Posted on 09/29/2001 11:05:30 AM PDT by kattracks
WASHINGTON, Sept 29 (AFP) -
The concentration of US forces around Afghanistan, particularly in the Gulf region, in response to the recent terror attacks on American soil, is reviving a debate here on whether to oust Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The Iraqi leader, whose forces were booted out of Kuwait in 1991 by an international coalition led by former president George Bush, the father of the current US president, continues to hang on to power, fueling mounting frustration among US leaders who maintain large military forces around Iraq.
Although Washington admits it had so far no formal proof of Baghdad's involvement in the September 11 suicide airborne attacks on New York and Washington, many here stressed that Iraq remains a major threat.
Some point to possible contacts between one of hijackers, Mohamed Atta, and Iraqi intelligence or the arrest in Ecuador of seven Iraqis as part of the probe into terrorist networks.
Republican Senator Jesse Helms and other conservatives in Congress recently urged President George W. Bush to seize the opportunity provided by the global anti-terror campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.
"The first President Bush ought to have gotten rid of him (Saddam)," Helms said. "I say that with all due respect to the former president, but that was one of the major mistakes that was made at that time."
"The biggest difference is not yet evident. It will be about how to handle Saddam Hussein. There will be some people who would argue in favor of striking him hard. I think that would be the big debate," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
"I am not surprised there are different views," noted Walter Russell Mead, of the Council on Foreign Relations, pointing to the strong feelings in Washington over how to handle Iraq.
Divergences on the issue have surfaced between the Pentagon and the State Department.
Recent comments by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a "hawk" favoring a tough policy toward Baghdad, on the need to strike states sponsoring terrorism have rekindled speculation on need to take action against Iraq.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has repeatedly stated that the priority objective for Washington was hunting down Afghanistan-based Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born militant seen by Washington as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and his network and not to attack specific countries.
But while suggesting that Baghdad would not be a target in the first phase of a US riposte, Powell stressed that there would be "phase two and phase three" without giving details.
"We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein (.) He's, of course, trying to develop weapons of mass destruction," Powell said. "For 10 years we have kept him contained and will continue to keep him contained. And, as you know, we always have the ability to strike if that seems to be the appropriate thing to do."
Contradictory signals from Washington have led many Arab countries to urge the United States to extend their military operations beyond Afghanistan.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, who visited Washington this week, left reassured, saying the United States were focusing on bin Laden and did not plan to extend the confrontation.
Iraq has meanwhile repeated that he was not involved in the attacks.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Aziz said on Thursday that Iraq had no links whatsoever with Afghanistan's Taliban regime or bin Laden.
1) This attack was directed at the American elites: The WTC and the intended governmental targets in DC were chosen by the terrorists as a fairly obvious attack upon our nation's financial and political elite. The terrorists did not fly a plane into the Mayberry Rotary Club.
2) This attack was supported by many in the Middle East who believe that they have legitimate grievances against the behavior of the American elites: Madeline Albright, in an interview several months ago, stated that she was perfectly OK with the idea that 5000 Iraqi children were dying every month due to American-led sanctions. The US has unfailingly supported Israel in its actions against the Palestinians, whom the Arabs all see as victims.
The difference between an isolated criminal and a genocidal terrorist is that the latter exploits legitimate grievances to curry popular support for his actions. The activities of our elites have given Osama support that he otherwise would not have.
3) The elites despise the American people: A recurring theme on FR is the dawning reality that the American elites in DC, NY, and LA do not like the masses of middle class America. They sneer at us at the cocktail parties, defame us in their publications, and occasionally run us down in their Mercedes SUVs (see Lizzy Grubman).
4) Mass third world immigration is one of the weapons that the aforementioned elites have cooked up to dispossess the American middle class: The economic elites in this country simply do not like the american worker's expectations of wages and benefits. And the political elite simply do not like the American middle class' annoying attachment to the Bill of Rights and limited government.
One answer that the elites have devised to deal with this is mass third world immigration. Peasants from various societies will work for a lot less (thus assuring the elites a huge profit margin) and these peasants will vote for socialism (and, since they were used to getting kicked aroun by their government in the third world, they won't object to peasant status imposed by our political elites here).
5) These attacks represent an elite weapon backfiring:
This wasn't supposed to happen. The third world immigrants were supposed to be docile peons who would vote for unlimited government and who would work for peanuts. Unfortunately, the elites miscalculated. They imported a population group that has other, superstition-based hatreds of America and its elites. And they probably can't be bought off with affirmative action and food stamps (a la Jesse Jackson).
6) The elites are now turning to the only force in America capable of saving and avenging them:
Look at the pictures of the heroes on the PA jetliner. Watch the tape of Bush with the firemen at the WTC. Look at the coverage of the firemen and police. Who are these people? Has anyone noticed a striking lack of diversity? What about the make-up of the special forces?
The answer is obvious. The elite cannot allow these attacks to go unanswered. They certainly aren't going to Afghanistan themselves (and they aren't about to send their kids over there either). They have imported vast numbers of third world immigrants, the vast majority of whom only have loyalty to what they can get out of this country....these folks aren't going to be of much use. So...what is the answer?
Simply put, the elites must pump up the recently-despised "rednecks" with propaganda and point them in the direction of the enemy. Sure, many of them won't come back...but sacrifices have to be made.
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.