[iwar] [fc:Countdown.To.War.On.Saddam]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-03-07 05:28:37
Next message: skolyamibyor@yahoo.com: "Re: [iwar] [fc:Security.Systems.Standards.and.Certification.Act]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:U.S..To.Curb.Computer.Access.By.Foreigners]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200203071328.g27DSbx31741@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:28:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Countdown.To.War.On.Saddam]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

London Daily Telegraph
March 7, 2002
Countdown To War On Saddam
By Toby Harnden and George Jones
THE countdown to war against Iraq began yesterday when America presented
satellite evidence to the United Nations showing that Saddam Hussein had
misused humanitarian aid to bolster his army.
Although the immediate aim was to persuade the UN Security Council to block
the import of lorries, the move marked the start of a process the Bush
administration believes will end in Saddam's overthrow.
The photographs, produced at the Security Council's Iraq sanctions
committee, were before and after pictures of lorries entering military bases
near Baghdad and emerging as rocket launchers.
For the Americans, they provided confirmation of Saddam's willingness to
abuse the good intentions of international organisations and underlined the
need for "regime change" in Iraq - the new Washington buzz phrase.
America's fear is that Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction he has
been developing since UN inspectors were ejected from Iraq in 1998 to attack
America or its allies.
Officials argue that he could also form an "unholy alliance" with the
remnants of al-Qa'eda. 
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, is due to hold talks today with Naji
Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister, about the possible return of the
inspectors.
Washington wants the UN to issue a new demand for inspectors to be admitted,
but hopes that Saddam rejects this and so provide the casus belli.
Britain's central role in the coming campaign was emphasised when Sir Jeremy
Greenstock, the British ambassador to the UN, joined his American
counterpart, John Negroponte, in meeting Mr Annan on Tuesday to "stiffen his
resolve" before the Iraqi meeting, a diplomatic s ource said.
A Bush administration source told The Telegraph that it had never been
doubted that Britain would join the Iraqi campaign.
Acknowledging opposition elsewhere in the world, he said: "When we say we
might have to go it alone, 'we' really means 'you and us'."
Although British officials in Washington, like their counterparts in the
State Department and Pentagon, refuse to be drawn publicly on the issue,
they concede that Tony Blair has little choice.
A British diplomat said: "Blair has associated himself so closely with the
war on terrorism that it is too late to get cold feet now."
The Prime Minister will fly to Washington early next month to meet President
Bush for what is being seen as a war summit.
Although he told MPs yesterday that "no decisions" had been taken on
possible military action against Iraq, he gave a clear hint that
preparations were in hand for another Gulf war.
"Iraq is plainly in breach of the United Nations Security Council
resolutions in relation to the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction
and we have to deal with it," he said.
Labour MPs have warned Mr Blair that he could face a major back bench revolt
if action is taken without clear and convincing evidence that Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and is involved in sponsoring global terrorism. 
The Government is understood to be preparing a dossier on Iraq's terrorist
links and attempts to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. This
is likely to be published before any military action.
Mr Blair's attempts to persuade Labour MPs that Britain should back American
action against Iraq have been damaged by Mr Bush's decision to impose
tariffs on imported steel, which could cost British steel jobs.
Since Mr Bush's depiction of Iraq in his State of the Union speech in
January as part of an "axis of evil", discussion in Washington has shifted
decisively from whether Saddam should be removed to how and when this should
be done. 
Publicly and privately, senior officials are virtually silent on the debate
raging between agencies of government. Even Donald Rumsfeld, the normally
talkative defence secretary, appears to have taken a Trappist vow on the
matter.
"The focus on Iraq is something that I find not helpful, from my
standpoint," he told The Telegraph last month. "And I am not in a position
to really discuss a lot of it. So I think I'll pass."
Although no timetable has been drawn up, Mr Bush possesses powerful
political momentum for striking against Iraq. Public opinion is behind him
and the opposition from Democrats is negligible.
These conditions might not last beyond this year and some Republicans
believe that the action could begin as early as the spring.
A central element of the debate is the strength of Saddam's regime. Pentagon
leaders argue that Iraq is much weaker than a decade ago and that a
full-scale invasion would be unnecessary.
An American official said that Mr Rumsfeld's silence spoke volumes.
"There are some very, very serious discussions going on around town," he
said. "The President has called for options to be laid out, but this is all
being confined to the absolutely highest levels of the administration."
The Pentagon appears to hold the upper hand in the debate, partly because of
the success of the war in Afghanistan but also because of the psychological
change in America since September 11.
Before the Afghan offensive began, there were warnings of a Vietnam-style
quagmire and a Muslim backlash. 
Neither has materialised and this has weakened calls for restraint against
Iraq. Gen Colin Powell, the secretary of state and a former opponent of
tackling Iraq, is losing his influence on the issue.
Congress has backed the Iraqi National Congress, the London-based umbrella
opposition group. It believes that its charismatic leader, Ahmad Chalabi,
could head a democratic Iraq.
But the CIA sees Chalabi, a Sunni Muslim who left Iraq in the 1950s to read
mathematics at the University of Chicago, as a divisive and autocratic
figure. Its says he could not muster enough support.
Many senior military officers also remain to be convinced. Gen Anthony
Zinni, Gen Tommy Franks's predecessor as the army's head of central command,
has said that relying on the INC could result in a "Bay of Goats" disaster,
a wry reference to the Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco in Cuba in the early
1960s.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/nuyOHD/7.PDAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: skolyamibyor@yahoo.com: "Re: [iwar] [fc:Security.Systems.Standards.and.Certification.Act]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:U.S..To.Curb.Computer.Access.By.Foreigners]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 02:15:04 PST