Behave or we attack, US warns Saddam

Behave or we attack, US warns Saddam
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 11/10/2001)

IRAQ, which yesterday shot down an unmanned American aircraft in the "no-fly zone", has been told by the United States that it will be attacked if it exploits the situation in Afghanistan to further its interests.

"There will be a military strike against you and you will be defeated," John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told his Iraqi counterpart, reported the Washington Post.

The meeting between Mr Negroponte and Mohammed Douri, the Iraqi envoy, was the first diplomatic encounter between their countries for several years and reflected a growing desire from elements of the Bush administration to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Iraq has emerged as the single biggest issue that could divide the United States and Britain during the war on terrorism. The question about what to do with Iraq also represents a fault line within the Bush administration.

A British government official travelling with Tony Blair said yesterday that no other country would be attacked without "absolute evidence" that it sponsored terrorism and without the widest international support for military action.

He added: "We have no evidence that links the Iraqi regime with the events of September 11."

Officials such as Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon deputy, have urged action against Iraq. They point out that Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the hijackers, met Iraqi officials in Prague last year shortly before he began training as a pilot.

Iraq is regarded by Republican hawks as the great unfinished business of President George Bush Snr's administration.

Britain has strongly backed Gen Colin Powell, the US secretary of state and an opponent of action against Iraq, against Mr Wolfowitz.

Concern about Iraq has been heightened by the cases of anthrax in Florida. UN inspectors who entered Iraq after the Gulf War found stockpiles of the poisonous gases sarin and VX as well as evidence of experimentation with anthrax and other deadly agents.

This week, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said: "Without getting into evidence, terrorist networks have had relationships with a handful of countries. Among those handful-plus of countries are nations that have active chemical and biological programmes."

Mr Negroponte arrived unannounced at the UN mission on Sunday shortly after allied military action against the Taliban had begun. After being taken into Mr Douri's office, he read from a prepared message.

On the same day, he lodged a letter at the UN that stated: "We may find that our self-defence requires further actions with respect to other organisations and states."

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, said on Tuesday that Security Council members had expressed "anxiety" over the broadening of the conflict hinted at by Mr Negroponte.

Even if Iraq had no link with the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration fears it could take military action against its neighbours or America.

The problem the White House is grappling with is that in dividing the world between those for and against global terrorism, it might be encouraging America's enemies to band together against the US

"There will be a military strike against you and you will be defeated,"

Enough said, lets just make sure we do it this time.

On another thought, It looks like Washington has given up that idea that it no longer needs to be able to fight on 2 fronts any longer.

This was an extraordinary event -- maybe the most extraordinary event of the war so far. That such a dramatic statement would be sent in such a dramatic way -- through formal diplomatic channels and in formal diplomatic language is probably unprecedented in modern history. This sort of thing simply isn't done in the diplomatic community. The only way such language would be used was if you were at war with the receiving party -- in which case you wouldn't be sending diplomatic messages anyway. That is why is so extraordinary.

The "Why" behind this takes us into even murkier waters: He certainly was not doing this at face value -- warning Sadaam to desist. Was he daring Sadaam to do something -- to give us a pretext -- knowing that Sadaam is like wild animal that will react to the taunt? Was he doing this because there is already great suspicion that Iraq was the source of the Anthrax that was used in Florida, and this would put us on record as warning Iraq -- for European, Asian and Middle Eastern consumption? To pave the way for the coming attack diplomatically?

We don't know. But we do know that this was truly remarkable -- and cannot be ignored.

"The problem the White House is grappling with is that in dividing the world between those for and against global terrorism, it might be encouraging America's enemies to band together against the US."

More birds, less stones.

"Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, said on Tuesday that Security Council members had expressed "anxiety" over the broadening of the conflict hinted at by Mr Negroponte."

Oh yeah... Anxiety.

Can someone refresh my memory?

Wasn't the conflict broadened by an evil death-cult of sleeper terrorists o who came over here to murder us by the thousands?

Okay, we can do it this way regarding Iraq:

We make the case that Iraq remains a principal source of chem/bio weapons (shouldn't be hard to do), and insist that the inspection program be resumed immediately (Scott Ritter, call your office...) with the following conditions:

a) Inspectors be given unlimited access to any site of their choosing, at any time. There will be no pre-announcement of the visits.
b) any site where inspectors are not given full and immediate access will be destroyed.
c) failure to comply with the terms of the inspection program will be taken as an act of aggression and will be dealt with appropriately.

That way, we put the ball in Saddam's court -- comply with the inspections or else, while we build the case that the inspections are necessary to world security to ensure against any clandestine manufacture of WMD that could be used against any country. Iraq's failure to comply with the inspection terms becomes our rationale for further military action against Iraq in order to neutralize the threat.

All I could think about was when they shot the first plane down, and then another, and found there was no pilot aboard. He must have been really ticked off. Look, if Sadaam is shooting our planes down (manned or unmanned), he clearly is "not with us". Should we really wait until he get's one of our pilots? BS

>The question about what to do with Iraq also represents a fault line within the Bush administration.

This was brought up again tonight on one of the talk radio shows - When we remove the Taliban from power, One of Iran's two major enemies will be removed. The other? Iraq. Iran has a lot of pay back coming over the war in the 1980s, and if one of their borders becomes safe again, don't be surprised to see them rolling across the other. As odd as it sounds, several people have said if the US starts bombing/attacking Iraq, Iran will probably use the opportunity to settle their border dispute once and for all.

""There will be a military strike against you and you will be defeated," John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told his Iraqi counterpart, reported the Washington Post."

Seems as though American cajones are everywhere these days. Go get 'em, Mr. Negroponte! :)

"A British government official travelling with Tony Blair said yesterday that no other country would be attacked without "absolute evidence" that it sponsored terrorism and without the widest international support for military action."

Well, I was waiting for this. All through this I've been amazed at Blair's support, but I always suspected it would subside at the earliest convenience. Blair's support will end as soon as he believes there has been a measured response to the number of BRITISH dead at the WTC. Just wait and see......

"Well, I was waiting for this. All through this I've been amazed at Blair's support, but I always suspected it would subside at the earliest convenience. Blair's support will end as soon as he believes there has been a measured response to the number of BRITISH dead at the WTC. Just wait and see...... "

Yes, I agree! There has always been something Cheeky about Blair. I dont think he has the balls or the resolve that W has.

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.