[casi] News, 6/9-13/9/02 (1)

[Peter Brooke <pbrooke@DELETETHISukonline.co.uk>]

News, 6/9-13/9/02 (1)

US OPINION

*  Feinstein blasts Bush's talk of war
*  Senator Levin on Saddam and Enron
*  Bush Calls World Leaders About Iraq
*  Mohd Atta met Saddam before Sep 11: US
*  Bush's aides press case against Saddam
*  Our Insane Focus on Iraq
*  Bush opposes imposition of sanctions against Syria
*  Some Wonder Why Iraq Is Singled Out
*  American Church Leaders Debate Iraq
*  Democrats Unconvinced On Iraq War
*  Analysis Assesses U.S. on Iraq War
*  Geopolitics have changed for the worse
*  Administration hawks see win in Iraq as chance to remake region
*  W.Va. Congressman to Fly to Iraq
*  Greenspan Warns Congress of Budget Risks


US OPINION

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2002/09/06/MN145945
.DTL

*  FEINSTEIN BLASTS BUSH'S TALK OF WAR
San Francisco Chronicle, 6th September

Washington -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein took to the Senate floor Thursday to
argue that a pre emptive attack to oust Saddam Hussein would be positively
un-American unless President Bush produces evidence linking Hussein to
terrorist attacks against the United States.

"America has never been an aggressor nation unless attacked, as we were at
Pearl Harbor and on Sept. 11, or our interests and our allies were
attacked," Feinstein said. "We have never initiated a major invasion against
another nation-state, which leads to the question of whether a pre-emptive
war is the morally right, legally right, or the politically right way for
the United States to proceed."

Feinstein's remarks came one day after Bush said he will ask Congress for a
resolution permitting him to take action, including a possible invasion, to
oust Hussein. The president has denounced the Iraqi leader for trying to
develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The moderate California Democrat's comments signal that the president may
have a more difficult time convincing the Senate of his argument than
previously thought. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle,
D-S.D., also said he hasn't heard any new arguments that would lead him to
support an invasion of Iraq.

Other senators, including some who support the administration, suggested
that the president has a long way to go before winning approval of his
plans.

"We're not getting enough to make an informed decision," said Sen. John
Kerry, D-Mass.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and a strong supporter of military action
against Iraq, said the Bush administration botched the issue over the summer
and is scrambling to make up for past sins on both Capitol Hill and at the
United Nations.

"The Bush administration has not handled this well," Lieberman said, adding
that over the summer "they rattled the sabers . . . without explaining why."

As part of his effort to persuade Congress to support his plans, Bush sent
Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director George Tenet to brief top
congressional leaders. The president also pledged to disclose more
information to Congress about why he is pressing to oust Hussein.

Feinstein warned that the United States must have international support for
its action or an attack on Iraq could destabilize the Middle East, lead to
missile attacks on Israel, undermine the effort to battle the terrorists
responsible for last September's attacks and reinforce the image of the
United States as an "arrogant and unilateral" superpower.

California's other Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer, wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Colin Powell saying the administration should seek a new
U. N. mandate for inspectors to ensure that Iraq is complying with 1991
resolutions banning it from developing weapons of mass destruction.

"In that way, we can build the type of coalitions that have been built in
the past," Boxer wrote. "Going it essentially alone will be very costly in
many ways: in loss of life, in dollars and in continuing our alliances that
have been built around stopping international terrorism."

And Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, wrote the president that "it would be folly
to send American troops into harm's way without completing our humanitarian
efforts in the region, without gaining the support of our European, Arab and
world allies and without knowing for sure that the regime that replaces
Hussein is better than the one that exists today."

Thompson, a Purple Heart Army veteran of the Vietnam War, said it "would be
wrong for this or any administration to invade another nation without first
presenting compelling evidence that an imminent danger exists."

Feinstein warned that a new war against Iraq, unlike the rout in which
Hussein's forces were ousted from Kuwait in 1991, could be a morass for
American forces. "This will not be another Desert Storm. . . . This war will
be waged . . . from house to house and palace to palace, from street to
street and school to school and hospital to hospital," she said.

But experts say Iraq's military, clobbered in Desert Storm and subjected to
international sanctions that have prevented modernization, is a shadow of
its former self.

"Iraq's inability to modernize its forces means that much of its large order
of battle is obsolete, has uncertain combat readiness and will be difficult
to sustain in combat," said Anthony Cordesman, military analyst at
Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"It also raises serious questions about the ability of its forces to conduct
long-range movements and then sustain coherent operations," Cordesman added
in a recent analysis of Hussein's military.

Bush, campaigning for Republican candidates in Louisville, Ky., again said
he intends to convince Congress and foreign leaders that the time has come
to topple Hussein.

"I take the threat very seriously," Bush said.


http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/020906/nf20020967721_1.html

*  SENATOR LEVIN ON SADDAM AND ENRON
Yahoo.com, 6th September

Senator Carl Levin has never been one to mince words. So when the Michigan
Democrat called Wall Street executives to testify about Enron before the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations this summer, he got right to the
point. As he opened one of the hearings, he growled: "Financial institutions
not only were aware that Enron was engaged in misleading accounting, but
actively assisted Enron in its deceptions."

Levin, who chairs the investigative subcommittee, has made a practice of
questioning Big Business throughout his 24 years in the Senate [see BW
Online, 8/6/02, "He Strikes Fear into the Hearts of Execs"]. Whether the
accusations are of accounting gimmicks, money laundering, or wasteful
defense spending, the 68-year-old Harvard-educated lawyer takes his time
studying the issues before holding hearings.

This fall, Levin will again be in the limelight. As the government pursues
its case against Enron, he plans to look into abuses of so-called
special-purpose entities, particularly when it comes to tax avoidance.
Likewise, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Levin will have a
crucial role in the Iraq debate. Finally, he'll be a key player in the push
to force companies to expense executive stock options.

In a recent interview with BusinessWeek's Laura Cohn, Levin talked about
whether the U.S. should attack Saddam Hussein, his Enron investigation, and
his views on how Corporate America should be reformed. Following are edited
excerpts from their conversation:

Q: President Bush has recently talked about the need to attack Iraq. What do
you think the U.S. should do about Saddam Hussein?

A: You start with the fact that he's a tyrant, that the world would be
better off without him, and that he's a threat. That doesn't answer the
question about what to do with him because we've got other tyrants and other
threats who have weapons of mass destruction that we've been able to deter
and contain.

So the question is: Should we continue to detain Saddam and deter him? Or do
we attack him? Those are the two schools. I'm in the first school because I
believe he's a survivalist.

Q: What do you mean by that?

A: He cares first, second, and third about his own survival and holding onto
power. He's not a suicide bomber. It's very clear to me that he knows that
if he initiated the use of a weapon of mass destruction, it would lead to
his own destruction. I have no doubt about what the response would be.

There's also no doubt in my mind that if we initiate an attack on him that
he would then use a weapon of mass destruction because he has nothing to
lose. He has shown he knows how to use a weapon of mass destruction -- he
has used gas.

Those things being the case, containing and deterring him is the better
course of action. There are risks in that, but there are also heavy risks in
initiating an attack on him.

Number one, he would use the weapon we're trying to have him not use,
because he has nothing to lose. Secondly, the casualties would be
significant. It would not be a cakewalk. Third, we would probably be there
for a significant period of time. And fourth, there are very significant
potential adverse affects in the region.

The disintegration of Iraq would be significant in terms of having a major
upheaval in the region. So there are a lot of potential downsides to an
attack.

Q: Do others support your view?

A: The uniform military advisers and leaders in this country are much more
cautious than the civilians around the President. It's really important that
people understand that our senior military leadership -- our uniformed folks
-- are very cautious about initiating an attack against Saddam.

Not because anybody thinks he's anything other than a tyrant but because the
risks of attack outweigh the risks of keeping on the containment and
deterrent course.

[.....]


http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=15547975&template=baghdad/indexsea
rch.txt&index=recent

*  BUSH CALLS WORLD LEADERS ABOUT IRAQ
The Associated Press, 7th September

[.....]

The Washington Post said Rumsfeld's office Friday night withdrew a
2,300-word article he had written for Sunday's paper making the case for
pre-emptive military action to head off potential threats from weapons of
mass destruction. The article cited the three countries Bush has called the
"axis of evil" ‹ Iraq, Iran and North Korea ‹ as well as Libya and Syria.

The article was delivered to the Post Tuesday, but Friday night a defense
official said the White House decided it couldn't run. Pentagon spokeswoman
Victoria Clarke said, however, Rumsfeld withdrew the article because the
timing "was not right," the Post said.

[......]


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=21571271

*  MOHD ATTA MET SADDAM BEFORE SEP 11: US
Times of India, from AFP, 9th September

MILAN: Mohammed Atta consulted Saddam Hussein prior to leading the suicide
attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, according to Richard
Perle, an advisor to the US defense secretary.

"Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have
proof of that, and we are sure he wasn't just there for a holiday," Perle
told Italy's business daily Il Sole 24 Ore.

"The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq," added
Perle, who is chairman of the Defense Policy Board and consultant to US
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a leading advocate of an attack on Iraq.

"The main objective of the American administration is to avoid weapons of
mass destruction falling into the wrong hands," said Perle.


http://www.iht.com/articles/70053.html

*  BUSH'S AIDES PRESS CASE AGAINST SADDAM
by Brian Knowlton
International Herald Tribune, 9th September

[.....]

"We're trying very hard not to be unilateralist," Cheney said on NBC-TV. But
with Iraq "actively and aggressively" pursuing nuclear arms, he said, the
administration was not "prepared to ignore the realities."

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Cheney confirmed a New York Times report
that Iraq had been seeking to acquire thousands of specialized aluminum rods
that could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium. The administration
spokesmen provided little other evidence to elaborate on the "facts"
referred to by Powell. They said more would come later, in briefings with
Congress and possibly in Bush's speech Thursday to the United Nations.

Blair, too, is expected to present further evidence of an Iraqi threat. On
Saturday, after a three-hour meeting with Bush at the Camp David
presidential retreat in rural Maryland, the prime minister said of Iraq that
the "threat is real." He cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report,
released Friday, that said satellite imagery revealed construction at sites
linked to past efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Administration spokesmen would not divulge details of Bush's much-awaited UN
speech.

But Cheney said that if Bush were to decide on a military course - which he
pointedly said would not require any UN action beyond the resolutions Saddam
has flouted - the U.S. military would not face "that tough a fight."

"We clearly would have to stay for a long time" in Iraq to ensure the
viability of a new government, he said; doing so "would be very costly." But
that, he added, would be a small cost compared with a major new terrorist
attack.

[.....]

The administration has promised more evidence against Iraq, as it is able to
release it. But Powell said that U.S. allies probably were already aware of
most of the intelligence fueling the U.S. concerns. "They know what we
know," Powell said.

Cheney, who has taken a publicly tougher line on Iraq, contradicted that,
saying: "I don't think they know the same information." The United States
had access to more sensitive and complete information than did its European
allies, he said.

But while Powell acknowledged that the allies were raising questions and
showing preference for nonmilitary solutions, he said there was no time for
delay. "We're putting the cards on the table: This is the time to solve the
conflict."

A failure by the UN to act, Cheney said, would leave it as a "toothless
tiger." He said that Bush would reveal more about U.S. intentions in a
speech Thursday to the UN General Assembly.

Asked whether the United States would seek a Security Council resolution
insisting that Iraq allow new and unfettered arms inspections or face U.S.
military action, Cheney replied, "Listen to the president's speech on
Thursday."

[.....]


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55338-2002Sep9.html

*  OUR INSANE FOCUS ON IRAQ
by William Raspberry
Washington Post, 9th September

One sign of maturity is the ability to suffer outrage and gut-wrenching
grief without going nuts. Days before America's saddest anniversary since
Pearl Harbor, Americans remain clearly -- and justifiably -- outraged, and
our grief is palpable. But must we go nuts?

The administration's monomaniacal focus on Iraq's Saddam Hussein as the
fount of all terrorism was starting to sound like a clinical case of
transference until, in recent days, the White House seemed to take a deep
breath. Wouldn't any clinician worth her salt observe that Hussein (without
having done much of anything since last September) has become immensely
bigger and more menacing precisely as Osama bin Laden (remember him?) has
become less available?

To say such a thing is, I know from hard experience, to invite the
incredulity of those who wonder if you are proposing to wait until Hussein
does something before you take care of that weasel. Well, actually, yes.

It isn't as though the "something" the Iraqi president could do would change
our way of life. We're not talking about Hitler (though the name keeps
coming up). We're not talking about the Soviets, who did threaten to bury
us. Hussein's military has been both decimated (by us) and exposed as
unmenacing. What threat has Iraq uttered against us to justify the war talk
that permeates Washington these days?

Ah, but don't forget his weapons of mass destruction.

I don't. But it strikes me as a little weird that we are willing to take
lethal, potentially globally destabilizing action on our surmise that he (1)
has such weapons and (2) intends to use them against us, when, as far as I
can tell, we took no useful action in the face of pretty firm knowledge
before last September.

This point is made by Dennis L. Cuddy, a historical researcher, in one of
the 150 or so books timed for publication at the 9/11 anniversary. Says
Cuddy ("September 11 Prior Knowledge"): As early as the mid-1990s, more than
8,000 former Iraqi soldiers were settled around the United States by our
government. Might some of those be terrorists?

The CIA was monitoring hijacking leader Mohamed Atta in Germany until May
2000 -- about a month before he is believed to have come to the United
States to attend flight school. Does it make sense that the monitoring
stopped when he entered this country?

"Relevant to the atttacks of Sept. 11," Cuddy says, "Vice President Cheney
acknowledged that the government knew something big was going to happen
soon, but they didn't have the details. Even if that were true, why was no
preventive contingency planning done? Why was it not considered that the
World Trade Center might be the target, since terrorists had already tried
to blow it up once?"

Cuddy's point is that we had sufficient prior knowledge to have prevented
9/11. Mine is that the knowledge Cuddy adduces shows how difficult it is to
prevent terrorist attacks. Should we have shut down U.S. airports in light
of the pre-9/11 threat? And for how long and at what cost to the U.S. and
world economies?

Maybe the difficulty of preventing the random acts of terrorism is another
reason for our focus on Hussein.

That's frustration. This is insanity: to believe that Saddam has chemical
and biological weapons and, in addition, has murderous sympathizers around
the world -- and to believe that his last order wouldn't be to unleash those
weapons and those sympathizers on America and American interests abroad.

That we are the principal target of his weapons of mass destruction is, as
far as I can see, shakily based speculation. That we would be the principal
target after an attack on Baghdad is beyond doubt. How then would such an
attack reduce the threat of anti American terrorism?

But doesn't that amount to defending the Iraqi butcher? No, it is a call for
a return to sanity. Alfred L. McAllister, a behavioral science professor at
the University of Texas, Houston, did a survey on how Americans think of war
and enemies pre-9/11 and post-9/11. He found significant increases in the
numbers of those who, post-attack, believe that military force is needed
when our economic security is threatened, that terrorists do not deserve to
be treated like human beings and that in some nations, the leaders and their
followers are no better than animals. Oh, and he also found a significantly
increased tendency to substitute euphemisms for "ghastly events."

Perhaps like "regime change" for "premeditated murder?"


http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020910/2002091009.html

*  BUSH OPPOSES IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST SYRIA
Arabic News, 10th September

In a surprising step, the Middle East branch committee of the international
relations committee at the US Congress announced postponement of a hearing
session which was due this coming Thursday to discuss the consideration of a
law that would add economic and political pressure on Syria.

This came after disclosure of a message by the US President George Bush and
addressed to one of the congressman in which he expressed his opposition to
endorsing the draft law, though Bush indicated "serious differences" with
Syria that would result in inflicting a heavy cost.

However, well informed sources at the US Congress said that the session will
be held next week. The sources said that the postponement was not for
political reasons, rather because the session timing conflicts with the
speech to be delivered by President Bush at the UN.

In a message he sent to the democratic congressman Robert Wexler (Florida),
signed on September 3rd, Bush said replying to a message sent by Wexler in
which he expressed his concern over the developed economic relations between
Syria and Iraq, and that the US government shares this concern, noting that
the US has serious differences in areas we have common interests with Syria.
Bush added "running our complex relations with Syria requires a precise use
of all available potentials for serving the American interests." Bush then
moved to ask Wexler not to endorse the draft law which imposes additional
sanctions against Syria, including halting investments in it and reducing
the level of American diplomatic representation in Syria.


http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=15599783&template=worldnews/search
.txt&index=recent

*  SOME WONDER WHY IRAQ IS SINGLED OUT
The Associated Press, 10th September

VIENNA, Austria: China has them. The United States, Britain, France and
Russia have them. So do India and Pakistan. Israel likely does, and North
Korea may be trying to get them.

Nuclear weapons abound, in friendly and unfriendly hands. So why is
Washington singling out Iraq in its post-Sept. 11 crusade to purge the world
of the threat?

The obvious explanation: Saddam Hussein ‹ who has used chemical weapons
against neighboring Iran and his own people ‹ refuses to let U.N. weapons
inspectors return to check intelligence reports that he may be trying to
build a nuclear bomb.

But as President Bush ratchets up his quest for support for an invasion of
Iraq, agencies monitoring the global proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction say a regime change in Baghdad won't eliminate the menace posed
by other unpredictable governments.

"There's always a worry when one country is focused on that others will be
ignored, and that's a mistake," said David Albright, a former Iraq weapons
inspector who runs the Washington-based Institute for Science and
International Security.

"There are serious problems in South Asia that aren't getting addressed, and
the Bush administration isn't reaching out at all to Iran," he said. "These
situations are very dangerous and require a lot of attention. If everybody's
looking at Iraq, it's more difficult to come up with an overall engagement
strategy."

The Federation of American Scientists, which keeps tabs on nuclear arms
worldwide, offers a bleak assessment of the global threat:

‹ At least 17 countries either have nuclear weapons or are believed, based
on Western intelligence, to have the means to produce them. Seven nations
have confirmed nuclear arsenals: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan,
Russia and the United States. Israel, which is reported to have up to 100
warheads, has never confirmed its arsenal. Countries suspected of pursuing
nuclear weapons include Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea.

‹ Nineteen countries are suspected of having or pursuing biological and
chemical weapons. They include Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Laos,
Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Syria and Taiwan. The
United States had a biological weapons program from 1942 to 1969 and had
30,000 tons of chemical weapons in 1997 when it pledged to destroy the
stockpile within 10 years.

‹ Sixteen nations have the missile technology capable of carrying nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons to distant targets. Aside from major nuclear
powers, they include Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan
and Syria.

Thirty-two countries produce more than 150 different kinds of unmanned drone
aircraft capable of flying undetected below missile-defense systems to
deliver a nuclear or biological payload, the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace says in a new book, "Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons
of Mass Destruction."

Ominous threats abound elsewhere, the foundation contends: China has 20
nuclear-armed missiles capable of hitting the United States, and Libya has
produced more than 100 tons of blister and nerve agents.

"After Sept. 11, the terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction seems the
more urgent danger, but ... the acquisition of those weapons, even by
established nations, dares catastrophe," author Joseph Cirincione says.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations'
nuclear watchdog, monitors the status of nuclear materials in dozens of
countries.

"But we're limited in being able to provide total assurance in countries
that have not signed agreements enabling us to much more intrusively go in
and determine whether a nation is pursuing a secret nuclear program," said
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming.

Iraq, whose military was decimated by the Gulf War, likely doesn't have
nuclear weaponry, despite the Bush administration's insistence that Baghdad
is working to acquire the technology.

"There's no urgent need to go to war," said Albright, the former weapons
inspector.

The respected International Institute for Strategic Studies said in a report
this week that although Baghdad has substantial supplies of chemical and
biological agents, a nuclear bomb could be years out of its reach. It
hastened to add, however, that Iraq could build a bomb "in a matter of
months" if it obtained high-grade radioactive material.

Is the fuss over Iraq obscuring the broader fight to contain the nuclear,
chemical and biological threat? Dennis M. Gormley, a senior fellow at the
London-based institute, doesn't think so.

"There's a decided difference between Iraq and the other members of the
so-called `axis of evil,"' Gormley said. "There's a track record of
irresponsibility on Iraq's part. For 11 years, Iraq has flouted 16 U.N.
Security Council resolutions. Iraq has used chemical weapons against its own
population and against one of its neighbors, Iran."

During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi forces used chemical weapons
numerous times. U.N. investigators confirmed the use of two main
Western-made formulas: mustard gas and a nerve gas.

In 1988, Saddam's military bombed the Iraqi town of Halabja with poison gas
to put down Kurdish rebels, killing an estimated 5,000 people.

"In a sense, we have this narrow window of opportunity to do something about
what can only become worse," Gormley said. "This may be our last best
chance."


http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=15599847&template=worldnews/search
.txt&index=recent

*  AMERICAN CHURCH LEADERS DEBATE IRAQ
The Associated Press, 10th September

A vigorous American church debate is breaking out on Iraq policy, with the
Southern Baptist Convention's chief social-issues spokesman saying there's
just cause to remove Saddam Hussein and leaders in the United Methodist
Church and other faiths warning against armed conflict.

The Southern Baptist official, the Rev. Richard Land of Nashville, Tenn.,
said Monday through the denomination's Baptist Press service that Saddam is
developing weapons of mass destruction "at breakneck speed."

Land contended that war against Iraq would be defensive due to the future
"human cost of not taking Hussein out and removing his government." He said
the purpose would be to aid Iraq and its people, not to conquer or destroy
the nation.

Military action should be a last resort, he said, but Saddam's history shows
he is an "international outlaw beyond the reach of all international
sanctions." Other evangelical leaders have also supported President Bush.

On the other side is Jim Winkler, of Washington, D.C., Land's counterpart in
the United Methodist Church. He has accused the Bush administration of
"unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals" and "a major and dangerous
change" in U.S. policy by favoring pre emptive warfare.

Winkler's Aug. 30 statement said no member state of the United Nations "has
the right to take unilateral military action without the approval of the
U.N. Security Council" and U.S. strikes without such approval would violate
international law.

Noting that both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are United Methodists,
Winkler said the denomination "categorically opposes interventions by more
powerful nations against weaker ones" and believes a nation's first duty is
to resolve every dispute by peaceful means.

The Southern Baptists and United Methodists are the nation's two largest
Protestant groups.

American leaders of the nation's biggest denomination, the Roman Catholic
Church, have not yet addressed the current crisis.

The U.S. bishops' international policy committee urged peaceful methods in
dealing with Iraq during the late 1990s. But last November, in the context
of Afghanistan, the bishops overwhelmingly supported the United States'
right to use military force against terrorists. They said it should be part
of a broader foreign policy aimed at alleviating poverty and protecting
human rights.

The head of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, said last
week the United States should pursue diplomacy because military action would
cost Iraqi and American lives, alienate allies and destabilize the Middle
East.

The governing Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, which
includes officials from many U.S. Protestant and Orthodox denominations and
the National Council of Churches, also has taken an anti-war stance.

Last week, the Central Committee reiterated its 1991 position that "no
nation or group of nations is entitled to prosecute vengeance against
another," and no single nation is entitled to take action that causes
devastation and massive suffering.

The committee called on the United States "to desist from any military
threats against Iraq" and any plans for military action, and urged other
nations to resist pressure to join a campaign "under the pretext of the 'war
on terrorism."'

Richard Cizik, the National Association of Evangelicals' vice president for
government affairs, said in a forum on the Web site for the magazine
Christianity Today that an attack is justified, but Congress needs to ratify
the move and support from a coalition of allies would show proper authority
for such action.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64509-2002Sep10.html

*  DEMOCRATS UNCONVINCED ON IRAQ WAR
by Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post, 11th September

Congressional Democrats said yesterday that classified briefings by
President Bush's top advisers have failed to make a compelling case for
quick military action against Iraq, and several leaders said Congress should
wait until after the November elections before voting to authorize a strike
against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq" that
Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said Minority
Whip Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence
committee. "I did not hear anything today that was different about
[Hussein's] capabilities," save a few "embellishments."

The White House, after originally suggesting it might act against Iraq
without congressional approval, has called on Congress to pass a resolution
of support before adjourning in October.

After attending a classified briefing by national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice and CIA Director George J. Tenet yesterday, Sen. Richard J.
Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "It would be a severe mistake for us to vote on Iraq
with as little information as we have. This would be a rash and hasty
decision" because the administration has provided "no groundbreaking news"
on Iraq's ability to strike the United States or other enemies with
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Senate Majority Whip Harry M. Reid
(Nev.), the chamber's second-ranking Democrat, also advocates delaying the
vote, according to Democratic aides.

Because Democrats narrowly control the Senate, they could keep an Iraq
resolution from reaching a vote this fall. Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle
(D-S.D.), however, left the door open to a possible vote in the next few
weeks if Bush meets several criteria, including obtaining more international
support for a military campaign and providing senators a more detailed
explanation of how the war would be conducted and how Iraq would be rebuilt.

If a resolution does reach the Senate floor before the Nov. 5 elections, it
is doubtful that Democrats could muster enough votes to defeat a popular
president's request, according to lawmakers in both parties.

While most congressional Republicans seem to support Bush's anti-Iraq
campaign, one prominent member{ndash}House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey
(R-Tex.){ndash}has said any resolution vote should be delayed. Such comments
are complicating Bush's campaign to win public support for striking Hussein
at a critical moment for the administration. In a major speech to the United
Nations Thursday, Bush plans to appeal to world leaders to help depose the
Iraqi president and dismantle his chemical and biological weapons programs.
Bush's aides had hoped lawmakers would fall into line quickly, even as they
anticipated possible resistance from some Democrats.

[.....]

Several lawmakers said it is hard to imagine that Bush will reveal details
to the United Nations that were not disclosed to lawmakers in classified
briefings. If "top secret" information was not enough to sway Democrats and
some Republicans here, said a senior GOP leader who requested anonymity,
then Bush will have trouble winning over a skeptical international audience
on Thursday.

"What was described as new is not new," said Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
about information that Rice and Tenet provided to lawmakers. "It was not
compelling enough" to justify war. "Did I see a clear and present danger to
the United States? No."

In a letter to Bush yesterday, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R.
Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar ( R-Ind.) wrote: "There is not
consensus on many critical questions" about the use of force in Iraq.

A top House leader who attended the classified briefings said Bush will have
a difficult time winning congressional support before the elections because
his aides have not presented lawmakers with the "smoking gun" many are
seeking. This leader, who requested anonymity, worries that this will
undermine Bush's campaign to win international support because it adds to
the appearance that the president is acting unilaterally, even in his own
country.

"Daschle will want to delay this and he can make a credible case for delay,"
the Republican leader said.

Pressing lawmakers to act quickly, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott
(R-Miss.) called Rice on Monday night and asked her to submit to Congress a
specific war resolution the week of Sept. 23, so lawmakers can make changes
and try to vote on it before adjournment, tentatively set for early October.

Democrats believe there is a strong precedent for delaying a final vote
until after the elections, so lawmakers will not feel pressured to back the
president just before voters go to the polls. In 1990, George H.W. Bush, the
current president's father, agreed to postpone a vote on going to war with
Iraq until after the congressional elections.

In yesterday's briefing, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), who backs a military
campaign to depose Hussein, called for a special session of Congress after
Nov. 5 to debate a war resolution. "I do not believe the decision should be
made in the frenzy of an election year," said Lantos.

Most Republicans, and some Democrats, however, feel Congress should heed
Bush's request and vote on the resolution in the next month.

"People are going to want to know, before the elections, where their
representatives stand," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), chairman of the
National Republican Congressional Committee. "This could be the vote of the
decade, so why wait?"


http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=15618470&template=baghdad/indexsea
rch.txt&index=recent

*  ANALYSIS ASSESSES U.S. ON IRAQ WAR
The Associated Press, 11th September

WASHINGTON (AP) ‹ A U.S. invasion would almost certainly succeed in
overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but it could cause the Iraqi leader to unleash
his chemical or biological weapons, according to an analysis by an
influential think tank.

The report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies also
points out that it would take the United States months to fully prepare for
an invasion.

"For all its global military strength, the United States is scarcely
organized for an immediate war with Iraq," Iraq expert Anthony Cordesman
wrote in the report, to be formally released Thursday.

President Bush plans to lay out his case for possible military action
against Iraq at the United Nations Thursday. Bush and his aides say Saddam
is too dangerous to leave in power for long, arguing the Iraqi leader
probably has chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons.

Iraq says it does not have any weapons of mass destruction. Most other world
leaders have been cool to the idea of an attack on Iraq, saying it could
destabilize the entire Middle East.

Cordesman, a former intelligence analyst at the Defense Department, made
some of the same arguments Bush has. Iraq probably is trying to develop
biological weapons so deadly they would rival nuclear weapons in terms of
casualties, he wrote, and Saddam could give such weapons to terrorists.

The United States has big gaps in its knowledge of the locations of Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction and the facilities to make them, Cordesman
wrote.

Gen. Merrill McPeak, who headed the Air Force during the 1991 Gulf War
against Iraq, agreed.

"I have no confidence the intelligence apparatus as presently organized will
present an intelligent campaign against weapons of mass destruction," McPeak
said in a telephone interview last month.

Current worst-case scenarios involve Iraq being able to inflict serious
casualties either on U.S. forces or civilians in Israel with chemical or
biological weapons, Cordesman wrote. Either scenario could prompt the United
States or Israel to threaten Iraq with ‹ or even use ‹ nuclear weapons, he
wrote.

Saddam "must realize that major, highly lethal, Iraqi CBRN (chemical,
biological, radiological or nuclear) strikes on Israeli population centers
are likely to trigger a nuclear war," Cordesman wrote.

U.S. forces could use their superior strength, technology, tactics and
firepower to defeat Saddam. The United States should avoid getting bogged
down in street fighting in cities such as Baghdad, since America is weakest
at urban warfare, Cordesman wrote.

"It would take a major U.S. miscalculation about the size of the forces
needed to defeat Iraq or a poorly structured or overconstrained U.S.
operation to allow Iraq to ride out the U.S. led attack through even the
best combination of urban and redoubt warfare," Cordesman wrote.
"Furthermore, most forms of extreme Iraq escalation ... will probably end in
hurting Iraq more than the attacker."


http://www.iht.com/articles/70254.html

*  GEOPOLITICS HAVE CHANGED FOR THE WORSE
by William Pfaff
International Herald Tribune, from Los Angeles Times, 11th September

PARIS: The attacks of last Sept. 11 broke the international geopolitical
mold of the previous decade, which was set by the collapse of the Soviet
system. That left an American military and political power monopoly, which
generated fairly little real anxiety among the other major nations because
the United States was considered a responsible custodian of world order.

The result of the Sept. 11 shock has changed that. The United States drew
back into "homeland defense," but homeland defense proved to mean war
against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and has since been said to mean
"preemptive" military action against Iraq, and possibly other countries.

Washington demanded that governments declare themselves "with us or against
us." It renounced arms control and other agreements constraining its freedom
of action, identifying them as "obsolete."

The domestic result of the crisis was to empower unilateralist and
authoritarian forces in American political society that had grown in
influence in recent years but had been held in check by the overall balance
of institutional and popular power in the country. National emergency and
patriotic solidarity upset that balance.

The new leaders in Washington have a vision that is radical and utopian on
the one hand, and complacent on the other. Their utopianism is their belief
that American domination of international society is history's natural
conclusion - since, as President George W. Bush himself recently said at
West Point, America is the "single surviving model of human progress."

Their complacence is that they think American power can bring this new
international order into being. They believe in using American power without
compunction. They are hostile to international constraints and regard
international law as in important respects outmoded.

Europe and Japan, they say, are irrelevant because, as Robert Kagan has
written, on "the all important question of power - the efficacy of power,
the morality of power, the desirability of power - American and European
perspectives are diverging." Europe "is turning away from power." Only the
United States can reorder the world.

They say that defeating Saddam Hussein and installing an American-controlled
regime will make Iraq, and by contagion the rest of the Middle East,
peaceful and democratic. In practice, their ambition is to neutralize "rogue
states" and "failed states" by military means, as necessary, and establish a
new international system attached to the United States by overlapping
military alliances and by commercial, trading and financial associations
operating under American norms.

They want American domination of military high technology, justifying this
by considerations of nonproliferation and alliance interoperability.

This is their version of American Manifest Destiny. Its authors themselves
describe it as a tough version of Wilsonianism, created in the higher
interest of all.

Such an ambition will fail in the long run, but will certainly generate
resistance, and disrupt the existing international order in its attempt to
turn what has been a loose and consensual American world leadership into
actual hegemony. The potential for serious conflict is obvious. With this,
the United States turns itself into a generator of international tension and
conflict.

Alliance relations already are the worst they have been since 1945. One
American military reformer compares Washington's new ambition to the
pan-German expansionism of Wilhelm II, before 1914. The kaiser also had
unrealizable geopolitical ambitions, and a preemptive strategy for dealing
with opponents. He followed the latter (the Schlieffen Plan, to preemptively
defeat Russia and attack France through Belgium), and created "enemies
faster than [Germany] could kill them."

Washington is achieving something like this in the Muslim world, where
enemies are being made of former friends, and new friends are undermined by
the demands made on them in the war on terrorism.

However, Bush, unlike Germany's Wilhelm, has a powerful domestic political
opposition to deal with, and the American public is already uneasy about war
against Iraq - and against what is presented as ubiquitous Evil.

It is concerned about what is happening to relations with allies who have
supported the United States for more than a half-century. There probably is
a limit to how far the new Wilsonians will be allowed to go.

Nonetheless the Western alliance system that has existed during the past
half-century is unlikely to survive the new Wilsonianism. The Europeans will
have no choice but to find a new way to assure their common security. Japan
will find itself adrift. China and Russia are likely to find themselves
identified again as threats to the United States.

American security, which since the late 1940s has rested not only on power
but on international respect and an acknowledged leadership, will have been
decisively undermined by Washington's own actions. That will be Osama bin
Laden's success.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2002/09/11/MN40244.
DTL

*  ADMINISTRATION HAWKS SEE WIN IN IRAQ AS CHANCE TO REMAKE REGION
by John Donnelly, Anthony Shadid
Boston Globe, 11th September

Washington -- As the Bush administration debates going to war against Iraq,
its most hawkish members are pushing a sweeping vision for the Middle East
that sees the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as merely a first step in the
region's transformation.

The argument for reshaping the political landscape in the Mideast has been
pushed for years by some Washington think tanks and in hawkish circles. It
is now being considered as a possible U.S. policy with the ascent of key
hard- liners in the administration -- from Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith
in the Pentagon to John Hannah and Lewis Libby on the vice president's staff
and John Bolton in the State Department, analysts and officials say.

Iraq, they argue, is just the first piece of the puzzle. After an ouster of
Hussein, they say the United States will have more leverage to act against
Syria and Iran, will be in a better position to resolve the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and will be able to rely less on Saudi oil.

Such thinking increasingly has served as a justification for an attack
against Iraq, and elements of the strategy have emerged in key speeches by
administration officials, most prominently Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The goal is not just a new regime in Iraq. The goal is a new Middle East,"
said Raad Alkadiri, an Iraq analyst with PFC, a Washington-based energy
consulting organization. "The goal has been and remains one of the main
driving factors of pre-emptive action against Iraq."

Cheney revealed some of the thinking in a speech in August when he made the
administration's case for a regime change. He argued Hussein's overthrow
would "bring about a number of benefits to the region" and enhance U.S.
ability to advance the Israeli Palestinian peace process.

"When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of
the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting
peace," he said.

The arguments are by no means uniform, and critics dismiss some as wishful
thinking. Even among neo-conservatives who see an attack on Iraq as a first
step toward transforming the Mideast, there are debates over how
far-reaching and fast the change could be.

The more modest version sees an attack as sending a message to the rest of
the region, making clear the United States is prepared to unilaterally
deploy its military power to achieve its goals, objectives and values.

Among its most extreme versions was a view elaborated in a briefing in July
by a Rand Corp. researcher to the Defense Policy Board -- an advisory group
to the Pentagon led by Richard Perle, a leading hawk.

That briefing urged the United States to deliver an ultimatum to the Saudi
government to cut its ties to militant Islam or risk seizure of its oil
fields and overseas assets. It called Iraq "the tactical pivot" and Saudi
Arabia "the strategic pivot."

Within those poles some clear themes are emerging, and Saudi Arabia receives
much of the attention, analysts and officials say.

Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, contends that a pro-U.S. Iraq would lead to a reassessment of the
U.S.- Saudi alliance, which dates to World War II but has become strained
since the Sept. 11 attacks and the worsening of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.

A friendly Iraq -- home to the world's second-largest oil reserves -- would
provide an alternative to Saudi Arabia for basing U.S. troops. Its oil
reserves would make Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, less
important in setting prices, he said. In general, others contend, a U.S.-
allied Iraq could work to diminish the influence of OPEC, long dominated by
Saudi Arabia, over oil supplies and prices.

"We would be much more in a position of strength vis-a-vis the Saudis,"
Clawson said.

Others espousing the vision see potential changes in Syria and Iran as well.

The fallout from an attack on Iraq could bring to a head the long-standing
power struggle in Iran between conservatives in the clerical leadership and
reformers grouped around President Mohammad Khatami.

Some see the reformers invigorated by the example of a democratic Iraq, or
even a surge in popular discontent leading to far-reaching change. At the
very least, they argue, the show of U.S. power would give the administration
more leverage in pressuring Iran over its suspected missile and nuclear
programs.

The United States could exert that same leverage in forcing an end to Syrian
support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim guerrilla group allied with
Iran that opposes Israel.

A powerful corollary of the strategy is that a pro-U.S. Iraq would make the
region safer for Israel and give the administration more sway in bringing
about a settlement to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

In its broadest terms, the advocates argue that a democratic Iraq would
unleash similar change elsewhere in the Arab world -- an argument resonant
among administration officials who have increasingly called for reform in a
region where Western-style democracy is virtually nonexistent.

"Everyone will flip out, starting with the Saudis," said Meyrav Wurmser,
director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute in
Washington. "It will send shock waves throughout the Arab world.

"Look, we already are pushing for democracy in the Palestinian Authority --
though not with a huge amount of success -- and we need a little bit more of
a heavy-handed approach," she said. "But if we can get a democracy in the
Palestinian Authority, democracy in Iraq, get the Egyptians to improve their
human rights and open up their system, it will be a spectacular change.
After a war with Iraq, then you really shape the region."

Critics call the arguments misguided at best, with tragic worst-case
scenarios.

"There are some people who religiously believe that Iraq is the beginning of
this great new adventure of remapping the Middle East and all these
countries. I think that's a simplistic view," said Judith Yaphe, an Iraq
scholar and senior research professor at the National Defense University.

Jessica T. Mathews, president of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
a Washington policy group, said that installing a democracy in Iraq, much
less the rest of the Middle East, would be extraordinarily difficult, if not
out of the question. She contended that change in Iraq is more akin to
building a wall brick by brick and will require the support of allies.

"The argument we would be starting a democratic wave in Iraq is pure blowing
smoke," Mathews said. "You have 22 Arab governments, and not one has made
any progress toward democracy. It's one of the great issues before us, but
the very last place you'd suspect to turn the tide is Iraq. You don't go
from an authoritative dictatorship to a democracy overnight, not even
quickly."


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2002/sep/11/091100719.html

*  W.VA. CONGRESSMAN TO FLY TO IRAQ
Las Vegas Sun, 11th September

BECKLEY, W.Va. (AP): A congressman skeptical of the need for U.S. military
action against Iraq says he is flying to Baghdad, hoping to answer questions
about a possible invasion and seeking a meeting with Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein.

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said he wants to reassure Iraqi citizens that
Americans are "not out to wage war for war's sake."

"I'm not going as a secretary of state," Rahall said Tuesday. "I'm not going
as a weapons inspector. And I'm not calling upon this administration to do
one thing or another. I just have a lot of questions."

Rahall, who was to leave early Wednesday evening, said he would tell the
Iraqi president he should allow United Nations weapon inspectors
"unconditional and unfettered access to his country so we can find answers
to a lot of questions the Congress has."

Among others going is former Sen. James Abourezk, a South Dakota Democrat.

The trip is sponsored by the Institute for Public Accuracy, a group that
says it seeks to foster the point of view of "those whose perspectives are
commonly drowned out by corporate-backed think tanks."

Rahall said the group, which has been arranging the trip for months, has
meetings scheduled with Foreign Minister Naji Sabril and other government
leaders, as well as Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector who has
become a critic of Washington's Iraq policies.

President Bush is campaigning for support in Congress and abroad for
military action against the Hussein regime, as his father did more than a
decade ago.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62854,00.html

*  GREENSPAN WARNS CONGRESS OF BUDGET RISKS
Fox News, from AP, 12th September

[.....]

When asked by lawmakers about the potential for such an action, Greenspan
said he would not expect a U.S. war with Iraq to lead to recession but that
the economy could run into difficulties such a war lasted a long time.

"It (a recession) would surprise me because I don't think that the effect of
oil as it stands at this particular stage is large enough to impact the
economy unless hostilities were prolonged," he said.

Greenspan also said he believes that foreign diplomacy and military strategy
ought not to take into consideration the impact on the American economy.




_______________________________________________
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