Iraq on the Eve of War

Russian Observer ^

[RCW2001]

Iraq on the Eve of War (Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

U.S. military action in the Persian Gulf may split the anti-terrorist coalition

 

by Mikhail Khodorenok
issued on 04.27.2002 (MST)

With Washington stepping up its pressure on Russia to persuade it to agree to tougher UN sanctions against Iraq, the Kremlin's undivided support for Iraq might distance it from the West, which would conflict with the Putin administration's foreign policy. On the other hand, should Moscow approve U.S. military action in Iraq, this would be another sign of the fact that Russia is losing its positions in the international arena. Both options are equally bad as far as Moscow is concerned.

The prospect of a united front by Islamic states against the United States and its allies looks fairly unreal even despite the fact that quite a few Arab countries disapprove of U.S. intrigues over Iraq. Even the most vociferous European critics of U.S. policy in the Middle and Near East will not go beyond censuring Washington and then only in mild terms.

Meanwhile, the U.S. administration appears to have overcome differences on how it should deal with Iraq and come to the conclusion that military action is the only option open to it. Washington is pondering several scenarios that could remove Saddam Hussein from power. It is likely to confront him with what will amount to an ultimatum that the Iraqi leader will be unable to accept, and that fact will be used as an excuse for attack.

In March U.S. Vice President Dick Chaney toured several Arab and non-Arab countries to enlist support for an act against Iraq. Normally such tours are made to either assess the situation before making a final decision on the course of action or inform allies of the decision and explain the U.S. position.

In early April George W. Bush and Tony Blair spoke of the need to replace the leadership in Baghdad but stopped short of mentioning military action. It is noteworthy that neither of them attempted to link Saddam Hussein to international terrorism or terrorist organizations.

There has also been a furry of U.S. diplomatic activity with the aim of forming a coalition against Iraq, with financial assistance to Middle East countries playing a significant role in this effort. The United States earmarked close to $74 billion for military programs for those countries in 1999-2000 alone.

Many NATO countries do not want to be immediately involved in U.S. military action in Iraq because they believe targeting that country would represent another attempt to topple Saddam Hussein rather than an anti-terrorist campaign. Even Turkey, one of the U.S. most loyal ally in the Middle East, has said U.S. military action in Iraq might destabilize the situation in the region and spur Kurdish separatist movements in Turkey as well as Iraq, which would cause an upheaval in Turkey itself. The White House responded by making it clear Turkey's "pro-Iraqi stand" would undermine Turkey's military cooperation with Israel, which has made good progress exclusively due to the United States.

Nevertheless, the Pentagon is reported to have begun preparations for a military campaign against Iraq. For a start, aircraft will bomb nearly all military installations. U.S. military activity has been reported at American air bases in Kuwait. Tens of high-ranking military chiefs arrived in Kuwait in December last year.

Iraqi leaders are doing what they can to prepare the country for a possible attack. Baghdad has assigned top officials to particular areas in the north, west and south, with Saddam Hussein being responsible for the country's central part and its capital. The officials are empowered to use military force at their own discretion if the ruling regime comes under threat. Efforts are being made to disguise military installations and make the country's military potential more impressive than it really is. For example, old aircraft incapable of combat missions are being deployed on airfields. Baghdad is quite likely to use poison gases if the United States launches a ground operation.

Iraqi businessmen in foreign countries and Iraqi embassies have been instructed to recruit specialists who could go to Iraq to help Iraq's military-industrial complex maintain, repair and manufacture weapons and military hardware. The recruitment effort is most prominent in CIS countries, notably in Ukraine and Belarus.

[RCW2001]

Interesting Russian view...

[vannrox]

Tougher? We've been begging them to adhere to their agreements made back in 1991.

[Shermy]

Interesting out of the loop Russian view...

Plus the Israel thing is dumb.

[Stavka2]

Actually, according to Ivan Ivanov's statement last month that Russia would not care that much about what happened to Saddum as long as all contracts were honored with the new government.

[Jumper]

Iraq was the Corner Stone of Soviet involvement in the Mid-East dating back to 1973 (War); since the break of the USSR, Iraq has declined in importance as the needs to finance an infrastructure and join Europe as an Equal but proud partner - in prosiperity and then in peace - as it must be or starve! Therefore, Iraq is a problem in maintaining the relations required to get the aid and trade agreements for internal needs, so attacking the hand that helps, e.g., the US by helping Iraq would be counter-productive.

[Chapita]

************"Baghdad is quite likely to use poison gases if the United States launches a ground operation."************************************

I wish they would try it again!

I'd like to see the new Bush response!

[tet68]

On the other hand, should Moscow approve U.S. military action in Iraq, this would be another sign of the fact that Russia is losing its positions in the international arena.

See, I would have said just the opposite.
If Russia approved and supported action in Iraq it's position in the international arena would be assured,as it would then be in a position allied with the US.

But then what do I know.

[krogers58]

************"Baghdad is quite likely to use poison gases if the United States launches a ground operation."************************************ I wish they would try it again! I'd like to see the new Bush response!

Unfortunately, it is a forgone conclusion that he will probably use these weapons. Worse than Chem, is biowarfare. Long after Saddam is gone, the spores from Iraqui anthrax strains will linger, costing untold amounts of money to clean up. Surely, he will attempt to attack Israel with these weapons, and again, clean-up costs are going to be enormous. I suspect he has pre-positioned agents of his intelligence agencies within the US and probably Britain, with stocks of chem-bio weapons, with orders, that if we attack, they are to attack our civilians. It is not a quantum leap of technology, to bio-engineer anti-biotic resistant strains of anthrax, either. Again, after seeing how difficult it was to clean up the US Senate office building, and the costs involved, it will be an economically devastating blow to our economy. We won't nuke him, although I wish we would, and what would it matter to him if we did, we are going to hang him, or turn him over to his enemies, so either way he is dead, just one way is quicker (nuke). The best thing, would be for the CIA to get a meeting with Saddam, and offer him a quiet Island sanctuary somewhere, if he agrees to leave power peacefully. Clearly, this is not the most moral position to take, but a pragmatic one. He has been adept at saving his skin, and if the right offer were made, I'm sure he would go for it. My 2 cents......

[Chapita]

No matter how many times the liberal left has been warned, they act like it is local politics. Let 'em learn the hard way, and if this nation survives, guess who will no longer be relevent to politics?