The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .
I. SAUDI PRESS WARNS IRAQ, AFP, NOV 9
II. EGYPTIAN LEADERS REITERATE OPPOSITION TO STRIKE, AFP, NOV 10
III. IRAQI OFFICIAL WARNS OF CRISES AND VIOLENCE, MENA, NOV 8
IV. "A PLAN FOR SADDAM," NEWSWEEK, NOV 16
V. JINSA, OVERTHROW SADDAM, NOV 10
VI. IRAQI PRESS CITES NYT TO BLAST IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, AL JUMHURIYAH,
NOV 4
Today is the 98th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the
11th day without UNSCOM monitoring.
The 238-count indictment against Bin-Laden et. al., issued last week
for the US embassy bombings, can be found at:
http://www.fbi.gov/fo/nyfo/prladen.htm [courtesy of David Schenker, TWI]
It is increasingly clear that the Saudis do not oppose a US military
strike against Iraq, if Saddam doesn't back down. As AFP, Nov 9,
reported, the Saudi press warned Saddam on Monday "that Arab states will
not be able to block US-led military action if he continues to defy the
United Nations over arms inspections." Yesterday, according to AFP's
headline, the Saudi press warned Iraq of another Desert Storm.
But Egypt has again reaffirmed its opposition to a US strike.
According to AFP, Nov 10, Osama al-Baz, senior political advisor to Pres
Mubarak, told Al-Ahram, "Egypt rejects the use of force by the United
States or any other country each time differences with Iraq emerge
because this would mean a policy of double standards." Egypt's Foreign
Minister, Amr Mussa, told a Qatari paper that it is "necessary to carry
out a revision of the work of the Special Commission in the wake of the
remarks and criticism levelled at certain (arms) inspectors."
No major Arab/Muslim country speaks out on Iraq's behalf to the
extent that Egypt does. Egypt's defense of Iraq/criticism of the US
seems to surpass that of every major country in the world, including
Russia and China. In response to the last "Iraq News," an Israeli
expert on Iraq was kind enough to note that while there was no proof
that Iraqi intelligence was working with Egyptian fundamentalists, it
was plausible and something to be looked into.
MENA, Nov 8, from Baghdad, reported that an unnamed Iraqi official
"warned that the cycle of violence and chaos in the region may expand if
the United States continues what he described as its aggressive policy.
. . . Failure to restructure [UNSCOM] he said, will not only keep
sanctions in place, but will also cause further crises, prolong the US
military presence in the Gulf, and lead to further popular rejection,
rebellion, and violence."
And Iraqi Foreign Minister, Muhammad al-Sahhaf, told Qatar's
al-Jazirah Space Channel Television, Nov 9, that "any use of military
force against Iraq will violently shake the region and will not lead to
any solution. It will cause a dangerous deterioration in the situation
whose consequences are only known by God."
Newsweek, Nov 16, explained US decision making prior to Iraq's Oct 31
decision to suspend UNSCOM monitoring, "Maintaining sanctions is at the
heart of the new US strategy . . . The blueprint was developed last
spring by the National Security Council, in response to a plea from
national security adviser Sandy Berger. During last February's
standoff, a frustrated Berger called one senior official, Richard
Clarke, in the middle of the night and complained, astonishing (given
all the war talk), that 'we have no strategy on Iraq.' . . . After an
extensive study, an ad hoc group pulled together by Clarke concluded-in
papers so sensitive they were never circulated below the deputy cabinet
level-that, short of invasion, the United States had no good military
options on Iraq. Airstrikes were not going to topple Saddam or force
him to give the United Nations unfettered access. And UN inspections
were overrated: it was simply not feasible to track down all of Saddam's
biochemical stash."
Yesterday, DoD spokesman, Kenneth Bacon, detailed US force
deployments, "In the Gulf today we have 23,500 US soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines. There are 2,600 soldiers, 14,300 sailors and
Marines; 5,600 in the Air Force; and then there are joint headquarters
and other joint units comprised of 1,000 people. We have 23 ships in
the area and that's principally the USS EISENHOWER Carrier Battle Group
and the ESSEX Amphibious Ready Group. Of those 23 ships, 14 of them are
combatants and 8 are Tomahawk capable. We have in the area today 171
aircraft including air to air, air to ground, dual role, support and
attack helicopters." That did not include US forces in Turkey.
Bacon also explained that when "we reduced our forces in the Gulf
from about 40,000 people last spring, we changed the way we deal with
the forces in the Gulf in two ways. First, we left behind a
significantly higher number of cruise missiles. We doubled the cruise
missile supply in the Gulf. Second, we, while pulling forces out, built
in a very rapid reinforcement capability and that involves putting
certain naval and Air Force forces on a 96 hour tether which means that
certain forces are designated at certain times-for instance an air
expeditionary force-to be ready to pull up stakes and get to the Gulf
within 96 hours."
And today's Wash Post explained, "The administration did not commit
itself yesterday to an expensive buildup of forces that would rival last
winter's $1.4 billion deployment to the Persian Gulf. The USS
Enterprise carrier battle group and USS Bellau Wood amphibious group,
ordered to steam faster to the region, are early replacements for
warships already on station. When they arrive on Nov. 23 and Nov. 26,
the administration will have to decide whether to leave the USS
Eisenhower and USS Essex groups in place-doubling the naval power on
hand-or to allow them to return to home ports as scheduled. Defense
officials said a third carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, was likely to
replace the Eisenhower if Clinton decides to keep two in the region.
The Air Force. . . is standing by to deploy an Air Expeditionary Force
of land-based warplanes to Bahrain or Kuwait. Heavy B-52 bombers and
stealthy F-117 A strike planes could move quickly into place, but have
not been ordered to do so."
As for Iraqi movements, Bacon said yesterday, "There has been little
change in the Iraqi air defenses. There has been some dispersion of
Republican Guard and regular army units over the last week or so. That
is they've spread out over larger areas."
The Wash Post also reported that "senior administration officials
said they still hope the orchestration of warning and force movements
will impel Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to reverse his decisions of
Aug 5 and Oct 31 to halt all work by United Nations arms inspectors."
On the Jim Lehrer Newshour, yesterday, Iraqi UN ambassador, Nizar
Hamdoon, said that if there is a US strike, Baghdad would end all UNSCOM
operations in Iraq.
If there is a US strike, what should its objective be? Following the
last confrontation, JCS Chairman, Henry Shelton told the Wash Post, Mar
1, "You can't say we will destroy his WMD capability because you just
flat can't do that. . . You can diminish it, you can certainly take out
those things that are obvious. He's got delivery systems he can use.
He's got different types of plants and things that he manufactures stuff
in that can assist or aid his WMD capabilities. But when it comes to his
storage things, you don't know where that is, and the dual use
facilities -- you're not planning to hit hospitals. So he's still got
things that can be converted in fairly rapid period of time, ranging
from one week up to about six weeks, depending on whether it's chemical
or biological."
The Wash Post today reported that Maj. Gen. Fahad Al Amir, deputy
chief of Kuwait's armed services, said in public remarks that "US
military strikes should target 'Saddam Hussein and his military machine'
with the objective of toppling the regime. In an interview he added
that the targets should include 'the ring close to Saddam which
maintains his survival.' Kuwait . . . favors establishment of a wide
enclave in southern Iraq, akin to one already in the north, in which
Iraqi ground forces would be prohibited and Shiite rebels encourage to
actively oppose the regime. 'In the south, the revolution is there . .
It's underground. It's ready.'"
That is also pretty much what the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs suggested yesterday. In addition to military strikes
against Iraqi weapons sites, it advised, "Congress has given the
president authority to provide overt assistance-including weapons-to the
Iraqi democratic opposition. . . Ultimately, this is the most sure way
to remove the threat of Saddam from the region and his foot from the
neck of the Iraqi people."
Finally, an Iraqi newspaper drew on the authority of the NYT to
blast the Iraq Liberation Act [see "Iraq News," Oct 26]. Al Jumhuriyah,
Nov 4, wrote, "In its issue on 19 October 1998, The New York Times
published an article indicating the futility of their desperate draft
law and noting that it is not guaranteed to achieve anything. . . . The
New York Times also reminded everyone that the ones whom the US
administration considers Iraqi 'opposition,' who are ready to accept its
terms, have not achieved any result after receiving previous funds and
aid, and that the only apparent and tangible result from their previous
acts was the disbursement of financial aid to themselves and gaining the
curse of the steadfast Iraqi people who are courageously fighting the
conspiracy of genocide represented by 'a total blockade.' . . . In view
of this consistent fact as part of the Iraqi people's life-a fact that
is acknowledged by The New York Times, the US intelligence services, and
their rancorous elements in the Congress-the harvest of their draft law,
to which they allocated $97 million, will be similar to other desperate
plans, which failed and were crushed by the gigantic Iraqi will."
I. SAUDI PRESS WARNS IRAQ
Arabs can not block military action against Iraq: Saudi papers
RIYADH, Nov 9 (AFP) Saudi newspapers warned Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein on Monday that Arab states will not be able to block US-led
military action if he continues to defy the United Nations over arms
inspections.
"It is regrettable that the Iraqi regime decides each time to embark
on a risky venture, ignoring the fate of millions of Iraqis, said
Al-Jazira, criticising what it called the "irresponsible actions" of
Baghdad.
Although "no Arab or Islamic state backs military action against
Iraq, nobody will be able to prevent a recourse to such action if Iraqi
leaders persist in their refusal" to cooperate with UN arms inspectors,
it said.
Al-Medina, another Saudi daily, said Baghdad was mistaken if it
believed a fresh crisis would strengthen its case for a lifting of UN
sanctions, which have been in force ever since Iraq's 1990 invasion of
Kuwait.
Such a tactic was "a gamble lost in advance," said the newspaper,
urging Baghdad "to spare what is left of Iraq's potential and not to
expose the country to more destruction."
Iraq triggered the latest crisis on October 31 by halting all
cooperation with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of its
disarmament, a body which Baghdad accuses of spying for the United
States to prolong sanctions.
On Sunday, officials and diplomats in Riyadh warned in private that
the Saudi kingdom could back the use of force against Iraq this time if
diplomacy fails to resolve the crisis.
In contrast, Saudi Arabia was opposed to similar threats by United
States and Britain during a previous crisis in February when Iraq
refused to allow UNSCOM to search presidential sites.
II. EGYPTIAN LEADERS REITERATE OPPOSITION TO STRIKE
Egypt opposed to military strike on Iraq
CAIRO, Nov 10 (AFP) - Egypt is opposed to a US mi1itary strike against
Iraq for its defiance of UN weapons inspections, Osama al-Baz, political
acivisor to President Hosni Mubarak, said in remarks published Tuesday.
"Egypt rejects the use of force by the United States or any other
country each time differences with Iraq emerge because this would mean a
policy of double standards," the government daily Al-Ahram quoted Baz as
saying.
Baz, who called for a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis noted
that military force "is not used against countries such as Israel which
violate all international legislation."
Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Mussa told the Qatari newspaper Al Raya
meanwhile that Baghdad had a legitimate right in calling for changes to
the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of its disarmament.
It is "necessary to carry out a revision of the work of the Special
Commission in the wake of the remarks and criticism levelled at certain
(arms) inspectors," Mussa said.
He noted that US arms inspector Scott Ritter, who has retired, passed
on information to Israel "In my opinion, that's the worst thing to have
happened to UNSCOM," said Mussa.
UNSCOM chief Richard Butler has acknowledged that his inspectors had
worked with Israel, after reports in the Washington Post that they
shared intelligence with the Jewish state from US spy planes on loan to
UNSCOM.
But at the same time, Egypt's foreign minister called for Iraq "to
respect UN resolutions" and said that, "in return, the sanctions will
not be eternal."
Egypt would be "ready to play any role which would be useful to
resolve the crisis between Iraq and the United Nations over arms
inspections," but the circumstances must be favourable," he said. . .
III. IRAQI OFFICIAL WARNS OF CRISES AND VIOLENCE
Cairo, MENA, in Arabic, 1045 GMT 8 Nov 98
[FBIS Translated Text] Baghdad, 8 Nov (MENA)-An Iraqi official has
called on the Arab leaders and the world nations to work for a fair
settlement of the current Iraq-UN crisis. He warned that the cycle of
violence and chaos in the region may expand if the United States
continues what he described as its aggressive policy.
The official, who refused to be identified, told a MENA correspondent
in Baghdad that the past eight years witnessed many crises between Iraq
and the UN Special Commission [UNSCOM]. Those crises, he added, were
political, not legal. They were created by UNSCOM but found political
and propaganda cover through US interference in the work of the UN
Security Council.
The Iraqi official accused UNSCOM of serving the US policy. Failure
to restructure the commission, he said, will not only keep sanctions in
place, but will also cause further crises, prolong the US military
presence in the Gulf, and lead to further popular rejection, rebellion,
and violence.
[Description of source: Egyptian Government News Agency]
IV. "A PLAN FOR SADDAM," NEWSWEEK, NOV 16
Newsweek, November 16, 1998
The White House months ago cooked up a new strategy for crippling Iraq.
Will it work?
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
It's been a year since William Co-hen strode onto the set of ABC's
"This Week" with a sack of sugar, and tried to scare the bejesus out of
America. "Call this anthrax," the Defense secre-tary intoned, pointing
to a five-pound bag of Domino's that, he said, could kill hun-dreds of
thousands. His act was part of an aggressive U.S. campaign to portray
Saddam Hussein as a world class threat---and to justify military strikes
that would at last end the impasse over Iraq's weapons programs. But the
effort backfired. A few months later, when Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright compared the Iraqi tyrant to Hitler, she was practically
laughed out of an Ohio "town meeting." To some, it even looked like
Saddam the bully was the one getting bullied. The Saudis and other Arabs
opposed using force, and France and Russia, eager to do oil deals, began
bargaining to lift sanctions. By August, when Saddam again refused to
co-operate with U.N. inspectors, only feeble threats emanated from the
White House. And it appeared to lack any kind of plan.
Not quite. In fact the administration now says, it's had a strategy
all along. The new tactics went on display last week, after an
emboldened Saddam defied the United Nations by threatening to kick its
weapons inspectors out altogether. This time, not only did Cohen avoid
the Sunday chat shows, he didn't even bring his traveling press with him
when he flew to the gulf to build support for a military strike that
could come as early as this week. There were no town meetings-especially
in Ohio-and few news briefings. The new tack: quiet consensus-building
first, war drums later and a careful consideration of when to pick a
fight-especially when the most critical challenge is to maintain
worldwide support for economic sanctions against Iraq.
Think of it as rope-a-dope diplomacy. Having failed at taking the
offensive against Saddam, the administration decided--in an unannounced
change of policy last spring--to hold back the military option until the
Iraqi leader overreached by doing something really flagrant. Now, "Iraq
is more isolated than at any time since the gulf war," says one Pentagon
source. Saddam's most recent flouting of the United Nations left even
the French and Russians little choice last week but to condemn him.
Though the U.N. Security Council, in a resolution Thursday, balked at an
explicit threat of force, U.S. officials could scarcely contain their
glee over what they described as private assents from Paris to Riyadh
for strikes. "We expected Iraq to shoot itself in the foot," one senior
official claimed during a frank discussion of the new tactics. "So we
bided our time." In the past, he said, other nations "saw the United
States as trigger-happy" over lesser issues, like gaining access to
Saddam's palaces. That's why, in February, the White House agreed to a
compromise inspection deal brokered by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan. If it launched strikes unilater-ally, the administration feared
"there was a real chance ... that the U.N. sanctions regime might be
broken," the official said.
Maintaining sanctions is at the heart of the new U.S. strategy--and
of the unpublicized plan to cripple Saddam. Newsweek has learned that
the blueprint was developed last spring by the National Security
Council, in response to a plea from national-security adviser Sandy
Berger. During last February's standoff, a frustrated Berger called one
senior official, Richard Clarke, in the middle of the night and
complained, astonishingly (given all the war talk), that "we have no
strategy on Iraq," an NSC source says. After an extensive study, an ad
hoc group pulled together by Clarke concluded--in papers so sensitive
they were never circulated below the deputy cabinet level--that, short
of invasion, the United States had no good military options on Iraq.
Air strikes were not going to topple Saddam or force him to give the
United Nations unfettered access. And U.N. inspections were overrated:
it was simply not feasible to track down all of Saddam's biochemical
stash.
V. JINSA, OVERTHROW SADDAM
JINSA report
November 10, 1998
Number 87
Iraq - Again
Iraq tosses the UNSCOM inspectors - again. Secretary of Defense Bill
Cohen travels the region looking for Arab and Turkish "support" for some
American policy or other - again. They reject him - again. The
President waffles between threats of military action and a collapse into
no action at all -again. The Administration denies that it is waffling
again. The French and the Russians push to end sanctions on Iraq -
again. Saddam wins - again.
And why not? After all he, not we, seems to grasp the fundamental
point here:
Saddam's goal is regional hegemony, which he plans to ensure by
having an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and the means to
deliver it. He has already demonstrated his willingness to hit civilian
targets (including Muslim ones) with missiles (Iranian cities during the
Iran-Iraq War and Tel Aviv during the Gulf War) and chemicals (the
Kurdish city of Halabja in 1988). The valiant inspectors of UNSCOM
have been a tremendous impediment to his plan, and their ouster is
essential - at all costs.
Against this backdrop, according to published reports the National
Security Council decided last spring that it is not feasible to track
down all of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons caches, and that
military strikes could not force Saddam to let UNSCOM search the country
unimpeded. The NSC essentially threw in the towel, leaving sanctions as
the only face-saving mechanism for an administration that wanted to
pretend it is "doing something" about Iraq.
President Clinton's most recent indication that he will again avoid
military action and rely on sanctions carries little cost for the
regime. A terrible price is, of course, paid by certain segments of the
Iraqi population, creating tension between the "hardhearted" Americans
and some of our erstwhile allies. Hungry children are positively useful
to the Butcher of Baghdad, as old Gulf War partners argue with each
other rather than with him. In the meantime, inspections have ceased,
Saddam remains in control of the country and the arsenal, and the Iraqi
people suffer.
Two thoughts: First, military action may not be able to force Saddam
to let UNSCOM inspectors search the country. We agree with Gen. John
Sheehan, USMC (ret.) who said, "Bombing something into submission has
never worked." And an Osirak-type raid couldn't destroy the whole
arsenal in any event.
But military action could destroy the sites UNSCOM had determined most
likely to be dangerous, make Saddam pay in currency he values, and might
undermine the confidence his Republican Guard has in him. And it might
stiffen the backbone of others in the region.
Second, Congress has given the President authority to provide overt
assistance - including weapons - to the Iraqi democratic opposition.
The President should use it and throw the full force of American
prestige into a concerted effort to dislodge the current regime.
Ultimately this is the most sure way to remove the threat of Saddam from
the region and his foot from the neck of the Iraqi people.
Comments? Send email to info@jinsa.org
Access Past Reports at JINSA Online at www.jinsa.org
VI. IRAQI PRESS CITES NYT TO BLAST IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
Baghdad Al-Jumhuriyah in Arabic 4 Nov 98
Article by 'Abdallah 'Abbas: "A US Auction To Hire Plotters"
[FBIS Translated Text] Anyone who acquaints himself with, and carefully
reads, a US Congressional draft law called "The Law on Helping the Iraqi
Opposition Organizations," will understand how the administration of an
organized US gang and its elements in the Congress view those who "serve
them" and even those who search for these servants in a manner full of
clear contempt and devoid of any appreciation whatsoever. These elements
set conditions for their servants regardless of their status or name, so
the latter should only be "obedient" and ready to implement orders.
The first paragraph of their "dirty" law stresses that "they choose
the ones who deserve to be paid money in return for plotting against
Iraq's national will as well as those who are ready to accurately
implement what the US Administration wants."
The rancorous US gang in their administration and the members of the
Mafia in the Congress have drafted their law in a hostile and rancorous
way. Some political and media circles inside the United States itself
are confident that this is a futile draft law and that the plans for its
implementation are not guaranteed in the first place.
In its issue on 19 October 1998, The New York Times published an
article indicating the futility of their desperate draft law and noting
that it is not guaranteed to achieve anything. This is because the
newspaper knows that any party accepting the terms of this law and
standing against Iraq's national will cannot represent anyone or any
group that has a real national tendency, and that such parties cannot
enjoy any popularity--and they never enjoyed such popularity--among the
Iraqi people.
The New York Times also reminded everyone that the ones whom the US
Administration considers Iraqi "opposition," who are ready to accept its
terms, have not achieved any result after receiving previous funds and
aid, and that the only apparent and tangible result from their previous
acts was the disbursement of financial aid to themselves and gaining the
curse of the steadfast Iraqi people who are courageously fighting the
conspiracy of genocide represented by "a total blockade."
In its article, The New York Times also says verbatim. "It seems
that the US intelligence services do not know much about political life
in Iraq."
Despite all events and difficulties, the Iraqis, in their old and
contemporary history, take pride in the fact that they did not
relinquish their free, independent national will and that they
absolutely rejected anyone who sought to impose on them any will away
from their national pride or obstruct their free aspirations for
building their own future.
In view of this consistent fact as part of the Iraqi people's life--a
fact that is acknowledged by The New York Times, the US intelligence
services, and their rancorous elements in the Congress--the harvest of
their draft law, to which they allotted $97 million, will be similar to
other desperate plans, which failed and were crushed by the gigantic
Iraqi will.
In accordance with its primarily organized terrorist nature, the US
Administration searches for agents, traitors, and mercenaries the same
way the Hollywood companies do to create movie stars. These companies
search for an "actor" who has certain criteria, so they make money out
of him. After they get such an "actor," these companies add bright
colors to him in order to secure profits that are much more than the
money spent on publicity for him.
But afterward, we can see this actor starving to death. This was the
fate of most celebrated stars in Hollywood at the end of their lives.
Yes, this evil administration uses the same method in search of agents
with the aim of undermining the will of free peoples by setting the same
conditions! It is known that this administration can get such agents,
who do not have any roots or identity.
But if this administration gets an agent with these criteria in Iraq,
which is the base from which civilization radiated, or from among the
honest Iraqis who take pride in their free will, particularly in their
modern awakening in July 1968, we will then advise such an agent to save
some of "the allocations for his agentry," so he can be buried outside
the homeland as long as the Iraqi will is derived from the thought of
great leader Saddam Husayn.
[Description of source: Government-owned political newspaper]