Posted on 10/09/2001 4:37:57 PM PDT by Pokey78
THREE days into operation Enduring Freedom, attention is turning to the next stage. If the words are to be an accurate description of the outcome, the raids on Afghanistan can only be the beginning. Afghanistan, after all, poses little threat to the democratic world once Osama bin Laden has been removed. Iraq, on the other hand, poses a very real threat, not just because of its terrorism but also because of its strategic position in the Gulf - precisely why America resolved to force Saddam out of Kuwait.
Iraq will indeed be the next target. This is not mere speculation; we have it from the horse's mouth. Less than four years ago, on January 26, 1998, Donald Rumsfeld and a band of other defence and foreign policy experts wrote an open letter to President Clinton, urging him to refocus US policy on the removal of Saddam. The signatories now comprise some of the highest placed Bush Administration officials. To understand what happens next, we need only read their own words. The gist of it (see box) is the gist of Enduring Freedom; there could be no clearer statement of intent.
Since the letter was written, Saddam's capabilities have strengthened. There is evidence that he may soon be able to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. As Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, put it on the eve of President Bush's address to Congress: Saddam "is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth".
Yet clearly this is not the only view doing the rounds in Washington. Nods, whispers and the occasional on the record comment have all made it clear that there is a battle going on between the hawks, led by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who are sticking to the view they expressed in the open letter, and the doves, led by Colin Powell. The dispute was made public after Mr Wolfowitz called, at a briefing on September 13, for "removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism". Gen Powell not only distanced himself from such words, he seemed almost to sneer at their author: "We're after ending terrorism. And if there are states and regimes, nations, that support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop doing that. But I think 'ending terrorism' is where I would leave it and let Mr Wolfowitz speak for himself."
Gen Powell's position appears to be the most inconsistent and worrying. Three weeks ago, he was perhaps more threatening even than Mr Bush: America, he said, should target "those groups out there that mean us no good" and "that have conducted attacks previously against US personnel, US interests and our allies". But that, of course, would not only mean targeting the Taliban and Saddam; it would also encompass Hizbollah, which is thought to have been involved in the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut and the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Africa. No group could fit more into Gen Powell's category of targets.
Yet Hizbollah is backed by Iran and Syria, two nations that Gen Powell has been most intent on wooing to form part of the coalition of anti-terrorist states. It is difficult to see quite how this fits in with Mr Bush's declaration to Congress that "every terrorist group of global reach" will be "found, stopped and defeated" - and that America will consider as an enemy not just the groups themselves but also "every government that supports them".
Instead of wooing Iran and Syria, his own words demand that he orders them not only to end all financial, military and political support to Hizbollah, but that they also play an active role in handing over its members and destroying its capabilities. And if they refuse, they, too, should be classified as enemy states.
Everything written in the letter of 1998 holds good today. Iraq must be the next target. The point of a war on terrorism is, surely, to stamp it out - not to build a coalition that includes its most prominent sponsors and that ignores the single greatest threat - Iraq.
The author is senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
Dear Mr President
"We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. We urge you to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.
"The policy of 'containment' of Saddam has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf war coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq possesses such weapons.
"Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilising effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that, if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
"Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success on the steadfastness of our coalition partners and on the cooperation of Saddam, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
[Signed] Donald Rumsfeld [now Secretary of Defence], Paul Wolfowitz [now Deputy Secretary of Defence], Robert Zoellick [now US Trade Representative], Richard Armitage [now Deputy Secretary of State], John Bolton [now Under Secretary of State], Paula Dobriansky [now Under Secretary of State], Peter Rodman [now Assistant Secretary of Defence], Elliott Abrams [now a senior NSC official], Zalmay Khalilzad [now a senior NSC official], Richard Perle [now a key Bush adviser]
The full text of their letter can be seen at www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
It seems I read somewhere that Bush people sent to the UN a letter a couple of days ago suggesting this struggle may have to be taken on the road before long.
Taking down the World Trade Center puts a big roadblock on the route to his goal. We are now more actively engaged in the middle east than we ever have been. We will over through Afghanistan and install our puppets to rule it. So far we have purchased Pakistan and are on the road to conquering Afghanistan. Success there will put other Arab nations in our bullseye ripe for attack.
That puts Sadam exactly where he does not want to be. He wants us gone so he can dominate Arabia. What he faces is America dominating Arabia.
Sadam has always done what is in his best interest. Osama bin Laden buys the Islamic religion. Sadam only uses it.
We can contain those that only use it. We must destroy those that believe it.
Much of the Arab world hates Sadam. That is why they wanted him defeated. Yet the Saudis who could turn their people against fellow arab Sadam, can't turn their people against bin Laden. That screams where the problem is and who is funding it. They would like nothing better than to have us 'Solve' the problem by killing Sadam.
The best thing we could do is to split Muslims into three camps lead by Sadam, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. They keep them fighting at full bore so they have to pump tons of cheap oil to pay for it. If they are killing each other by the thousands, they won't have time to kill us. And we won't have to waste ammo killing them.
Iran and Iraq.
Two scorpions.
Which he immediately did, of course.
Yes, if Powell had his way, we might drag our feet too long. But Bush will make the decision.
To give everyone his due, it might be said that Wolfowitz is the opposite of Powell. He tends to take the Weekly Standard approach. Jump in first with both feet, and then do your planning afterward. So far, our actions have been well measured and deliberate, as they should be.
Here is another piece of the puzzle. Canada is sending far more ships than would be warrented by a mullah hunt in Afghanistan. The article hints at more Canadian assets also moving to the Persian Gulf region.
The only reason for this is that Uncle Sam has told his northern nephew that this is going to spread to other countries (Iraq at least and maybe Syria) and that some ships would come in handy for future operations, not this one.
The more we and the world talk about this eventuality the more common place and expected the event will become when it happens.
We need to send up these trail ballons every few days. Each ballon should contain more detail and determination.
Soon the whole world will be saying "Yeah, we need to get rid of Sadam" as if it were their original idea.
Keep talking!
It's been reported all over that Muhamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Czechoslovakia within the past few months. Yesterday's (Oct 8) Trib noted that in addition to Atta, a second suicide bomber also met with Iraqi agents recently. It was within a long article in the print version, I'll search to see if I can find it in on-line
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.