AFF/ROGUE STATES/IRAQ

USA IS PREPARING FOR A DANGEROUS MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAQ

Michio Hayashi January 24, 2001, The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo) SECTION: Pg. 7 HEADLINE: Bush needs to rethink U.S. policy toward Iraq //VT2002acsln

If the United States becomes isolated from the international community over economic sanctions against Iraq, U.N. inspections of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and support for the Iraqi opposition, there is a possibility that, with its other alternatives lost, the United States may resort to a large-scale military operation.

M�IL�I�T�A�R�Y� �A�C�T�I�O�N� �A�G�A�I�N�S�T� �I�R�A�Q�I� �W�M�D� �W�I�L�L� �C�A�U�S�E� �A�N� �A�T�T�A�C�K� �O�N� �T�H�E� �U�S�A� �W�I�T�H� �W�M�D� �B�Y� �I�R�A�Q

Instead of pursuing the unattainable goal of preventing Iraq from ever having biological or chemical weapons, the United States should concentrate on reducing the chance that Iraq's weapons would be used on American territory. Any U.S. air or ground attack on Iraq could cause Iraq to seek revenge in the only way it could -- by sponsoring a terrorist attack on U.S. soil with weapons of mass destruction. Such attacks can be devastating and are very difficult to deter, prevent, detect in a timely fashion or mitigate.

M�I�L�I�T�A�R�Y� �A�T�T�A�C�K�S� �O�N� �I�R�A�Q�I� �W�M�D� �C�O�U�L�D� �L�E�A�D� �T�O� �S�A�U�D�I� �A�R�A�B�I�AN� �I�N�S�T�A�B�I�L�I�T�Y

Instability in Saudi Arabia may be the greatest threat to the flow of oil. As demonstrated by its reaction to the recent crisis, the Saudi government fears that threat more than it fears Saddam. With an eye toward the sympathies of its population for Iraq, the Saudi government was reluctant to allow U.S. strike aircraft to use bases in the kingdom to attack Iraq. Military deployments and periodic attacks on Iraq by the United States could fuel such instability.

WE� �N�E�E�D� �T�O� �N�O�P�T� �P�A�N�I�C� �I�N� �T�H�E� �F�A�C�E� �O�F� �I�R�A�Q� �W�M�D� �A�N�D� �A�C�C�E�P�T� �A�S� �W�E� �D�O� �F�O�R� �O�T�H�E�R� �S�T�A�T�E�S

As a practical matter, the United States must resign itself to Iraq's possession of biological and chemical weapons -- something Washington seemed willing to do prior to the Gulf War. The current U.S. policy contravenes reality. Iraq -- with its armed forces in shambles because of the war and years of economic sanctions -- is weaker than it was before the Gulf War and is much less of a threat to its neighbors. Moreover, many of its neighbors -- including Iran, Syria and Libya -- also have biological or chemical weapons (Israel is even reported to possess nuclear weapons). It is unclear why the United States treats a weakened Iraq differently than it does those nations. None of the rogue states has a long-range missile that can carry such weapons to the United States.

M�I�L�I�T�A�R�Y� �A�C�T�I�O�N� �A�G�A�I�N�S�T� �I�R�A�Q�I� �W�M�D� �W�O�UL�D� �B�E� �A� �B�A�D� �O�P�T�I�O�N�

Sooner or later, the United States will find itself in another crisis with Iraq. To the Clinton administration's credit, it did de-escalate the recent standoff over weapons inspections and dampen expectations that future Iraqi antics will be met with the use of force. But the administration needs to go further. The current lull in action and emotion should give the administration time to quietly reassess America's vital interests. The evidence suggests that we shouldn't be threatened by an already weak Iraq; our interests are not promoted by the costly policy of reacting to Saddam Hussein's periodic and cynical provocations with military deployments.

IRAQ DEVELOPMENT OF WMD WILL LEAD TO USA MILITARY ACTION

JESSICA BERRY January 28, 2001, SUNDAY TELEGRAPH(LONDON) SECTION: Pg. 27 HEADLINE: Saddam has made two atomic bombs, says Iraqi defector Fresh evidence alarms security experts //VT2002acsln

The fresh evidence comes only a week after President George W Bush took office. In his inaugural address, he promised to confront weapons of mass destruction, without mentioning Iraq. Under Anglo-US policy, any attempt by Saddam to build nuclear or biological weapons could lead to military action.

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State and a Gulf war veteran, and Vice-President Dick Cheney are both known to favour a radical approach in dealing with Iraq. Gen Powell said of Saddam last week: "His only tool, the only thing he can scare us with are those weapons of mass destruction, and we have to hold him to account."

The new White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said: "The President expects Saddam Hussein to live up to the agreements he's made with the UN, especially regarding the elimination of weapons of mass destruction."

BUSH WILL INVADE IRAQ TO SET UP A SANCTUARY ZONE WHERE OPPONENTS OF SADAM CAN MOBILIZE

George C. Wilson February 19, 2000 The National Journal SECTION: DEFENSE; Vol. 32, No. 8 HEADLINE: Not a Radical in the Bunch // ACS-LN

     One of Bush's top military advisers is Paul Wolfowitz, who was Defense undersecretary for policy during the presidency of the candidate's father, George Bush. Wolfowitz, now dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has long called for the U.S. military to take more-direct action to help dissident groups topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In an article in Foreign Affairs last spring, for example, Wolfowitz and his co-author, former Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, D-N.Y., wrote that "the United States should be prepared to commit ground forces to protect a sanctuary in southern Iraq where the opposition could safely mobilize." Given his reliance on Wolfowitz for national security guidance, a President Bush would almost certainly give serious consideration to the sanctuary proposal.

IRAQ WMD ACQUISITION MEANS USA MILITARY STRIKE

Ben Macintyre February 17, 2001, The Times (London) HEADLINE: Bush warning over weapons of mass destruction //VT2002acsln

Unleashing the first Iraqi airstrikes of his young presidency, George W. Bush issued a stark warning yesterday to Saddam Hussein that he would face even more serious consequences if he is found to be producing weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH POLICIES ON IRAQ WILL BE DANGEROUSLY ADVENTURIST

THE HINDU February 19, 2001 HEADLINE: The Hindu-Editorial: Insensitive bravado //VT2002acsln

This can only denote that an adventurist policy in regard to Iraq is in tune with the present Bush administration's cavalier spirit as reflected by its 'sci-fi' pursuit of a missile defence system. Unfashionable it may be for any new President, but Mr. Bush need not regard as dangerously infectious Mr. Clinton's more evolved and nuanced foreign policy instincts.

BUSH WILL USE MILITARY AGAINST IRAQ IF IT DEVELOPS WMD

CRAGG HINES; February 17, 2001, The Houston Chronicle SECTION: A; Pg. 38 HEADLINE: Bombs over Baghdad - it's about time //VT2002acsln

"Our intention is to make sure the world is as peaceful as possible, and we're going to watch very carefully to see if he develops weapons of mass destruction," Bush said. "And if we catch him doing so, we'll take the appropriate action."

Given the collapse of the U.N. weapons inspections program in Iraq, Bush's threat of additional military action is about the only stick the rest of the world can waggle at Saddam. It's unfortunate that diplomacy was allowed to fail so utterly, but it did, and in remaining vigilant against the threat posed by Saddam's weapons program, the United States would be fulfilling its role as the world's remaining superpower.

BUSH POLICY IS A MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAQ WHEN THEY DO DEVELOP WMD

The Jerusalem Post February 26, 2001, SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 8 HEADLINE: Sounding tough is not enough //VT2002acsln

Turning up the rhetorical heat, however, does not a policy make. In his first press conference as president last week, George W. Bush stated, "We expect (Saddam) not to develop weapons of mass destruction; and if we find him doing so, there will be a consequence." This may sound tough, but it is essentially a continuation of the drastic deterioration in Iraq policy that occurred under Bill Clinton. Under Clinton, the US (and UN Security Council) goal shifted from squashing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs to claiming that action would be taken if Saddam actually started producing such weapons. Under Clinton, the international community simply lost the will to enforce the line in the sand it had drawn, so it simply drew another, even less convincing, line.

For there to be a change in the Clinton policy, Bush would have to restore the original allied goal: preventing Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons, not threatening to act when it is already too late. Yet so far, the Bush team is still speaking only of tools that are woefully inadequate to the task - sanctions and inspections.