraq as part of an "axis of evil," which includes Iran and North Korea, that the United States must confront in order to maintain global stability. Some signs have emerged in recent years that Hussein might consider terrorism as a tool against the United States in the long-running duel over the inspection of suspected chemical and biological weapons sites. In 1998, U. S. and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies discovered that Abu Nidal, the Palestinian who had been one of the most feared terrorists of the 1970s and early '80s, had moved to Baghdad. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/1244428 * Iran poses greater threat than Iraq, Israelis warn Houston Chronicle, 6th February WASHINGTON -- As Prime Minister Ariel Sharon arrives today for a White House visit, Israeli officials are redoubling efforts to warn the Bush administration that Iran poses a greater threat than the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. A series of Israeli leaders have carried that message to Washington in recent months in hope of influencing an American debate that has centered not on Iran but on whether to pursue the overthrow of the Iraqi government. Sharon's visit, however, comes a week after President Bush focused attention on Iran by including it in his State of the Union address as member of the "axis of evil" with Iraq and North Korea. Israel charges that Iran is arming the Palestinians and Hezbollah, the Shiite Muslim militia in Lebanon, to further destabilize a region rocked by more than 16 months of bloodshed. In New York on Monday, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres echoed Bush's State of the Union assertion that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction. Iran denied the charges and countered with an unusually strong warning that any military attack by Israel would be met with "a response that will be unimaginable to any Israeli politician." During meetings here Wednesday, including with Vice President Dick Cheney, Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer warned of the hazards posed by Iranian support for terrorist groups and development of advanced weapons. "Today, everybody is busy with Iraq," Ben-Eliezer said in an interview. "Iraq is a problem. ... But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq." He pointed to Iran's role in the scheme to smuggle 50 tons of weapons into Palestinian hands. U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials have concluded that Iran provided the weapons and worked with Hezbollah to transport them by sea to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's administration. The ship was intercepted by Israeli commandos in the Red Sea a month ago. Ben-Eliezer stressed his concerns about Iran's pursuit of missiles capable of striking Israel with chemical and biological weapons. He added that Iran is on schedule to develop a nuclear bomb by 2005. When Sharon meets Bush and other U.S. officials, he plans to sound the alarm about Tehran's ambitions in Lebanon, according to Israeli officials. Israel has accused Iran of dispatching Iranian Revolutionary Guards to foment anti-Israel activity in Lebanon and providing thousands of missiles to Hezbollah. Iranian and Lebanese leaders have denied these charges. Though Israeli officials have few kind words for Saddam, they see him posing less of a direct threat than Iran after more than a decade of U.N. sanctions and international isolation. At the same time, these officials are apprehensive about the price they might pay if the United States seeks to overthrow Saddam and he retaliates by striking Israel with chemical or biological weapons. "I think we are going to be one of the first targets," Ben-Eliezar said. He said Israeli officials were raising these concerns with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration, discussing what steps could be taken to ensure Israeli security in case of a U.S. military thrust against Iraq. Some Middle East analysts have said the United States might have to dispatch troops to western Iraq to hunt down scud missiles, like those Baghdad fired at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. Since the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation began in September 2000, Israel has feared a second front: on its northern border with Lebanon. The neighboring nation is supported by Iran, which doesn't recognize the Jewish state. The Israeli government was unsettled by a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, when the Bush administration sought Iran's help in the war against Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network and its hosts, the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. The United States and Iran broke off relations in 1979 after Islamic militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days. http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=144822002 * SHARON AND BUSH TO MEET ON MOVES AGAINST IRAQ by Ben Lynfield in Jerusalem The Scotsman, 6th February [.....] Last month, hundreds of US soldiers trained in Israel with Israeli counterparts on how to combat Iraqi surface to surface missiles which would likely be fired towards Israel in the event of US military action, Haıaretz reported yesterday. It said the exercises focused on interface between Israelıs Arrow missile defence system and the US-made Patriot missiles in simulations of Iraqi SCUD missile attacks like those carried out against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. [.....] http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/02/07/009.html * 'EVIL AXIS' TESTS RELATIONSHIP by Pavel Felgenhauer Moscow Times, 7th February It seems U.S.-Russian relations are primed for another confrontation: The United States appears ready to begin an offensive to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, while Moscow is insisting such actions are inappropriate. In his recent State of the Union address, U.S. President George W. Bush declared that North Korea, Iran and Iraq "constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." This rhetoric has set alarm bells ringing all over Moscow. After Sept. 11, hundreds of tactical U.S. attack jets and fighters were sent to the Persian Gulf and bases in Turkey close to the Iraqi border. Almost none of these jets were engaged in Afghanistan, where combat missions were carried out by long-range strategic bombers and by carrier attack planes. The air war in Afghanistan is virtually over; still the aircraft sent to Kuwait and Turkey have not been withdrawn to their peacetime bases. Russia's military, impressed by the effective combined operations of the U.S. air force and special units in Afghanistan, now believes the highly concentration of U.S. air power in the Gulf may be sent into action any day. It's always very hot in the Gulf in the summer, with temperatures over 40 degrees. Warfare from May to September in this region is considered too risky. The heat can cause equipment failures in combat and European or North American soldiers can lose battle readiness due to fatigue. The attack on Iraq to topple Saddam should begin sometime very soon in order to finish him off by May; otherwise it should be postponed until the fall. Informed sources in Washington say that the attack on Saddam will in fact be postponed until the fall. The U.S. air force may be fully ready to begin an effective air offensive in Iraq, but ground troops have not yet been gathered in sufficient numbers. It is reported that in Washington there are discussions on how many servicemen (and women) should be assembled to go into Iraq -- 50,000 to 100,000, or up to 500,000 as in 1991 for the liberation of Kuwait. U.S. generals were trained during the Cold War to fight regular battles, deploying large tank and infantry formations. However, the deserts of Iraq are ideally suited to "Israeli-style" deep-penetration operations, performed by relatively small, mobile task forces supported by overwhelming air power. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, supported by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired general, would resist any attempts to commence major action against Saddam before a large land force had been assembled. But the Pentagon is today run by a team that believes more in "Israeli-style" operations than in heavy troop deployments. If there is another serious terrorist attack in the United States in the coming month, political pressure to do something may become irresistible. In any event, an attack on Iraq to topple Saddam in the fall seems inevitable, which leaves Russia and most other U.S. allies in the "anti-terrorist coalition" stuck in a peculiar situation. Major French and Russian oil companies have been making billions in recent years reselling Iraqi oil -- a reward from Saddam for political support. Russian technicians are building a large nuclear power reactor in Iran, at Bushehr. Russian arms traders are preparing major contracts to sell Iran new weapons and military technology. The toppling of Saddam and possible punitive attacks against Iran by U.S. forces could harm Russian specialists and kill multibillion-dollar contracts. It is not surprising that Russian ministers have recently openly criticized U.S. plans to punish Iraq, Iran or North Korea. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has challenged the West to support Russian actions in Chechnya, as Russia helped the West in Afghanistan. Ivanov warned that failure to support the brutal Chechnya campaign could end "all talk about our unity and solidarity." There are powerful forces inside the military and political elite that would gladly use a U.S. led attack on Iraq or Iran to shift the Kremlin's foreign policy into a more traditional, anti U.S. mode. However, today's policies (especially foreign policy) are decided by one person, President Vladimir Putin, who just like France's Louis XIV can do virtually anything he pleases: begin a war or end it, send a magnate to prison at will, confiscate his wealth and so on. Does Putin understand that Russia needs the United States' friendship more than it needs Iran's or Iraq's? This is still an open question, but we will have an answer soon. Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst. http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/02/08/News/News.43102.html * BEN-ELIEZER: WE'LL STRIKE BACK IF SADDAM ATTACKS US By Janine Zacharia Jerusalem Post, 8th February WASHINGTON: With the specter of a possible US offensive against Iraq looming, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday that Israel would strike back this time if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein again launched missiles at Israel. In 1991, under American pressure, Israel agreed not to retaliate against Iraq when it bombarded Tel Aviv with Scud missiles. "The situation that could unfold would certainly put us in a position in which we'll have to respond," Ben-Eliezer said he told Rumsfeld. The US is still weighing a host of options regarding Iraq. But speculation here is widespread that Iraq could be the next target in the war on terrorism. That speculation heightened on Wednesday with the announcement that Vice President Dick Cheney would tour the Middle East in mid-March. Cheney is to visit 11 countries including Israel. The trip is being perceived here primarily as an attempt to persuade reluctant Arab allies to support a US-led drive to unseat Saddam Hussein. Cheney will also stop in the UK and Turkey. He is not going to visit the Palestinian Authority. Ben-Eliezer told Rumsfeld that if the US strikes Iraq, Israel expects to be "among the first" hit in retaliation by Baghdad. And Ben-Eliezer said that unlike during the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein unleashed conventional Scud missiles on Tel Aviv, this time he believes the missiles could be equipped with chemical or biological weapons. "Therefore early warning is important, preparation is important, coordination [between the US and Israel] ahead of time is important to ensure that the damage to Israel will not be too severe," Ben-Eliezer said he told Rumsfeld. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer cautioned reporters, however, not to assume that Cheney would be focused on Iraq. "He's going to represent the president on a wide variety of issues, but the president has not made any determination to, quote-unquote, 'go into Iraq.'" Ben-Eliezer spoke to Israeli reporters after his meeting at the Pentagon. He then briefed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who met with President George W. Bush last evening at the White House. Besides Iraq, Ben-Eliezer and Rumsfeld discussed a host of other top-priority military issues. Ben-Eliezer asked for Rumsfeld's "support in principle" for the joint Israeli-US production of 200 additional Arrow missiles that would be manufactured in the US. Ben-Eliezer spoke of a multi-year production plan lasting five or six years. It is up to Congress to decide whether to fund the initiative for the anti-missile missile system. The two defense chiefs also discussed the possible export of the Arrow system to Turkey and to a second country, which an Israeli military official identified as India. The US is reluctant to allow the sale of the Arrow system to India with tensions high in the Indian subcontinent. Ben-Eliezer also expressed Israel's desire to sell the Phalcon AWACS system to other countries. In 2000, Israel was forced to cancel a sale of the airborne radar system to China in the face of US opposition. Left off the agenda was the American troop presence in the Sinai peninsula. Rumsfeld has decided to radically scale back the number of US troops there who form the bulk of the Multinational Force and Observers, an independent international peacekeeping organization established by Egypt and Israel to monitor the security arrangements after their 1979 peace treaty. Israel and Egypt oppose the withdrawal. Ben-Eliezer said Rumsfeld did not raise the issue and therefore he did not either. http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.kurds.reut/index.html * IRAQ KURDS UNCONVINCED U.S. HAS SADDAM ALTERNATIVE CNN, 8th February ISTANBUL, Turkey (Reuters) -- Kurds of northern Iraq need to see a better alternative to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before they give their support to any U.S.-led attempt to overthrow him, two leaders of the region said on Friday. "For us the important thing is who is the alternative that will come in place of Saddam. First of all we have to know who the alternative is, if there is one," Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), told NTV in an interview. "And of course there is no guarantee that the alternative will be better than Saddam," he added. Northern Iraq has been outside Baghdad's direct control and protected by U.S. and British air patrols since after the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Washington has sponsored peace talks in the region to end fighting between Barzani's group and the rival Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Jalal Talabani. Washington's hope is to forge the mountainous Kurdish north into a united bulwark against the Iraqi government. The two Kurdish leaders, whose "peshmerga" fighters once battled for control of the region, have been at peace for years now and speak from the same page on the possibility of a U.S. attempt to remove Saddam from power. "We do not know what will happen...we will not enter adventures whose end is unclear. In the same way we cannot support any project for change in which we do not see the alternative," Talabani told NTV. "We prefer the current situation to a change we could not accept. At least now Saddam is under international pressure and contained, alone and powerless and we are under international protection." Both acknowledged that much was out of their control as speculation increases that Washington may try to extend its "war on terrorism" from Afghanistan to Iraq. "If the US strikes Iraq there is nothing we can do," said Barzani. "But we will not be ordered by America or any others. We will not be a bargaining chip or tool of pressure to be used against Iraq." Both leaders stress that they see the future of their region within a united Iraq. That goes some way to allay fears of U.S. ally Turkey that turmoil in Iraq could spark an independent Kurdish state that would then spread violent nationalist sentiment among Turkey's own Kurdish citizens. Talabani said an independent Iraqi uprising against Saddam depended on an unlikely alliance among the country's different ethnic, political and religious groups. "I have to confess that achieving that balance is very difficult. That's why I see the government in Baghdad as lasting and change as not close without outside intervention. In other words change should not be expected without American intervention or invasion from outside," he said. He suggested that any U.S. action might be further away than many now expect. Turkish financial markets slid on Friday partly on worries that an attack was likely. U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney visits Turkey and other regional countries next month to garner support for U.S. policies. Turkey hosts U.S. and British jets that patrol northern Iraq and keeps its own military presence in the region, to Baghdad's fury, to attack northern Iraqi bases of its own Kurdish rebels. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all postings.