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]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] By KEN GUGGENHEIM .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (July 31) - The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urged the Bush administration Wednesday to better explain how it plans to deal with the aftermath of a military campaign in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. ''If we participate in Saddam's departure, what are our responsibilities the day after?'' Sen. Joseph Biden asked as he opened hearings. To illustrate his point, Biden noted U.S. actions in Afghanistan. ''The war was prosecuted exceptionally well in my view, but the follow-through ... has, in my judgment, fallen short,'' the Delaware Democrat said. ''It would be a tragedy if we removed a tyrant in Iraq, only to leave chaos.'' Biden said he is confident that President Bush has not decided yet whether to stage an invasion to oust Saddam, and doubts there would be such an exercise this year. He said he expects the two days of hearings to yield a better understanding of U.S. military strategy, the threat posed by Saddam's regime and the consequences of war. ''In short, we need to weigh the risks of action versus the risks of inaction,'' Biden said. Former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler told the panel that Saddam has extensive chemical and biological weapons programs and that there is evidence he has stepped up his nuclear programs in recent years. But he said he had seen no evidence that Saddam, despite long-standing ties to terrorist groups, would provide those weapons to them. ''I suspect that, especially given his psychology and aspirations, Saddam would be reluctant to share what he believes to be an indelible source of his power,'' Butler said. ''It is now time for a national discussion on this. ...,'' Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, ranking Republican on the committee, said Wednesday on NBC's ''Today'' show. ''This is a serious, serious issue because there will be consequences here, there will be unintended consequences. We need to answer some questions.'' The Bush administration says Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction that could threaten Iraq's neighbors and the United States. And while offering no evidence of an Iraqi link to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America, officials have said Saddam has links to terrorists and could share his weapons with them. Though Bush has often spoken of the need to remove Saddam from power, administration officials haven't said an invasion is inevitable. ''We don't know if the United States would exercise a military option with respect to Iraq,'' Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday. ''There are a variety of ways to address it: diplomatically, economic and military.'' He also said American officials have briefed NATO allies, U.S. lawmakers and others about the threat the United States believes Iraq poses. On Tuesday, French President Jacques Chirac warned Iraq to quickly agree to the return of weapons inspectors. Iraq has refused to allow the return of inspectors, who left ahead of 1998 allied airstrikes. Those airstrikes were meant to punish Iraq for blocking inspections set up after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Rumsfeld said Iraq is unlikely to allow the kinds of U.N. inspections needed to expose all of its weapons of mass destruction. ''It would take such a thoroughly intrusive inspection regime agreed to and then lived up to by Iraq that it's difficult to comprehend - even begin to think - that they might accept such a regime,'' Rumsfeld said. ''It would have to be without notice. It would have to be anywhere, anytime.'' Additionally, it might take the help of Iraqi defectors and other informers to help point out where things were hidden, he said. Rumsfeld said Monday that destroying Iraq's chemical and biological weapons with airstrikes alone would be difficult because Iraq has hidden many of its military sites. On Tuesday, Rumsfeld refused to say whether he thought that meant a ground invasion would be needed to oust Saddam. Also Tuesday, Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont introduced a resolution that opposed the use of force against Iraq without congressional authorization or a declaration of war. ''This is not a question ... whether or not Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator - he most certainly is,'' Feinstein said. ''The question is what (is) the best policy for the United States to address these issues and, if we are to use force, that we do so only after full debate and consideration of the options and with a united government and the specific statutory authorization of Congress.'' The current president's father, George H.W. Bush, obtained a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq days before the United States and its allies began their 1991 campaign, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. AP-NY-07-31-02 1149EDT Roger Stroope Peace is a Human Right Austin College _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk