|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Iraq: U.S. Planning Action Against Iraq, Says Newsweek The United States views Iraq’s ability to build and proliferate weapons of mass destruction as a direct threat to U.S. security and plans to eventually attack Iraq, according to Newsweek (see GSN, Dec. 19). The United States has not yet decided, however, when and how to take action against Iraq, the news magazine reported today. “The question is not if the United States is going to hit Iraq; the question is when,” said a senior U.S. envoy in the Middle East. Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have quietly said they would cooperate with U.S. action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “If there is a war against terror, Iraq is part of the terror,” said Kuwaiti Information Minister Ahmad Fahd al-Ahmad al-Sabah. “Suppose we agree with you Americans? How do you plan to do it? That is the dialogue right now,” said an adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz al-Saud. Russia and several European countries have urged the United States to avoid conflict with Iraq until operations against al-Qaeda are finished (see GSN, Nov. 28). They have expressed skepticism that Iraq was tied to the Sept. 11 attacks and want the United States to focus on restructuring sanctions and renewing U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq, Newsweek reported (see GSN, Nov. 30). “There will be a second phase where we look at all the different aspects of international terrorism—issues to do with weapons of mass destruction … But the method of acting, that’s something for later deliberation,” said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. U.S. strategists have not yet decided what type of action to take, although it could include military and diplomatic initiatives, Newsweek reported. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered a plan to send 50,000 troops to Iraq’s southern border and another 50,000 to the northern border, then attack from both sides to eventually meet in the middle around Baghdad, according to Newsweek. Other experts, however, have argued that 100,000 troops would be insufficient. Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek, commander of U.S. ground forces in the region, has said at least 169,000 soldiers would be necessary. Senior military officials have indicated that U.S. President George W. Bush would probably not agree to action that would require a force of that size, Newsweek reported. Meanwhile, disagreement exists in the Bush administration about supporting Iraqi opposition groups, especially the Iraqi National Congress, lead by Ahmed Chalabi. Supporters of the INC and opposition groups have said previous attempts to overthrow Hussein via such groups failed because former U.S. President Bill Clinton did not provide sufficient support. Advocates have further argued that deploying some troops and showing U.S. determination would lead to population uprisings in Iraq. Opponents of opposition groups have argued that the INC lacks real support in Iraq. They have pointed to fighting among Kurdish groups and said the Iraqi Republican Guard is a disciplined force completely different from the unorganized Taliban (Dickey/Barry, Newsweek International, Jan. 7). Meanwhile, the United States recently suspended funding to the Iraqi National Congress due to an audit that found the organization lacked proper financial accounting. “The financial controls were insufficient and did not match requirements under U.S. laws,” said Gregg Sullivan, a State Department spokesman. The audit did not discover any financial wrongdoing. The INC has until Jan. 15 to implement new financial controls. The State Department still considers the INC an important opposition group, Sullivan said. INC spokesman Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein said the U.S. State Department suspended funds because some U.S. officials opposed aggressive action against Iraq (Larry Margasak, London Independent, Jan. 7).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
