Iraq:  Baghdad to Allow Inspectors, With One Condition

Iraq might accept “some form of inspection” to monitor its weapons of mass destruction programs, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine in an interview published yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 13).

Iraq would only allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq if other countries in the Middle East also submit to inspections, Aziz said (David Sands, Washington Times, Feb. 15).  Inspections should ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not exist anywhere in the region, he said, in what the Deutsche Presse-Agentur said was a clear reference to Israel.

Any negotiations with the United Nations would have to address unkept U.N. commitments to Iraq — not only Iraq’s refusal to accept inspectors, Aziz said (see GSN, Feb. 6). 

Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War, and Iraq has built no more, Aziz said, adding that Iraq is also not involved in supporting terrorism (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Feb. 14).

Aziz’s statements followed recent U.S. statements increasing pressure on Iraq to allow inspectors to return (see GSN, Feb. 14).  Iraq has refused to accept inspectors since 1998 (Sands, Washington Times, Feb. 15).

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Shore Up Multilateral Regimes, Experts Testify

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A panel of experts Tuesday urged the Bush administration to work to strengthen a range of multilateral arms control regimes, arguing that such mechanisms should be considered a more important tool in the war on terrorism.

“It is better to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction than trying to stop them after they have them,” said Jim Walsh, a research fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, in prepared testimony for a hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services.

Multilateral regimes “provide a way to build the first line of the defense against nuclear terrorism.  Moreover, they do so in a way that is financially and politically prudent.  The United States cannot single‑handedly improve the security of all the world's nuclear installations,” he said.

The Bush administration has been criticized by many arms control advocates for rejecting traditional arms control approaches and favoring a unilateral approach.  Critics have cited administration decisions to pull the United States out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to reject a mandatory inspection mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention and to oppose ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Heightened multilateral cooperation and pressures are also needed for deterring transfers of materials and expertise that could be used for chemical and biological weapons from government programs around the world to terrorists, wrote Amy Smithson, director of the Henry L Stimson Center’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project, in her testimony.

“For the foreseeable future, such government-run weapons programs are likely to present the most serious unconventional weapons threats to this nation,” she wrote, citing technical obstacles she said could hinder the development of advanced weapons by terrorists.

“If the complete panoply of tools that these treaties embody (e.g., inspection, multilateral export controls) is utilized fully, effectively, and with determination, nations can be compelled, one by one, to abandon these weapons programs,” Smithson wrote.

Elisa Harris, of the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies, similarly argued that government programs, both in the United States and abroad, are the most probable way terrorists could get sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, because of technological hurdles.

“Assistance from national programs is likely to be critical to terrorist efforts to acquire and use chemical or biological weapons successfully,” said Harris.

A former Clinton administration nonproliferation official, Harris praised the Bush administration’s recent emphasis on the possibility that countries that seek or have weapons of mass destruction may assist terrorist networks in obtaining them.

“This emphasis is on the mark,” she said.

She added, however, that such a danger also applies to U.S. WMD programs, as demonstrated in the deadly anthrax attacks last year in the United States.

“Although the perpetrator of these attacks has not yet been apprehended, the anthrax itself almost certainly originated in the U.S. biological defense program, she said.

Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) said commercial enterprises also can be source of such technology.

“We know now that the al-Qaeda network was busy trying to develop biological, chemical, and so-called dirty nuclear weapons.  These were not weapons that al-Qaeda could develop on its own — they needed access to foreign technology and foreign scientists,” he said.

“This demonstrates why it is so important that we choke off the proliferation of WMD technology at its source:  government labs and commercial enterprises,” Akaka said.

Nuclear Nonproliferation Measures Suggested

Harvard’s Walsh said multilateral nuclear nonproliferation regimes have been unexpectedly effective in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities to states and others.

“Indeed, the absence of widespread proliferation may be the greatest policy success of the 20th century,” he said, citing the establishment of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a key factor.

“Archival documents, interviews with former country leaders, and the general pattern of state behavior suggest that the NPT had a decisive impact on the spread of nuclear weapons,” Walsh said.

Walsh said the administration and Congress have provided insufficient funding toward WMD nonproliferation efforts.

“This year, billions of dollars will be devoted to new weapons systems and other activities whose purpose is to respond to a terrorist attack.  Only a tiny fraction of this amount will [be] expended on activities that would prevent WMD terrorism from happening in the first place,” he said.

He noted a recent announcement the administration will donate a little over $1 million to the International Atomic Energy Administration for use in its work to prevent nuclear terrorism.

“There is something seriously wrong when out of billions of dollars for terrorism, only a million dollars in new money — the equivalent of loose change in the federal budget — goes to the one agency that has worldwide responsibilities for preventing nuclear terrorism,” Walsh said.

BWC, CWC Recommendations

Harris said insufficient funding is being provided for elimination of U.S. chemical weapons stocks, in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Both the United States and Russia have said they will be unable to meet the 2007 deadline for destroying their stocks and the treaty organization, which organizes inspection activities, is in a “financial crisis,” she said.

Export controls should be tightened on countries that do not abide by the convention, challenge inspections should be conducted to pursue noncompliance concerns, and the United States should eliminate U.S. legislative “treaty-weakening exemptions” and other obstacles to the inspections, said Smithson.

Harris urged a resumption of negotiations for a mandatory inspection regime for the Biological Weapons Convention and urged amending that convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention to require national outlawing of offensive chemical and biological weapons activities — making individuals, not just governments accountable.

She also recommended that Congress hold oversight hearings on the U.S. biological defense program to ensure that its scientific, legal and foreign policy impact are consistent with U.S. nonproliferation interests.

Delivery Systems

Dennis Gormley, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said multilateral regimes have failed to adapt to restrict emerging threats from terrorists using cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles as delivery vehicles.

“Considering the enormous benefits accruing to the delivery of biological payloads using unmanned air vehicles, their proven record of going undetected, their extremely low cost and the minimal technical barriers to transforming manned into unmanned attack means, kit airplanes, other modified UAVs, or ship-launched cruise missiles could become the terrorist’s weapon of choice for WMD delivery against the American homeland,” he wrote.

Back to top

Iraq I:  Bush Will Consult Allies, But Will Act Alone If Necessary

The United States is interested in cooperating with other countries to persuade Iraq to stop developing weapons of mass destruction, but it will act alone if necessary, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday amid continuing speculation that the United States is planning war with Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 13).

“Make no mistake about it.  If we need to, we will take necessary action to defend the American people,” Bush said.  “I think one of the worst things that could happen in the world is terrorist organizations mating up with nations which have had a bad history and nations which develop weapons of mass destruction” (Alan Sipress, Washington Post, Feb. 14).

Although Bush emphasized his intention to act alone to defend U.S. interests, he also said he would consult with other countries, according to the London Times.  Bush looks “forward to working with the world” to pressure states to stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction, he said (Roland Watson, London Times, Feb. 14).

Powell Also Says U.S. Will Consult with Allies

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell also said the United States would consult allies before taking serious action against Iraq.

“When [Bush] acts, he acts after considering all the alternatives and options.  He acts after listening to all his advisers.  He acts after consulting with his friends and allies … and I think our European friends will continue to see him acting in that regard and in that manner,” Powell said in today’s Financial Times.

Powell confirmed his support for Bush’s statement that Iraq, Iran and North Korea form an “axis of evil” and said European leaders who had criticized Bush’s remarks misunderstood the U.S. president.

“Our European friends should have come to appreciate after a year now that the president tends to do this.  He speaks the truth as he sees it,” Powell said.

Powell rejected criticism from French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine and European Union Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten, but the secretary said the United States is “sensitive” to European concerns (see GSN, Feb. 6).

“Chris did manage to work himself up a bit last week, and I shall have to have a word with him, as they say in Britain,” Powell said, regarding Patten’s remarks that the United States is taking an “absolutist” approach.

“I have the greatest respect and admiration for Chris, but let’s look at what the president said.  The president wasn’t speaking in absolutist, simplistic terms.  I think he was speaking in very direct, realistic terms,” he said.

Attack Against Iraq Not Imminent or Specifically Planned

Powell repeated previous statements that U.S. military action against Iraq is not imminent (see GSN, Jan. 31).

“We will watch them, and if there is ever a point where we believe it’s necessary to do something else, we’ll do it,” he said.  “But one shouldn’t think that there is some plan on the president’s desk now waiting for him to sign off on.  There is not” (Baker/Wolffe, Financial Times, Feb. 13).

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also said yesterday that there is no definite plan, although he refused to give details (see GSN, Feb. 13).  “There’s a bit too much loose talk on the subject, and I don’t want to add any embellishments of my own,” he told the Senate Budget Committee.

Bush has not determined specific plans for dealing with Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Wolfowitz said.  Grouping the countries in an “axis of evil” does not mean Bush has “the same policy for all three of them,” he said.

“I don’t think he has drawn conclusions on any of them about exactly what to do,” Wolfowitz said (Sipress, Washington Post, Feb. 14).

Canada Wants Proof

Meanwhile, Canada added its voice to the group of allies who have criticized possible U.S. intentions to confront Iraq militarily.  Canada will not support military action against Iraq unless evidence surfaces proving Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister William Graham said yesterday.

Canada also does not support a policy of overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Graham added.  He is expected to meet with Powell today.  “I want to talk to him about this,” Graham said, regarding Iraq.

He added, however, that Canada remains “very concerned” about Iraqi attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq Vows to Defy United States

Meanwhile, Iraqi officials continued to say that Iraq would fight U.S. attempts to affect the Iraqi leadership.  “Iraq will defy American Zionist plots against it in all their forms,” Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 12).

“These statements reflect the criminal and terrorist nature of the American administration,” Ramadan said (Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, Feb. 14).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Russian Support For Smart Sanctions “Close,” Powell Says

The United States and Russia have nearly reached agreement on new “smart sanctions” against Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Financial Times Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 8).

“We are this close” to obtaining Russian support, Powell said.  Russia has many commercial interests in Iraq, which has made it more difficult, but Russian negotiators are coming around on the idea of the tightened sanctions, Powell said (see GSN, Jan. 18).

“Iraq is not an easy friend to have, I keep reminding the Russians,” he said.

The “smart sanctions” are part of the Bush’s administration’s efforts to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power, Powell said.

“We believe that Iraq would be better served with a different ... regime, so we have had a policy of regime change,” he said.

A policy of regime change in Iraq, however, does not mean an invasion is forthcoming, Powell said (see GSN, Feb. 12).  He said that the smart sanctions are one part of a strategy that also includes measures such as support for opposition forces within Iraq and other unilateral and multilateral options.

Some work is still needed on the smart sanctions plan before U.N. sanctions on Iraq are scheduled to be renewed in May, Powell said.  There is still work to be done on a goods review list and on the best way to implement U.N. resolution 1284, which determines when sanctions on Iraq can be removed, he said.

“But we have come a long way and I do hope that we will be able to get that action in May which will put in place smart sanctions and the Iraqis will no longer have the excuse — a false excuse, one that doesn’t really work — that we are hurting innocent people,” Powell said.  “They are hurting innocent people.  So I think that will happen” (Gerard Baker, Financial Times, Feb. 13).

No Pressure for Syria Over Iraqi Oil

The Bush administration has decided not to pressure Syria over its imports of Iraqi oil, even though there has been a large increase in the amount exported in violation of U.N. sanctions, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Jan. 29).

Syria is importing 150,000 to 200,000 barrels of Iraqi oil per day via a pipeline it reopened in 2000, industry analysts and U.S. officials said.  They said Syria is paying Iraq $1 billion per year for the oil, which makes Syria Iraq’s largest source of income outside of the U.N. oil-for-food program.  Iraq has probably offered Syria discounts of $2 to $3 dollars per barrel of oil to persuade Syria to break the U.N. restrictions, analysts said.

U.S. officials, however, expressed little criticism over Syria’s imports of Iraq oil during two recent visits to Syria, according to the Post.  In his visit last month, John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, briefly stated U.S. opposition to Syria’s Iraqi oil imports, according to diplomats.

In a visit to Damascus in December, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns mentioned the U.S. displeasure over the Iraqi oil purchases, but chose instead to focus much of his visit on U.S.-Syrian cooperation in the war on terrorism, officials said.  Syria has increased its sharing of intelligence on Islamic militant groups with the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks, they said.

“Make no mistake about it, the pipeline issue is a serious topic and a point of contention,” said a U.S. official.  “Are we willing to make it a sticking point so that it affects the relationship between our two countries?  No.  We have to be pragmatic.”

Syria has received only “some quantities” of Iraqi oil through the pipeline in order to test it, and has not paid for the oil, said Rostom Zoubi, Syria’s Ambassador to the United States.  When the pipeline is operational, Syria will apply to the U.N. Security Council for approval to operate it under the oil-for-food program, Zoubi said.  He said Syria plans to open a second, more economical oil pipeline to Iraq that will also be operated under U.N. requirements.

“Syria has always complied with United Nations Security Council resolutions,” Zoubi said.  “Syrian trade with Iraq is always based on the oil-for-food program” (Sipress/Lynch, Washington Post, Feb. 14).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Plan Calls for WMD Defense Test Beds

The U.S. Defense and Energy departments have developed a plan to create test beds for defenses against weapons of mass destruction delivered by means other than missiles or military aircraft, Homeland Security & Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 13).

Under the plan, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the National Nuclear Security Administration will develop “test beds at four installations of a varied nature,” said DTRA spokeswoman Maj. Linda Ritchie.

“The test beds will operate like an advanced concept technology demonstration test bed for weapons of mass destruction defense and force protection concepts, equipment and innovation,” Ritchie said.  The proposed test beds “will enable the rapid transition of vetted ideas to high value installations.”

The first two test beds are expected to be set up by Oct. 1.  The first will be established at the Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, Ritchie said.  The second test bed will be at a U.S. military seaport, she said.  Officials will create two more test beds at other installations with high traffic levels and security needs, Ritchie said.

Congress allocated $50 million for the plan in the current fiscal year, according to Homeland Security & Defense.  Out of that, $20 million is allocated for the test beds and $30 million is for related projects by the Energy Department, FBI and other agencies (Rich Tuttle, Homeland Security & Defense, Feb. 13).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Army Wants Greater Domestic Role, General Says

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has been rehearsing its WMD response capabilities at its nearly 100 installations around the world, and wants to assume a greater role in preparing U.S. cities for any chemical or biological attacks, the commander of the Army’s Soldier and Biological Chemical Command said yesterday.

Speaking at a bioterrorism conference of military, state and local officials from across the nation, Maj. Gen. John Doesburg said the United States might soon be able to adequately respond to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction “within a day” if it uses all its resources.

“We’ve got it down to about three days, four days tops,” Doesburg said, referring to realistic response drills his command has been running at various Army posts since Sept. 11.  “Imagine what we could do if we used all our national resources.”

The key to a WMD response, Doesburg said, is having military, state and local officials already used to working together.  Such preparations would be best achieved if active military units with nuclear, biological and chemical expertise were given a greater role in helping prepare state and local officials for such an attack, he said.

“Who’s going to execute this?” Doesburg asked.  “I’d like to say we are, but I only own a small piece of the pie.”

Currently the Pentagon has assigned 24 National Guard “rapid response” teams to assist first responders, with eight more being trained or organized (see GSN, Feb. 8).  Each team consists of 22 full-time soldiers trained to identify and protect against nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and to assess the needs of first responders — firefighters, doctors and other emergency personnel.

Pooling Resources

The National Guard teams are needed, but they would not be enough in the event of a major WMD attack, Doesburg said.  Rather, they should merely be a part of a large-scale military rescue response, he said.

“We need to pool the resources of the Defense Department and, yes, first responders,” Doesburg said.

All four of the armed services have chemical and biological protection units, with the Army and Marine Corps possessing the most assets.  These small units, which would need to be dramatically beefed up to assume a civil defense mission, would be ideal to lead a federal response after any WMD attacks, Doesburg said.

The active duty military units could use their command and control structure to coordinate any emergency responses by federal, state and local authorities, he said.  “They would be able to respond and get the right assets to the scene … quickly and rapidly identifying agents,” he said.

“We need to figure out how to best deploy the talents and skills of the [military chemical and biological] commands,” Doesburg said.  “It’s a tough mission and I don’t have a lot of answers.”

Since Sept. 11 the Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command has formulated and practiced a plan to respond to any weapons of mass destruction incidents at any Army facility, a plan that could serve as guidance for civilian emergency responses, he said.

Before then there was no set plans for the Army chemical and biological units to rapidly mobilize and react to such a WMD scenario.  Now the Army units have drastically reduced the amount of time they would need to respond, Doesburg said.  They hope to soon have their response times down to a day, he added.

“We’re going to provide a basic level of capability to every [Army] installation,” Doesburg said.

WMD Does Not Discriminate

Currently the Army has 67 posts in the United States and its two U.S. territories, Puerto Rico and Guam, with another 25 installations interspersed around the globe — mostly in South Korea, Japan and European countries, but also Kuwait and Afghanistan.  There are dozens more National Guard and Army Reserve installations.

Preparing Army posts for any WMD assaults can only be done with the help of local fire and rescue groups, he said.

“If [an attack] involves terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, it doesn’t stop at a fence line.  Chemical and biological weapons don’t discriminate,” Doesburg said, noting that local authorities will also be scrambling to protect their own populace.

“We can win the war on terrorism,” he added.  “Before long we could have it so my parents in Iowa don’t have to worry anymore about chemical or biological weapons … we have all the resources both inside and outside the government.”

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.S. Reportedly Examining Plans to Overthrow Leader

The Bush administration is reportedly exploring options to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and is preparing for whatever diplomatic and military actions might be necessary, according to reports today.  No decision has been made on how and when such actions will occur (see GSN, Feb. 12).

A senior Bush administration official told Iraqi opposition group leaders recently that U.S. President George W. Bush has decided to topple Hussein.  “We were told that the president has made up his mind:  Saddam has to go,” an opposition official said.

The United States is considering several options, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday during Senate Budget Committee testimony.

“With respect to Iraq, it has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people,” he said.  “And we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about” (Gordon/Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

Powell’s recent rhetoric indicating a hard-line U.S. stance against Iraq is significant because he has been viewed as a cautious voice in the administration, according to the New York Times.  Powell’s repeated reference to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil,” following Bush’s State of the Union address last month, indicates the Bush administration has reached consensus that Hussein must go, the Times reported.

“It’s hard to imagine Colin saying those words on his own a month ago,” said a senior administration official.  “Either he’s come into agreement with everyone else, or he’s decided to embrace the policy in hopes that, from the inside, he can control and modify it.”

Creating an Inspection Crisis

The administration plans to create an inspection crisis coinciding with the deadline for revising U.N. sanctions against Iraq at the end of May, the Times reported (see GSN, Feb. 11.

Officials believe Hussein will refuse to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq or will attempt to drag out the issue, according to the Times.  Iraqi refusal to accept inspectors would provide the United States with a reason to call for strong action (David Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

“If we put sanctions in place in May, then it gets harder for Iraq to make the case that it should not allow weapons inspectors,” said a senior administration official.  “But we know that it is only [a] matter of time before the weapons inspectors get stopped, and we have yet another bit of proof that Saddam will never give up.”

That would likely lead to a U.S. military campaign, and the United States could both encourage rebellions within Iraq and attack with U.S. military force.

How and When?

The military and other U.S. leaders have not concluded exactly how or when the campaign will occur, however.  The military has not prepared a final plan, said Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command.

Administration officials agreed an attack would not take place for several months, at least until the May sanctions deadline, the Times reported.  The Defense Department would need several months to end the campaign in Afghanistan and plan for striking Iraq, said one senior administration official.

Several difficult problems lie in the way of a U.S. campaign against Iraq, particularly the possibility that Iraq could use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. forces or Israel, the Times reported (Gordon/Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13). 

Opposition from Allies

Another problem for the United States is opposition from several allies against going to war with Iraq.

The United States has indicated it is willing to fight Iraq without significant allied support.  “There may be times when we have to act alone,” Powell said.  “We can’t have our national interest constrained by the view of the coalition.”

“At some point … the Europeans with butterflies in their stomachs — many of whom didn’t want us to go into Afghanistan — will see that they have a bipolar choice:  they can get with the plan or get off,” said a senior administration official (Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

European leaders including German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who has a pro-U.S. reputation, criticized the “axis of evil” phrase and U.S. intentions to attack Iraq, according to the Times (see GSN, Feb. 8).

Fischer said the United States should not treat its allies as satellite states.  “The international coalition against terror is not the foundation to carry out just anything against anybody, and particularly not on one’s own,” he said.  “All the European foreign ministers see it that way.”

French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and European Union Foreign Affairs Commissioner Christopher Patten have also criticized recent U.S. unilateralist tendencies (Steven Erlanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

Russian President Vladimir Putin also warned the United States against expanding the war on terrorist to Iraq without strong evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks (see GSN, Feb. 6).  Without “incontrovertible evidence … “there can be no attack,” he said (Mara Bellaby, Associated Press, Feb. 12).

New Attention, Same Old Concerns

Despite all the recent attention on U.S. plans regarding Iraq since Bush’s speech last month, U.S. concerns about Hussein are not new, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday.

The United States has maintained no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq and continually demanded that Hussein allow weapons inspectors to return, he said (Kathleen Rhem, American Forces Press Service/Defense Department news, Feb. 12).

Iran and North Korea

Although Bush included Iran and North Korea with Iraq in an “axis of evil,” the United States hopes to continue diplomatic discussions with Iran and North Korea, Powell said.  “With respect to Iran and with respect to North Korea, there is no plan to start a war with these nations,” he said (Gordon/Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Defeating Hussein Would be a “Cakewalk,” Adelman Says

Contrary to some predictions, it would be extremely easy for the United States to defeat Iraq and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, wrote Ken Adelman, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, in a column today for the Washington Post (see related GSN story, today).

Adelman gave four reasons why any U.S. military operation against Iraq would be a “cakewalk.”  The first is that it was relatively easy for the United States to defeat Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.

Adleman quoted a report from the Brookings Institution that said Iraq currently has 400,000 active duty troops and 100,000 in the elite Iraqi Republican guard.  These Republican Guard forces “would probably fight hard against the United States — just as they did a decade ago during Desert Storm.”

“Somehow I missed that,” Adelman wrote.  “I do remember a gaggle of Iraqi troops attempting to surrender to an Italian film crew.  The bulk of the vaunted Republican Guard either hunkered down or was held back from battle.”

The second reason the United States would easily defeat Iraq is that the Iraqi military has become significantly weaker since 1991, according to Adelman.  The Iraqi army is one-third the size it was during the Gulf War and still relies heavily on Soviet-era tanks.  The Iraqi air force, which was small in 1991, is half its former size today, Adelman wrote.  He added that the Iraqi military has also received little to no weapons upgrades, spare parts or training.

While the Iraqi military has become weaker, the U.S. military has gained in strength since the Gulf War, as has been demonstrated by the recent conflict in Afghanistan, according to Adelman.  Two of the biggest improvements to the U.S. military have been the rise of precision bombing and battlefield intelligence, Adelman wrote, noting that more than 80 percent of the ordnance used in Afghanistan consisted of smart bombs.

The last factor that significantly improves the U.S. chance for victory in a military confrontation with Iraq is the United States’ strengthened conviction after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to Adelman.

At the eve of the Gulf War, former U.S. President George Bush faced strong opposition from Democrats and a divided public, which led to a need for a strong international coalition.  Today, however, President George W. Bush “does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as ‘coalition partners’ to convince the Washington establishment that we’re right,” Adelman wrote, adding that in today’s climate U.S. citizens know the value of the war on terrorism.

“Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security and civilization,” Adelman wrote.  “Unlike Osama bin Laden, he has billions of dollars in government funds, scores of government research labs working feverishly on weapons of mass destruction — and just as deep a hatred of America and civilized free societies.”

“Once President Bush clearly announces that our objective is to rid Iraq of Hussein, and our unshakable determination to do whatever it takes to win, defections from the Iraqi army may come even faster than a decade ago,” Adelman wrote (Ken Adelman, Washington Post, Feb. 13).

Back to top

Iran:  United States Offers Talks

The United States said yesterday that it would welcome talks with Iran even though tensions between the two countries have increased since U.S. President George W. Bush harshly criticized Iran in his State of the Union address in January.

“If Iran wants to set a clear course toward the modern world, we’re happy to talk to them, work with them,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

The Bush administration is more concerned with Iran’s actions than with the militant rhetoric with which Iranian officials have replied to Bush’s comments, Boucher said (see GSN, Jan. 31).

“Our concerns about proliferation, our concerns about weapons of mass destruction, about contacts with terrorism that seemed to be ongoing by some elements in Iran — these are real concerns,” he said (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The United States would like “to be able to sit down with them for a serious discussion, to talk about Iran and the course it might go on — that it could be different from these things,” Boucher said (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Feb. 11).

Boucher said that despite comments by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that recent Iranian gestures in Afghanistan are an attempt to improve U.S. relations, ties still remain cold (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“There’s been no significant improvement in [U.S.-Iranian] relations,” Boucher said.

“[Powell has] often talked about the possibilities, about exploring the possibilities, but we’ve continued to have our concerns about a variety of things,” Boucher said.  “There have been actions that Iran has taken that we have been able to appreciate, support, cooperate with.  At the same time, we’re not going to ignore reality” (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 11).

In Tehran yesterday, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators marked the 23^rd anniversary of Iran’s Islamic revolution with anti-American chants, including “Death to America,” according to the Associated Press.

“This year, despite insults to the great Iranian nation and the trumped-up charges against it, the Iranian nation has commemorated the anniversary of its revolt on a greater scale than before,” said Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.  He added that while there are differences between Iran’s leaders, the country is united in support of the Islamic revolution.

“Let’s not conceal that there are deficiencies and dissatisfaction, but undoubtedly the whole nation is united in supporting the revolution and the path it has chosen,” Khatami said (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Feb. 12).

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. Preparing for Military Action, Sources Say

U.S. officials and diplomats from the Middle East believe the United States is preparing for military action against Iraq, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Jan. 31).

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to discuss efforts to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during visits to 10 Middle East countries in March, according to a White House official.  Also, last week Israeli and U.S. officials discussed how Israel might respond to a counterattack from Iraq in retaliation for a U.S. attack (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The U.S. military has been transferring Middle East experts to the Persian Gulf since late last year, USA Today reported.  The CIA has also reactivated a covert program to oust Hussein, according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Slavin/Keen, USA Today, Feb. 12).

Statements by other U.S. officials have also indicated a hard-line stance on Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“Iraq is unfinished business, and we’re going to have to do something about it at a time, place and manner of our choosing,” said Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in a recent interview with USA Today.

No Attack Until After Sanctions Vote in May

The United States is unlikely to take military action until after May, when the U.N. Security Council is scheduled to vote on revising sanctions against Iraq.  If Iraq continues to refuse to allow U.N. arms inspectors to return, that could provide the United States with a reason to attack, according to USA Today.

Bush’s warnings against Iraq are part of a “psychological campaign” to frighten Hussein into allowing weapons inspectors to return, said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA director of counterterrorism.

Possible Military Strategies

U.S. planners are considering several military options in Iraq, according to experts.  One possibility is a large military attack similar to the one in 1991.  The option, called “Desert Storm Lite,” could include 50,000 to 200,000 U.S. troops combined with U.S. air and logistical supports based in surrounding countries, such as Turkey and Kuwait (see GSN, Jan. 7).

Another possibility is directing U.S. air power against the main Iraqi security forces that keep Hussein in power, including three Republican Guard divisions around Baghdad.  A massive attack against the security forces would allow officers secretly opposed to Hussein to launch a coup, according to Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2001).

The United States could also take a more diplomatic route combined with specific military steps to revise U.N. sanctions and reduce oil smuggling that brings up to $2 million annually into Iraq.  Bombing an Iraqi oil terminal that allows Hussein to export oil through Syria is one possible military step.

The United States could also decide to try to overthrow Hussein by supporting Iraqi opposition groups, as in the campaign to overthrow the Taliban.

“Opposition forces have been fighting Saddam far longer than the Northern Alliance fought the Taliban,” said Ahmed Chalabi, head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Feb. 12).

The Bush administration has announced it would give the INC $2.4 million (Slavin/Keen, USA Today, Feb. 12).

Doubt About Opposition Groups

Some officials and analysts have expressed skepticism about the capabilities of Iraqi opposition groups.  The Iraqi military is much stronger than the Taliban, and Iraqi opposition groups lack the abilities of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, some experts said (see GSN, Feb. 8).

“The INC is worthless,” said Melvin Goodman, a former CIA analyst (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2001).  “The Kurds are split down the middle with some of them cutting deals with Saddam, and the Shiites are not well organized” (Ken Silverstein, American Prospect, Feb. 11).

The Iraqi military “remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition groups,” said CIA Director George Tenet last week (John Lumpkin, Associated Press, Feb. 8).

U.S. Allies Urge Against Attacking Iraq

Meanwhile, several U.S. allies and friends expressed concern and urged the United States not to attack Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 8).  Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday in a Wall Street Journal interview that Russia opposes any unilateral U.S. moves against Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 11).

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in response to Putin’s comments that the Bush administration has not ruled out any options.  Working with allies, including Russia, is critical, he said, but “different coalitions will be formed among different nations for different objectives.”

Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit also urged the United States against expanding the war on terrorism to Iraq.  “We don’t want a military action against Iraq,” he said yesterday (Jordan Times, Feb. 12).

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer also urged the United States against unilateral action.  “The international coalition against terror does not provide the basis to conduct something against someone, especially not alone,” Fischer said (Islamic Republic News Agency, Feb. 12).

Arab Reaction

Several Middle East countries added their voices to a chorus of concern about impending U.S. action.  Attacking Iraq “would be a mistake, which would complicate things and divide the camp of those who belong to the consensus against terrorism,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 29, 2001).  “I do not see the reason that would call for a strike on Iraq,” he added (Jordan Times, Feb. 12).

After concluding a meeting involving 21 Arab countries, the Arab Parliamentary Union said a U.S. attack on any Arab country would be unacceptable.

“The Arab Parliamentary Union (APU) unequivocally rejects any threats of using force against any Arab country and considers this as an aggression on the entire Arab nation,” and APU statement said (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 11).

Possible Allied Support?

Meanwhile, some Iraqi neighbors appear to reluctantly accept U.S. action against Iraq, USA Today reported.  Jordanian King Abdallah II told members of the U.S. Congress recently that he could accept a U.S. confrontation with Iraq, a source said.

Saudi officials have privately said they would support a realistic plan to overthrow Hussein, according to a Western source, who added that Saudi Arabia might allow U.S. forces to use Saudi territory as a base for action against Iraq.

Turkish officials have also indicated they would support military action as long as the United States consults Turkey and does not support Iraqi Kurds’ attempts to gain an independent state, diplomats said (Slavin/Keen, USA Today, Feb. 12).

Iraqi Reaction

Iraqi Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan yesterday renewed Iraq’s recent offer for dialogue with the United Nations without preconditions (see GSN, Feb. 6).

“We have shown our readiness for a useful and positive dialogue with the secretary general and his organization without preconditions,” he said, adding, “The two parties are free to bring up what they judge to be useful.”

Iraq could defeat any U.S. attack, Ramadan said, but he expressed skepticism that the United States is planning such action.

“America has been saying that over the past 12 years, and those who defend their sovereignty and country will defeat the aggressors, such as the arrogant Americans,” he said (Xinhua News Agency/China Daily, Feb. 11).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Arms Control Not the Answer, Gaffney Says

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is turning “about-face” in his recent comments on crafting a legally binding arms control document with Russia, Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, said yesterday in a column for National Review Online (see GSN, Feb. 7).

The seeming turnabout in the Bush administration’s policy toward arms control treaties with Russia can be attributed to two factors, Gaffney wrote.  The first is U.S. President George W. Bush’s desire to reward Russian President Vladimir Putin for his aid in the war on terrorism and his lack of complaint on the U.S. decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2001).  Putin has told the United States he wants a formal accord on the strategic offensive arms reductions the two countries have proposed, Gaffney wrote (see GSN, Feb. 1).

Second, Bush fails to appreciate how far his policies will be set back if “having so forcefully rejected the siren’s song of arms control, he were now to authorize … Powell’s State Department to resume its favorite type of ‘business as usual,’” Gaffney said.  Such business consists of treaties made in the belief of rough equality between the United States and Russia and an “unwarranted belief” that Russia will fulfill its side of the obligations, Gaffney wrote.

“President Bush had it right to begin with:  Arms-control treaties are more likely to prove a hindrance to more normal relations with Russia, not a catalyst for them,” Gaffney wrote.  He added that Russia will use the negotiations of such treaties to reassert itself as an equal to the United States, and in turn use that to gain influence among U.S. elites.

This influence could lead to a formal obligation to destroy warheads, rather than removing them to storage, which could lead to “compromising some of this country’s most sensitive secrets,” Gaffney wrote.  It also could lead to congressional pressure to back away from the decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.

“Mr. Bush needs to stay the course,” and should only consider unilateral changes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Gaffney wrote.  “He should pursue regime change, not negotiated arms control, to mitigate the danger posed to us by real or potential enemies who cynically ignore their commitments pursuant to such accords — and by those who naively still think we can rely on the latter” (Frank Gaffney, National Review Online, Feb. 11).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Cancels Proposed Former U.S. Officials’ Visit

North Korea Saturday called off a proposed visit by a group of former U.S. ambassadors to South Korea in a move seen as a reaction to U.S. President George W. Bush’s recent State of the Union address (see GSN, Feb. 8).

In the last few months, North Korea had quietly proposed the visit by the former U.S. officials, said Robert Scalapino, a Korea expert and professor emeritus at the University of California who had been scheduled to take part.  The U.S. State Department knew of the planned trip, but the group was not acting on behalf of the United States, Scalapino said.

On Saturday, however, Pak Gil Yon, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations, said he had received information that the trip had been cancelled.

“I’m sure it happened because of the State of the Union address,” said William Gleysteen, one of the four former U.S. ambassadors to South Korea who was to go on the trip.

“They probably found it very offensive,” Gleysteen said of Bush including North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, in an “axis of evil.”

North Korea cancelled the visit because “it did not want to send a modestly positive signal right now,” said Stephen Bosworth, another former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and would-be participant (Michael Gordon, New York Times, Feb. 9).

Bush’s rhetoric has also caused concern in South Korea, according to the Washington Post.  According to aides, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung had hoped to use Bush’s upcoming visit to Seoul, Feb. 19-20, to persuade him to head an international effort to being North Korea back to negotiations (see GSN, Feb. 8).

Now, however, Kim has lowered his expectations for Bush’s visit, said a senior South Korean Foreign Ministry official.

“As long as Bush repeats his support for North-South dialogue, that will be enough,” the official said.

Bush may instead wait for the South Korean elections and a new president before attempting to restart negotiations with North Korea, according to analysts.  Lee Hoi-chang, leader of the opposition Grand National Party, is the leading candidate to succeed Kim as South Korean president, according to the Post.  Lee is a supporter of strict reciprocity and verification measures when it comes to any agreements with North Korea, and has endorsed Bush’s “axis of evil” comments, the Post reported.

South Koreans are less upset over what Bush said of North Korea and more upset over how he said it, according to Lee Chung-min, a professor of international relations at Yonsei University in Seoul.

“A big part of this is about the South Korean government losing face,” Lee said.  “There’s a general recognition that the sunshine policy has been less successful than everyone hoped.  But the feeling is, why do you have to embarrass us by calling attention to it so publicly?”

Bush’s comments, which included calling the North Korean government “evil,” have “poured ice water on a dying fire,” said Kim Chung-kyun, a research fellow at Hyundai Economic Research Institute.

“This summit in Seoul is going to be a strange one,” said Kim Young-hie, a columnist for the Joon-ang Ilbo newspaper in Seoul.  “President Bush is going to be wagging his finger at President Kim and warning of an axis of evil,” while the two leaders “shake hands in mutual support of the sunshine policy” (Clay Chandler, Washington Post, Feb. 10).

South Korea is expected to attempt to convince North Korea to reduce its suspected weapons of mass destruction and re-enter WMD negotiations with the United States during inter-Korean meetings, a high-level South Korean official said yesterday.

“The government will bring up the WMD issue at future inter-Korean talks, whether they are a ministerial or defense ministerial level,” the official said.

South Korea would urge North Korea to resolve the WMD issue directly with the United States, the official said.

“The issue of developing nuclear weapons and missiles by the North is basically a topic with the U.S., while inter-Korean talks concern easing of military tension on the Korean peninsula,” he said (Yonhap/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 10).

Back to top

Iraq:  Russia Says Talks on Sanctions Made Progress

U.S.-Russian talks last week on revising U.N. sanctions against Iraq resulted in “real progress,” Russian Foreign Ministry officials said Friday.  Russian negotiators, however, insist on simplifying sanctions — not tightening them — and the two sides continue to disagree on certain issues, the officials said.

“Real progress has been achieved in clarifying questions, although certain differences remain, and also with regard to the need to narrow the spheres of disagreement,” a ministry statement said.

The statement followed a U.S. report that the negotiating teams had made progress (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The two countries agreed to meet again in mid-March to continue negotiating sanctions revisions, which are scheduled to take effect by the end of May.  The U.S.-Russian talks follow an agreement in November to extend the oil-for-food program in Iraq and negotiate a list of dual-use goods that would require U.N. approval before Iraq could import them (see GSN, Nov. 30).

The United States agreed to review requirements for lifting sanctions as long as weapons inspectors could return it Iraq, but Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said Friday he would not allow inspectors to return (Reuters/Moscow Times, Feb. 11).

Putin Warns Bush Against Attacking Iraq

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during an interview with the Wall Street Journal that he disagrees with U.S. President George W. Bush’s statement that Iraq, Iran and North Korea form an “axis of evil,” and he warned Bush against attacking Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 6).

“We oppose the drawing up of blacklists,” Putin said in reference to the “axis of evil” phrase.  Iraq is “completely different” from Afghanistan, he said.

Iraq does present problems, and Russia is willing to help solve some of those problems, he said.  “Such problems cannot be solved by one country alone,” Putin said.

Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, Putin said, adding that sending weapons inspectors back into the country would be the best way to ensure Iraq does not develop them, rather than military action (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“We have not yet used all the instruments available to us to know what we need to know.  Why should we turn to other measures while there are still possibilities in the hands of the international community?”

Russia-U.S. Relations Are Good

Despite his disagreement with Bush over Iraq, Putin said the two presidents had developed a “new level of trust, a very high level of trust” between their countries.

“Our cooperation is the most important factor for stability in the world, and we should never forget that,” Putin said.

U.S. Pressure on Iraq Continues

Meanwhile, the Bush administration said it is considering all options regarding Iraq.  The Iraqi leader “is on notice, and we will deal with Saddam Hussein in a manner and at the time of our choosing,” said Sean McCormack, National Security Council spokesman (House/Higgins, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP