The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
News, 29/7-4/8/01 (1) The news this week is dominated by the notion that the Lone Ranger (doubtless supported by his faithful sidekick,Tonto) may be about to launch some sort of punitive action against Iraq. The most interesting articles are David Hirstıs pieces on the Kurds and Hans Von Sponeckıs letter to the Irish Times, both in News, 29/7-4/8/01 (2). The most important news item may prove to be the last, the opening of a German embassy in Baghdad. MILITARY MATTERS * Iraq Says Nearly Hits US F-15 Jet, Not U-2 Spy Plane [It seems that targeting a U2 is a more serious provocationı. Iım not sure I understand why, except that it may require more sophisticated technology because, though slower, they fly much higher] * Seeking Saddam's smoking gun [The tireless Laura (or is it Laurie?) Mylroie accuses Saddam of masterminding terrorism through Arab fundamentalists who are left holding the bag.ı. The evidence does not seem to be very compelling but it is indeed surprising that under the circumstances S. Hussein seems to have done so little in this line. Given the US record of running away from danger - Lebanon, Somalia - it could look like a good idea but it would be of little use unless he let it be known that he was responsible] * Rice vows 'resolute' action against Iraq [after U2 incident. Vowsı is putting it a little strongly ...] * U.S. Pilot Sees Iraqi Missile [in Saudi airspace] * U.S.-Iraq Tensions Increase [The Iraqis have found ways of launching missiles against aircraft illegally entering their territory without revealing their own location and opening themselves up to instant retaliation. This, it seems, is very wicked of them] * United States weighs strikes against Iraq (extracts) [Stratfor.com quotes Janeıs Defence Weekly giving apparently very unsubstantiated arguments that Iraq is reconstituting its WMD capacity. Stratfor concludes that the US might as well attack Iraq because they have nothing to lose: Every bomb that strikes Iraq may be another nail in the coffin of sanctions, but efforts to isolate the regime and reduce its threat to the region are effectively dead anyhow.ı * Rumsfield: Iraq Building Defenses [More on the wickedness of the Iraqis in seeking to defend their territory] URL ONLY http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/986974 * Attacking Iraq a double-edged sword for Bush by WARREN P. STROBEL Knight-Ridder Tribune News, 31st July [A rather dull roundup obvious points] NEW WORLD ORDER * Pentagon rates N. Korea, Iraq as top threats [Thoughts of Paul Wolfowitz on the danger the US faces from those primitive Scud missilesı which killed 24 Americans in the Gulf War. As opposed to how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed? At any rate, theyıve now found the solution. Its called the Strategic Defense Initiative and costs about $100 billion] * America must fight in the real world [On the problems facing US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield in trying to put a budget together. Note in the middle of it: the cost of keeping troops in Europe as opposed to the US constitutes less than 1 per cent of the defence budget. That is a small price to pay for America's leadership role in European security affairs.ı So it seems weıre cheaper than the Middle East] * Why Rumsfield Has No Battle Plan (extracts) [more on poor Mr Rumsfieldıs problems in justifying a huge military expenditure on the part of a country which faces no military threat of any kind] * Germ warfare talks suspended [because the US doesnıt want anyone to see what its biotechnology industry is doing] IRAQI/UN RELATIONS * Annan urges Iraq rethink [on the need to allow Iraq to control some money from oil sales to maintain the very shaky infrastructure of the oil industry. I thought this principle had already been agreed?] * Iraq Says U.S., Britain Blocking More Imports [US undoes the relaxation of holds it introduced when it was trying to sell smart sanctionsı] * Iraq Earns 252 Million US Dollars Under "Oil-for-Food" Program AND, IN NEWS, 29/7-4/8/01 (2) IRAQI-MIDDLE EAST/ARAB WORLD RELATIONS * Iran's opposition rises against "religious dictatorship" [On the activities of the Iraqi based Mujaheedin] * Iraqi gas supply for Turkey [proposed pipeline from Kirkuk to southern Turkey. Bad news for the Kurds.] * Iraq urges refugees stranded in Saudi Arabia to come home [3,000 refugees, out of 33,000 in Saudi Arabia at the end of the war, have returned to Iraq. It would be interesting to know what has happened to them] * Smuggler operating in Iraqi border killed * Iraqi official: Rehabilitation of the Iraqi planes landing at Amman's airport very soon * Kuwait Says Iraq Still a Threat to Region [³Kuwait has no role in any military strikes against Iraq ...², according to the Kuwaiti Information Minister. Saudi Arabia have been claiming this for some time but this is the first time I have seen it coming from Kuwait. Is it new?] * Algiers: Contracts worth over US$100 million signed * Iraq defends invasion of Kuwait, 11 years on * Turkey, Syria seek to advance cooperation [more bad news for the Kurds] * Lebanese- Iraqi economic relations NORTHERN IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN * Iraqi Minister Rasheed speaks to the TDN: 'Even the CIA knows the truth' - Iraqi Oil Minister [Despite the title, this is mainly about the opening of a second crossing point between Turkey and Iraq. The interviewer tries to press the point that this creates problems for the Kurds, but the Iraqi minister refuses to acknowledge that they have an existence distinct from that of the rest of Iraq] * Liberated and safe, but not yet free [David Hirst on the unenviable position of a people surrounded by enemies and reliant on the very unreliable broken reed of Western goodwill] * The Kurdish dream: emigration to Europe [Hirst again on the painful, costly and often fruitless business of emigration] * Archer 'used charity role in bid for Iraqi [or, if you prefer, Kurdish - PB] oilı ANTI-SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN * UK envoy fails to justify Iraq sanctions {letter from H.Von Sponeck to Irish Times] * Sanctions on Iraq [reply from British Ambassador to Dublin. Congratulations to our Irish colleagues for putting the Ambassador in a spot where he has to do this sort of thing] INSIDE IRAQ * Iraqi President's Son Says He Has No Intention Of Converting to Shia Islam [As rumours go this was a corker!] * Iraq renovate the flower producing sectors * Saddam Appoints Foreign Minister IRAQI/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS * Iraqis, Afghans Lead World in Asylum Requests [Unpleasant as the Iraqi and Afghan regimes may be, is it a coincidence that both these countries - like Vietnam at the time of the boat people - are subjected to particularly vicious sanctions?] * German embassy resumes its activities in Baghdad [This may prove to be significant if I am right in thinking that under a cover of slavish loyalty to the New World Order, Germany is developing the capacity to act as an independent, purposeful and powerful force in the world] MILITARY MATTERS http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200107/29/eng20010729_76040.html * IRAQ SAYS NEARLY HITS US F-15 JET, NOT U-2 SPY PLANE People's Daily, 29th July Iraqi air defenses have nearly hit a US F-15 jet overflying Iraq's southern no-fly zone on Tuesday, rather than a U-2 spy plane as claimed by the US, an Iraqi military spokesman said Saturday. In a statement carried by the official Iraqi News Agency (INA), the spokesman said that Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery, by using upgraded Russia-made missiles, just missed a U.S. F-15 plane flying at an altitude of 11 kilometers over southern Iraq on Tuesday. Yet U.S. President George W. Bush and Pentagon officials said on Thursday that Iraqi forces tried to shoot down a U-2 spy plane as it flew a reconnaissance mission Tuesday over southern Iraq, the spokesman said. The U-2s usually fly at altitudes greater than 60,000 feet (20, 000 meters). Iraqi air defense system has not targeted U.S. and British warplanes flying at altitudes of 70,000 feet (21,000 meters) , the spokesman said, adding that Iraqi artillery have often opened fire at U.S. and British F-14, F-15 and F-16 warplanes which fly at a much lower height. The intention of the U.S. was "to justify itself for launching more air attacks against Iraqi radar and air defense installations in the future," the spokesman said. [.....] http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/210/living/Seeking_Saddam_s_smoking_gun+.s html * SEEKING SADDAM'S SMOKING GUN by Joe Lauria,, 7/29/2001 Boston Globe, 29th July. Review of Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, by Laurie Mylroie, American Enterprise Institute, 321 pp., illustrated, $24.95 Saddam Hussein vowed revenge earlier this year for one of President Bush's first acts in office: the Feb. 16 bombing of Iraq in response to Saddam's increased attacks on US aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. Conventional Washington wisdom said Saddam was too boxed in by sanctions to hit back. Instead, he called on Arabs outside Iraq to strike US interests in the region. That, according to a new book by Laurie Mylroie, a specialist on Iraq, fits Saddam's pattern of revenge since the 1991 Gulf War: masterminding terrorism through Arab fundamentalists who are left holding the bag. Mylroie argues in ''Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America'' that the Clinton administration erred by prosecuting such individuals in Justice Department led criminal trials, rather than conducting national security investigations that would have singled out Saddam. Coauthor of the 1991 national bestseller ''Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf,'' Mylroie sees Saddam's fingerprints on four terrorist attacks: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the 1995 bombing of the US training mission for Saudi troops in Riyadh; the 1996 attack against the US base in al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia; and the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Saddam's motive is not in doubt: continue the Gulf War through other means. Proving it is more difficult. Mylroie sets out an intriguing case for Iraq's involvement in the World Trade Center blast based on circumstantial evidence - there is no smoking bomb. But the late director of the FBI's office in New York, James Fox, believed Iraq was behind the trade center attack. Washington ignored him, believing a ''loose network'' of Islamic radicals intended to topple the twin towers onto each other with their bomb, releasing a cloud of cyanide gas to maximize the killing. Mylroie's evidence, based mostly on phone, airline, and passport records entered into the trial, appears to show that mastermind Ramzi Yousef, now serving life, was an Iraqi agent who traveled to New York on an Iraqi passport to direct dupes intended to deflect attention from Saddam. He and other conspirators placed numerous telephone calls to Iraq while in New York during the lead-up to the bombing, which occurred on the second anniversary of the Gulf War's end. Mylroie's detective work indicates Yousef later tried to change his identity with a doctored Kuwaiti passport. Another convict who fled New York a day after the bombing is living under Saddam's protection in Baghdad, she says. But Mylroie argues that President Clinton ignored these signs because he didn't want to confront the issue of Iraq as a terrorist threat. His order to strike Iraqi intelligence headquarters in June 1993, she says, was presented as retaliation for an Iraqi attempt to kill former President Bush. But he was also seeking a gesture that would address the terrorist bombing in New York: ''He believed [the strikes] would take care of the terrorism in New York. It would take care of the strong suspicions of the New York FBI that Iraq was behind the World Trade Center bombing and would deter Saddam from all future acts of terrorism.'' Among those who support this contention is James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time the Iraqi intelligence headquarters was hit. Woolsey says he believed Iraq may have been involved in the World Trade Center bombing, but was never asked his opinion by the Clinton White House. Mylroie says the Riyadh bombing that killed five Americans was probably Saddam's response to a negative United Nations weapons inspectors' report and was aimed at US troops still in the region from the Gulf War. She quotes an unnamed senior Saudi official: ''Of course that was Iraq. That was a professional bomb. It was not made by a bunch of Saudis sitting in a tent.'' She admits: ''There is no proof Iraq was behind the Riyadh bombing. Yet Iraq should have been considered a prime candidate, and it was not.'' She says progress in the Mideast peace process at the time created a ''climate of euphoria incompatible with the notion that the war with Iraq was not yet over.'' The al-Khobar bombing seven months later killed 19 US servicemen who had helped enforce the Iraq no-fly zone. Mylroie constructs á scenario in which Iraqi agents in Khartoum, Sudan, worked with Osama bin Laden to plan the attack. She quotes Israeli counterintelligence sources and Saudi officials who believed Saddam was behind that bomb too. Likewise, Mylroie believes Iraq worked with bin Laden in the African embassy bombings on Aug. 7, 1998, two days after Saddam formally suspended weapons inspections. In the planning of the attack, bin Laden's group and Saddam issued parallel warnings. In May, Baghdad warned of ''dire consequences'' if UN sanctions were not lifted. Because US intelligence never investigated possible links to Saddam, Mylroie says, there is no proof. Instead the US indictment stops at bin Laden and his alleged conspirators. But Iraq was not mentioned at all during the African embassy trial in New York. Richard Murphy, an Iraqi expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank, sees that as sufficient proof that Mylroie is wrong. ''I don't think she's found support in terms of the FBI and the CIA,'' he says. Mylroie sees the tendency to not recognize the role of hostile governments in terrorist acts as dangerous. But CIA Director George Tenet told a US Senate committee in February that state-sponsored terrorism appears to have declined over the past five years. Transnational groups, he says, are emerging with fewer centrally controlled operations and more acts initiated at lower levels. Clinton's secretary of defense, William S. Cohen, spoke of ''a grave new world of terrorism'' in which ''perpetrators may leave no postmark or return address'' and ''traditional notions of deterrence and counter-response no longer apply.'' Mylroie is swimming against this stream. Americans and their elected officials continue to see terrorism as the violent, random deeds of the world's lunatic fringe, not as state sponsored acts. ''According to the Clinton administration, a new terrorist threat has come into being, represented by loose networks of Muslim extremists,'' she writes. ''It is truer to say that the Clinton administration's handling of terrorist episodes and its refusal to address the question of state sponsorship have encouraged further terrorist attacks.'' Mylroie's argument that the legal threshold in a criminal trial is not necessary for intelligence agencies to prove state sponsorship is fraught with danger, however. Bombing without conclusive proof can lead to embarrassments such as Clinton's mistaken attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. We may never know if Iraq was behind these terrorist attacks, but if the Bush administration wants to lead a more robust policy against Baghdad, it might be wise for it to find out. Joe Lauria covers Iraqi issues and the United Nations for the Globe. http://europe.cnn.com/2001/US/07/29/rice.iraq/index.html * RICE VOWS 'RESOLUTE' ACTION AGAINST IRAQ WASHINGTON (CNN, 29th July) -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice signaled Sunday that the Bush administration was prepared to respond to what it views as provocative military action by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly," Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." "And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate." Rice did not rule out military action. "I think it's always best not to speculate about the grounds or the circumstances under which one would do that," she said. "But I can be certain of this, and the world can be certain of this: Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration." Twice in the past week, Iraq fired missiles at U.S. war planes patrolling the no-fly zones, and Bush last week said Hussein was still a "menace." House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said a military response to Iraq would be appropriate. "I think we should. I think this no-fly zone has been a productive policy. It's dangerous for us, but we don't want our fliers in risk," he said on the same CNN program. "And we have repeatedly warned Iraq that we're not going to put up with them attacking our planes or putting them in harm's way," the congressman said. "So, I fully back the administration in sending further messages to Saddam Hussein that we intend to keep this policy in place." Rice said the administration had a broader policy of trying to effect change in Iraq, and she cited the use of what she called "smart sanctions." Such sanctions, she said, would "go after the regime, not after the Iraqi people." She said the administration would look at the use of military force "in a more resolute manner, and not just a manner of tit-for-tat with him every day." The Bush administration, Rice said, will "increase pressure" on Hussein. The United States and its allies, principally Great Britain, have been patrolling parts of Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. http://www.baghdad.com/?action=display&article=8499992&template=baghdad/inde xsearch.txt&index=recent * U.S. PILOT SEES IRAQI MISSILE WASHINGTON (Associated Press, Mon 30 Jul 2001) The pilot of a U.S. Air Force radar warning aircraft reported seeing an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile fired into the airspace of Saudi Arabia, two U.S. defense officials said Monday. Both officials said, however, that no electronic or other sensors in the area confirmed the visual sighting and that it was possible the pilot was mistaken. If confirmed, the missile firing would mark a new provocation, following the Pentagon's claim last week that Iraq fired on a U.S. spy plane. The pilot of an AWACS aircraft which is equipped with sophisticated communications gear and radar designed to provide early warning of hostile aircraft and missiles said his plane was flying over Saudi Arabia last week when he spotted an Iraqi surface-to-air missile about 200 miles away, according to the defense officials. The officials discussed the matter on condition of anonymity. The incident was first reported Monday by CBS News, which also said the Pentagon is drawing up plans for a major strike against Iraq's air defense network. The officials who confirmed the AWACS report to The Associated Press said they saw room for doubt that the pilot's report was accurate. ``You have a visual report and you have no other corroboration,'' one official said. Nonetheless, the report fits a pattern of increasingly aggressive Iraqi resistance to the no-fly zones that the United States and Britain have been enforcing over southern and northern Iraq for the past decade. Iraq asserts that the exclusion zones are a violation of its sovereignty. The Pentagon says that last Wednesday Iraq fired a missile at a U.S. Air Force U-2 surveillance plane flying at high altitudes over Iraq. The spy plane was not hit but the missile exploded close enough to be felt by the crew. Several days earlier the crew of a Navy E2-C radar plane flying over Kuwait reported seeing the plume of an Iraqi surface-to-air missile fired in its direction. That firing has yet to be confirmed by other means, officials said Monday. Saudi Arabia recently accused Iraq of firing at its border guards. Iraq denied the accusation and said that Saudi forces fired at unarmed Iraqi soldiers, killing one. Saudi Arabia sided with the U.S.-led coalition that evicted the Iraqi army from Kuwait in 1991. [.....] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq010731.html * U.S.-IRAQ TENSIONS INCREASE by Barbara Starr ABC News, July 31 Pentagon officials had harsh words today for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein amid the growing sense that the United States may be getting ready to launch a new round of airstrikes against Iraq. "They have shown over the course of all calendar year 2001 a considerably more aggressive stance in trying to bring down a coalition aircraft," said Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral Craig Quigley. If an attack took place, U.S. forces could bomb Iraq's air defense system of radar, communications networks, missile and artillery batteries that have been increasingly threatening U.S. warplanes patrolling the "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq. "The volume of fire is up" in both the "no-fly" zones patrolled by U.S. and British forces, said Quigley. He offered the Pentagon's most detailed public assessment in months. Provocations Increase In the southern "no-fly" zone, Quigley said Iraqi forces "provoked" coalition forces 370 times since the beginning of this year, compared to 221 times all of last year. In the northern zone, 62 provocations have occurred in 2001, compared to last year's 145. A provocation could be the firing of a missile or artillery piece, targeting of an aircraft, or the prohibited flying of Iraqi airplanes into the "no fly" zones. The United States particularly is concerned because Iraq has rebuilt key portions of its air defense network since the last major bombing in February when U.S. and British warplanes struck radar and communications nodes in central Iraq. U.S. officials believe Iraq has fully repaired those facilities. According to military officials, that repaired network again allows Iraq to track U.S. and British aircraft from the moment they enter Iraqi airspace by using radars deep inside the country near Baghdad. Tracking information is passed to missile batteries in southern Iraq. Those batteries can then fire against American aircraft without turning on their own tell-tale fire control radars which can be readily destroyed by U.S. bombs. July Incidents Pentagon officials believe that Iraq twice used this technique recently. One was a firing against an unarmed U.S. Navy E2-C surveillance aircraft flying in Kuwaiti airspace in mid July. The other was the firing of an SA-2 surface-to-air missile against a high flying U-2 over southern Iraq a few days later. That missile exploded so close to the U-2, that the pilot felt the vibrations in the cockpit. U.S. officials have signaled privately for the last several days that they are gathering intelligence on Iraqi forces to be ready if the White House should order airstrikes. U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and satellites are watching the Iraqis disperse and move their aircraft, missile and artillery batteries around southern Iraq and Baghdad in an attempt to avoid potential U.S. bombing. Officially, the words were only slightly tempered, with the message that the United States will take its time. "We reserve the right to strike targets at a time and place of our choosing," said Quigley. http://atimes.com/c-asia/CG31Ag02.html * UNITED STATES WEIGHS STRIKES AGAINST IRAQ STRATFOR.COM's Global Intelligence Update, Jul 30, 2001 Asia Times, 31st July [.....] In February, the United States sent a large strike package into Iraq to neutralize the growing air defense threat but inflicted only limited damage due to a weapon malfunction, according to military officials. In the months since, Iraq's air defenses have fired more missiles and anti-aircraft artillery in the northern no-fly zone than in the entire previous year, according to Western intelligence sources. The United States last month retaliated against an anti- anti-aircraft installation, as it has done regularly for several years in the ongoing cat-and mouse game. In the latest incidents, Iraqi forces have intensified their challenge, lighting up radars to shoot down patrol aircraft on nearly a daily basis. The Iraqis are also "bursting" their radars - firing an unguided missile by turning the radar off in time to avoid return fire, according to sources. The refinement of this tactic would be made easiest by the acquisition of better radars and tying them into the command posts. But beyond challenging the increasingly unpopular no-fly zones, Iraq has taken advantage of the passage of time and limited enforcement of UN economic sanctions to reconstitute elements of its former arsenal. A series of recent reports indicate Iraq is attempting to rebuild its program for making weapons of mass destruction, which was heavily bombarded in four days of US-UK air strikes in December 1998 after Iraq turned out UN weapons inspectors. Inspectors are not expected to return. In the meantime, the Iraqi regime has been able to reconstitute elements of its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons development programs, according to a July 25 report in Jane's Defense Weekly, which cited Western and Iraqi officials. [.....] The United States has at its disposal the usual forces capable of carrying out a limited military operation. According to the US Defense Department, an estimated 20,000 American personnel are in theater. This includes the USS Constellation aircraft carrier, guided-missile ships and submarines in the Persian Gulf; air bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia; and a small army contingent in Kuwait. Land- and sea-based attack planes and cruise missiles are in place - along with supporting elements such as electronic jamming and command-and-control planes - to strike a limited but substantial blow. Washington has comparatively little to lose by launching a series of careful, pinpoint strikes now. Earlier this month, the Bush administration's UN proposal to overhaul the sanctions by lifting trade restrictions but tightening controls on military imports was defeated. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems beyond US influence. And Iraq has been free of international weapons inspectors for two-and-a-half years. The Bush administration must be careful, however, not to upset Arab nations enough to significantly impact the price of oil. [.....] Every bomb that strikes Iraq may be another nail in the coffin of sanctions, but efforts to isolate the regime and reduce its threat to the region are effectively dead anyhow. http://www.baghdad.com/?action=display&article=8566989&template=baghdad/inde xsearch.txt&index=recent * RUMSFELD: IRAQ BUILDING DEFENSES The Associated Press, Fri 3 Aug 2001 WASHINGTON (AP) Iraq has rebuilt its air defenses since U.S. and British warplanes attacked radar and communications targets around Baghdad on Feb. 16, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday. Rumsfeld offered no indication of whether or how the United States would respond, but he seemed to hint that any retaliation would go beyond the limited set of targets in the February raid. ``One tends to want to do things that will have somewhat more lasting effects,'' he told a Pentagon news conference. He noted that the February attacks struck air defense sites that had been linked by fiber optic cable to make them more effective. The problem, he said, with striking those cables is that they get re-laid. Iraq has used its rebuilt air defenses to target U.S. and British planes which fly regularly over southern and northern Iraq to enforce ``no fly'' zones. Iraq considers the flights to be violations of its sovereignty. Other comments by Rumsfeld seemed to suggest that near-term military retaliation may not be in the cards. He said the administration's main goal in Iraq is to have adequate warning time of any move by President Saddam Hussein's forces to attack either neighboring countries or internal rebel groups. ``Our interest is in understanding what is taking place in that country,'' he said. ``... If, in the last analysis, you're reasonably comfortable that you have a reasonable understanding of what's taking place on the ground, which gives you a reasonable warning time, then that is what you're goal was.'' [.....] NEW WORLD ORDER http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010729-93585441.htm * PENTAGON RATES N. KOREA, IRAQ AS TOP THREATS by Joyce Howard Price The Washington Times, 29th July Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says the Pentagon sees North Korea and Iraq as the leading military threats to the United States in the near future. "Wars might happen tomorrow in Korea and Iraq," Mr. Wolfowitz said in a pretaped interview on CNN's "Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields" that aired yesterday. But he made it clear the Department of Defense views North Korea as the more serious threat, given the United States' defeat of Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf war. "We face enormous conventional threats from North Korea," the department's second-in command said, before being interrupted by one of the show's hosts. Mr. Wolfowitz also identified the Middle East as a possible flash-point in the near-term. "Iraq is still a potent force. If the United States weren't there, Saddam Hussein could be in Riyadh [Saudi Arabia] tomorrow," he said. "But we know what Iraq can do. We fought that war. We know their weaknesses. We know our strengths," Mr. Wolfowitz said. In fact, he said, the United States "overestimated what we needed against Saddam Hussein" in the Gulf war, with one major exception. That exception, said Mr. Wolfowitz, was this country's inability to "shoot down those primitive Scud missiles" launched by Iraq that "killed 24 Americans [in a military barrack] in Dhahran" and "that almost dragged Israel into the war." "The one place where [Saddam] had more capability than we ever imagined was his ability to keep launching ballistic missiles," the deputy defense secretary said. More than a decade after Operation Desert Storm, Mr. Wolfowitz said, the United States has "finally developed" the methodology to defend against Scud missiles." "We're now developing means to intercept the faster missiles that would come in at intercontinental ranges," he said. The Bush administration is seeking congressional approval of a limited national missile defense system to counter possible missile attacks from "rogue states." Many Democrats oppose the plan, fearing it would spark an arms race. However, some leading Democrats have said they may withdraw their opposition because of an agreement reached last week between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two men agreed to enter negotiations that could remove a major international stumbling block to development of a multilayered missile defense program. If the negotiations are successful, it would free the United States and Russia from constraints imposed under the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty they signed in 1972. The ABM Treaty outlaws the United States and the now defunct Soviet Union from building missile defense systems. But Russia now says it would let the United States employ a missile shield if the United States would reduce its offensive nuclear weapons stockpiles. In the CNN interview, Mr. Wolfowitz was asked about claims made by some critics that the missile defense system Mr. Bush envisions might wind up costing $100 billion. "The problem is we're in a development phase. ... Until we know what works and what doesn't work, I can't give you cost estimates," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Nevertheless, he said: "These notions that the missile defense is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars are figments of people's imagination." Mr. Wolfowitz said he recognizes "it's going to be a battle" to get Congress to approve the $18.4 billion in added Pentagon spending the White House is seeking next year. The Pentagon brass wanted an additional $30 billion. He listed readiness training, dealing with infrastructure problems, boosting military pay and investing in missile defense as top spending priorities for the Pentagon. "As long as we were constrained by the ABM Treaty, we were limited from doing those things which would allow us to do missile defense most efficiently," Mr. Wolfowitz said. http://markets.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3PET8LSPC& live=true * AMERICA MUST FIGHT IN THE REAL WORLD by Michael O'Hanlon Financial Times, 30th July Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, seems to have a great job. His armed forces possess a budget equal to those of the planet's next eight military powers combined. Most of those eight - as well as 55 other countries - are close US friends or allies. Mr Rumsfeld works for a pro-defence president in a country that is enjoying peace, budget surpluses and remarkable technological opportunities. He has always been considered a master bureaucratic operator and manager to boot. Alas, all is not well. During his first six months in office, Mr Rumsfeld has been widely criticised as insular, arrogant and ultra-conservative. And for all the problems he has already faced, his biggest challenge lies ahead. The defence secretary must replace stocks of ageing weaponry, fashion a new military strategy for the 21st century - and do so under surprisingly constraining fiscal conditions. Unless President George W. Bush wants to run for re-election as the president who did little but cut taxes while engineering a peacetime military build-up, the annual Pentagon budget is likely to remain $20bn to $50bn below where Mr Rumsfeld would like it to be. For some experts, the strategic prescription is obvious. They sense a revolution in military affairs helped by advances in technology. They suggest a broad shift in US security policy - from Europe to Asia and from land armies to long-range weaponry, missile defences and space warfare. Within many American think-tanks, these ideas have been popular for a decade. But it was not until Mr Bush began his presidential bid in 1999 that such ideas found their way into the political spotlight. And it was not until Donald Rumsfeld took over the Pentagon that the octogenarian Andy Marshall, resident iconoclast and chief promoter of radical military innovation, finally gained the defence secretary's ear. Unfortunately for Mr Rumsfeld, the real world is more complicated. The US military will have to keep doing most of what it already does while preparing for new challenges. A bold and sexy new defence strategy for the US will probably not work. Consider each of the radical claims often made by military reformers, and the problems with each: The US military should change its focus from Europe to Asia. This has already happened in large measure, so any potential for a further shift is modest. Neither of the places where it is commonly assumed that the US might have to fight major wars - the Gulf and Korea - is in Europe. True, the US still maintains roughly as many troops in Europe as in Asia. But the presence is largely for political purposes and the cost of keeping troops in Europe as opposed to the US constitutes less than 1 per cent of the defence budget. That is a small price to pay for America's leadership role in European security affairs. The US no longer needs a two-war capability. It is true that current US military strategy dwells too much on Iraq and North Korea. It assumes that deterrence could fail simultaneously in two places where America's commitments are unambiguous and its forward-deployed capabilities considerable. It also assumes that each war would require half a million GIs, even though Iraq is only half as strong militarily as a decade ago and North Korea's gross domestic product has halved since 1990. That said, some type of two-war capability still makes sense. While fighting a given war in one place, it is important to be able to deter would-be aggressors elsewhere. And to deter, one needs a credible combat capability. That may not require the prompt means for overthrowing an enemy government. But it does require the ability to establish a robust defensive position and carry out some counter-offensive operations. The US needs to anticipate possible future conflict with China. Again, there is something to the reformers' argument. Taiwan would be unlikely to need US help to repulse a Chinese invasion, given the inherent difficulties of amphibious assault, Taiwan's substantial defences and inhospitable beaches and China's limited means for carrying out such an attack. But Taiwan could require assistance to break a naval blockade designed to coerce it into accepting a conditional surrender. However, the US already has most of the requisite forces for carrying out such an operation today. Moreover, it need not prepare to wage war on Chinese territory. The US knows it would never fight to protect Tibet the way Nato went to war over Kosovo, or bomb nuclear armed China the way the west bombed Belgrade. Even once one accepts the need to focus more military attention on China, radical change is not necessary. High technology will replace the foot soldier and the future American military will feature long-range weaponry based on US soil or in space. It is true that smart munitions, stealth aircraft and advanced satellite systems provide great opportunities. But their limits can be seen by considering specific scenarios. Protecting Taiwan against a blockade would require establishing continuous control of the airspace and waters surrounding the island. B-2 bombers cannot accomplish those tasks. Long-range weaponry may some day be able to stop Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia. But it will not work as well in the complex terrain of Korea. Nor will stand-off weapons and missile defences suffice if coalition forces some day march on Baghdad or Pyongyang to overthrow an enemy government in a future war or conduct a stability operation in Indonesia, South Asia or the Middle East. Do not feel too bad for Mr Rumsfeld. He is likely to get a $30bn increase in next year's defence budget - real money even by Pentagon standards. And today's US military measures up well to likely challenges. But Mr Rumsfeld will have to find a way to make modest additional cuts in forces, cancel a few prominent weapons programmes and make the Pentagon more efficient. There is nowhere near enough money for everything and there is no new US military strategy that will magically save the day. For most of America's allies looking on, that is probably just as well. The writer is a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution and author of Defence Policy Choices for the Bush Administration. http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/010802/b3cxpcppbwuyvqfpjgg02a_2.html * WHY RUMSFELD HAS NO BATTLE PLAN by Stan Crock Yahoo BusinessWeek Online, 2nd August [.....] Rumsfeld hadn't had any say in then-candidate Bush's major defense speech at the Citadel last September, in which W. talked about a ``revolution in the technology of war'' and the possibility of skipping a generation of weapons. What exactly had he meant? Rumsfeld didn't know. Bush aide Richard Armitage might have known -- he had written the words. But by the time Rumsfeld came aboard, Armitage was headed for a different billet: the State Dept. [.....] So Rumsfeld ordered up a bunch of studies to see what he should do -- and to stall for time. That's because it was clear to Rumsfeld that he would be working with only one political aide -- Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz -- for months before the confirmation process slowly spewed out more help. The studies were aimed at keeping everyone at bay until the staff was in place. According to those who know Rumsfeld, the studies taught him a number of things, much to his chagrin. One is that the infrastructure problems are a lot worse than he had thought. Housing, utilities, and other capital items are being replaced on a cycle that would take nearly two centuries to update everything. Rumsfeld wants to move to a 67-year cycle -- still longer than the 50 years or so that is standard in private industry. The cost of accelerating replacements is huge, as is the multibillion-dollar tab for a new medical-benefit plan for retirees. Meanwhile, the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines' programs have been retooled for the post-Cold War era, meaning there weren't many Cold War relics that could be jettisoned, or generations of weapons to skip. If you think air superiority will ever matter, for example, you need the F-22 Raptor. There's no other option -- though maybe you don't need all of the 339 that the Air Force wants. Result: The combination of higher expenses and the inability to cut weapons costs has left Rumsfeld high and dry. The tax cut, combined with the slowing economy, has only made matters worse by limiting the amount of money the Office of Management & Budget and Congress want to pour into Defense. Rumsfeld hopes for some savings from moves such as base closings. But they actually aggravate the problem in the near term because of the immediate costs for severance and environmental cleanups. He might try to save money by cutting ground troops, but then whom would he send into southern Iraq to help change the regime in Baghdad? [.....] http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1472000/1472814.stm * GERM WARFARE TALKS SUSPENDED BBC, 3rd August International negotiations to enforce a global ban on germ warfare have been suspended following a recent decision by the United States to pull out of the talks. The chairman of the 56-nation talks, Tibor Toth of Hungary, said the group could not go on working on a protocol on enforcement of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention without the participation of the United States. Quite a number of delegations would be reluctant to engage in continued negotiations among themselves in the absence of a major negotiating partner, that is the United States of America The germ warfare convention, while outlawing the manufacture, storage or use of toxic weapons, has no mechanism to ensure that states adhere to it. Washington withdrew from the talks towardsat the end of July, saying it objected to too many clauses on the proposed agreement. The US says the draft will be ineffective in stopping countries from developing germ warfare, but will endanger US security and expose the commercial secrets of its biotech industry to industrial espionage. Mr Mahley said the US would come up with new proposals "In our assessment, the draft protocol would put national security and confidential business information at risk, " the US representative, Donald Mahley, told the forum last week. Washington's allies have expressed regret at the US decision. Unlike the case of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which was ratified last week despite Washington's absence, the countries in the biological weapons talks decided the germ warfare protocol was not worth signing without the US. Instead, the forum, which has been working since 1994, has agreed to suspend the talks for a year. France said it expected the US to come up with new ideas on enforcing the anti-germ warfare treaty, so that they could resume. Iran and Iraq were among the countries opposed to continuing the talks without the US. Baghdad noted that Washington was needed in any agreement because the United States has one of the most advanced biotechnology industries. According to the rules of the talks, the 210-page draft protocol must be ratified by consensus, and any country has the power to veto inspection procedures or anything else. The latest meeting of the group, which started in Geneva on 23 July, had been intended to finalise the wording of the draft plan. Mr Toth told the members that "the overwhelming majority" of the delegates had been hopeful that an agreement on how to enforce the convention could have been reached by now. Unfortunately, he said, "it is not possible to do that." A periodic review of the Biological Weapons Convention is to be held in November, with the participation of all 143 nations who ratified it. IRAQI/UN RELATIONS http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3GLU2OSPC&liv e=true&tagid=ZZZINS5VA0C&subheading=middle%20east%20and%20africa * ANNAN URGES IRAQ RETHINK by Carola Hoyos, United Nations correspondent Finacnial Times, 30th July Kofi Annan, the United Nations' secretary-general, has recommended the most far-reaching changes in the UN's controls on Iraq's economy since the organisation allowed Iraq to import oil industry parts three years ago. The suggestions will test the limits of Washington's willingness to ease sanctions on Iraq and risk again dividing the UN Security Council. The 15 security council members requested Mr Annan's input in a resolution passed at the end of last year and are scheduled to discuss the secretary-general's recommendations within the next two weeks. In a report issued last month, Mr Annan recommends the UN modify its financial controls on Baghdad to enable Iraq to use E1.2bn ($1.05bn) a year domestically to pay for the upkeep of its oil industry. Under current UN rules, Baghdad is not supposed to be able to handle any of its oil revenues itself. Instead the funds are spent on permitted foreign products via an escrow account controlled by the UN. "The cash component goes to the heart of sanctions, the heart of revenue control and all the contradictions of the US and UK policy, the price of which is born largely by the Iraqi people," says Raad Alkadiri, analyst at the Petroleum Finance Company. The secretary-general drew his conclusion from a report by a team of experts that visited Iraq in March. The six experts found the country's oil industry in such disrepair that Iraq's oil exports could drop by 30 per cent within the next 12 months. "New production is therefore an absolute necessity if current production and export levels are to be sustained and the humanitarian programme funded at current levels," the team concluded. While security council members agree in theory to the so-called "cash component", the US and UK have already voiced reservations over the security risks such a mechanism poses. Diplomats are especially wary of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's president, using the money to finance a weapons programme. Mr Saddam has already proven his ability to siphon off funds from the UN's current oil-for food programme. Baghdad has illegally earned millions of extra dollars in the past year by manipulating the price of its oil - which is set by UN overseers - and by charging buyers an illegal surcharge. Diplomats fear Mr Saddam will do the same with the cash component. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010730/wl/iraq_un_humanitarian_dc_1.html * IRAQ SAYS U.S., BRITAIN BLOCKING MORE IMPORTS by Irwin Arieff Yahoo, 30th July UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq accused the United States and Britain on Monday of preventing it from buying badly needed goods under the U.N. oil-for-food program, even as they sought to streamline the program to ease its burden on the Iraqi people. Baghdad said the value of contracts blocked under the oil-for-food program had crept up to $3.5 billion after falling to under $3 billion at the end of May, when Washington released some $800 million of contracts it had put on hold in the past. ``We appeal to you to put an end to this policy of seeking vengeance on the people of Iraq, and we urge you to intervene so that the holds ... may be lifted,'' Baghdad's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, said in identical letters to the U.N. Security Council and Secretary-General Kofi Annan. ``The policy of placing contracts on hold has gone so far that it is no longer possible to remain silent,'' Aldouri said. Washington's late May move to lift a large number of holds had been part of an effort to build credibility and support for a proposed major U.S.-British overhaul of the 11-year-old sanctions regime against Iraq. The sanctions, including a ban on oil sales, were imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. [.....] http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200108/01/eng20010801_76225.html * IRAQ EARNS 252 MILLION US DOLLARS UNDER "OIL-FOR-FOOD" PROGRAM People's Daily, 1st August Exporting 12 million barrels of crude over the past week, Iraq has earned an additional 252 million US dollars under the UN "oil-for-food" program, the United Nations Office of the Iraq Program said Tuesday in a statement. During the week leading back to July 21, the UN oil overseers approved six more oil purchase contracts for 37 million barrels of oil. In total, 65 contracts for 227 million barrels of oil have been approved under the current phase of the program, which runs through 30 November. At the end of the week, the value of contracts placed on hold by the Security Council sanctions committee stood at 3.5 billion dollars, according to the office. Fifteen contracts worth 15 million dollars were released from hold, while 33 new contracts worth 66 million were placed on hold, it said. After the Security Council on July 4 adopted resolution 1360 extending the program for 150 days, Iraq gradually resumed its oil exports which had been switched off for one month in protest against the U.S.-British "smart sanctions." -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://www.casi.org.uk