By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday urged the U.S. Congress to express support for a possible war against Iraq to end the regime of President Saddam Hussein, addressing criticisms voiced by legislators and optimistically projecting the outcome of a conflict.
Rumsfeld testified before the House Armed Services Committee, where his positive statements were met with some skeptical questioning, though no outright opposition, from both Republican and Democratic members.
Attempting to muster as much international support as possible for strong action to remove Hussein’s regime, Rumsfeld urged Congress to send a message that “the United States is united in purpose and prepared to act” prior to any action by the U.N. Security Council.
“It’s important that Congress send that message before the U.N. Security Council votes. Delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message, in my view, just as we are asking the international community to take a stand and as we are cautioning the Iraqi regime to respond and consider its options,” he said.
In a speech at the U.N. earlier this week, President George W. Bush urged the council to act to compel Iraq to abide by its commitments to council resolutions, including full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, but did not explicitly call for military action (see GSN, Sept. 12).
In a move this week that could forestall an attack, Iraq said it would allow inspectors to return “without conditions” but pending discussions of arrangements. U.N. arms inspectors today were reportedly preparing to go in (see GSN, Sept. 18).
Rumsfeld dismissed the Iraqi regime’s offer as insincere, and said nothing short of a regime change was needed to eliminate the threat posted by Iraq.
“The purpose of inspections is to prove that Iraq has disarmed, which would require that Iraq would reverse its decade-long policy of pursuing those weapons, and that is certainly something that Iraq is unlikely to do.”
The Bush administration is planning to propose to Congress a resolution giving the White House the flexibility to make war against Iraq regardless of what the Security Council decides regarding Iraq, the Washington Post reported today.
Positive About Victory
In prepared testimony and during questioning, Rumsfeld laid out his most thorough case so far for a war, addressing point-by-point numerous concerns raised in Congress and speaking optimistically about the risks of such a conflict.
Committee members questioned whether sufficient evidence was available to legitimize a pre-emptive assault on a sovereign country to remove its leader, whether such an attack might not sap efforts to destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network and whether an attack might provoke Iraq to attack Israel with weapons of mass destruction and escalate the conflict.
Rumsfeld said a war would not sap resources from U.S. efforts to fight international terrorism, arguing, “Iraq is part of the global war on terror … we can fight all elements of the global war on terror simultaneously,” he said.
He said the United States would find more foreign government support than has been publicly expressed, and he suggested Hussein would have little ability to harm Israel with weapons of mass destruction for very long in the event of a war.
“With respect to Israel, there is no question but that Iraq’s neighbors, were there to be a conflict, would have a degree of vulnerability. And there’s also no question but that that would probably not last for a very long time that they would be vulnerable,” he said.
Rumsfeld also suggested U.S. forces would not need to occupy Iraq at length after destroying Hussein’s regime.
He said a military commitment would be required “in the short run,” while a diplomatic and humanitarian and reconstruction commitment would be needed in the “longer term.” He said Iraqi oil revenues would help bolster a recovery.
Also testifying, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said U.S. forces would be better prepared to defend Israel against a missile attack today than they were during the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq.
“I think we’re much better today because … of our command and control, and communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, we’ll be much more effective in thwarting that threat to Israel today,” he said.
Israel has said it would respond to Iraqi attacks, a stance that contrasts with its restraint during the Gulf War.
Rumsfeld said he had “no doubt in mind it would be in Israel’s overwhelming best interest not to get involved.”
Military Forces Said Ready
In apparent contrast to previous complaints by senior administration officials that U.S. military forces had been seriously weakened through insufficient funding during the Clinton administration, Myers and Rumsfeld said U.S. forces were well prepared for the conflict.
U.S. armed forces “have made dramatic strides in capabilities over the past decade,” Myers said, citing improved intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, enhanced command and control, better power projection capability, more accurate ground weapons and a dramatic increase in the nation’s combat power.
Myers also cited “superior training and discipline” of the troops and said in recent years U.S. forces have become better prepared for defense against chemical and biological weapons.
“Our forces, our Army divisions, our carrier battle groups, our wings, our Marine expeditionary forces, they are in a very high state of readiness and they are ready for — again, for whatever they might be asked to do.”
Prior to the 2000 presidential election, Vice President Dick Cheney told U.S. forces in an oft-quoted speech, “Help is on the way” to address Clinton administration “budget shortfalls.”
Rumsfeld said action in Iraq would not detract from U.S. anti-terrorist efforts elsewhere, saying U.S. strategy includes the ability to win decisively in one theater and occupy a country and, nearly simultaneously, swiftly defeat a country in another theater, as well as to support homeland defense and conduct a number of lesser operations such as Bosnia and Kosovo.
“That is what our force-sizing construct is,” he said. “So let there be no doubt but that we can do both at the same time.”
Request for Congressional Declaration of War
Representative John Hostettler (R-Ind.) urged the administration to seek a declaration of war from Congress “if it is our desire to change a regime that sits atop a government of a sovereign nation.”
Rumsfeld, in line with comments by other administration officials, suggested a formal declaration of war is not necessary.
On the Senate floor Tuesday, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) criticized that view as contrary to the Constitution.
“There is a developing hysteria in this country saying: Let us go to war. We have our minds made up. Nobody stands up against that. But the Constitution is a barrier — this Constitution, which I hold in my hand. This Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war.”
Justification for War
Other committee members questioned whether there is sufficient evidence warranting a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iraq in self-defense.
Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) asked whether “there is something much deeper into this or information [on Iraq’s connection to al-Qaeda] that we do not have? Because when we get [the White House] resolution, this is going to be very serious business when we vote on it.”
Representative Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) was perhaps the strongest skeptic about the case for going after Iraq.
“My biggest question to you is at the beginning of your statement you said, in quotes, ‘Iraq is part of the war on terror.’ And later on you said, in quotes, ‘Our job is to connect the dots before the fact,’” she said. “Could you give me any specifics to tie them to the war on terror right now?”
Echoing previous comments in other arenas, Rumsfeld said the United States could no longer wait for such evidence, because it might not become available until the country is severely attacked.
Rumsfeld said changed conditions in the 21st century warrant a new approach to security. In the “age of weapons of mass destruction,” he said, “when there is that risk and we’re trying to defend against closed societies and shadowy terrorist networks, expecting to find that standard of evidence before such a weapon has been used is really not realistic.”
Reconsidering Deterrence
Rumsfeld further challenged the notion Iraq would be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies, by arguing it could use them clandestinely.
“There is no reason for confidence that if Iraq launched a WMD attack on the U.S., that it would necessarily have an obvious return address,” he said.
That stands in contrast to the traditional U.S. doctrine of deterrence, in which former President Lyndon Johnson’s administration concluded governments would not try to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction in light of detection and overwhelming retaliation (see GSN, Aug. 19).
“We have seen a shift in how one defends oneself. And it is just plain different today. And the American people will understand that as they think about it. And I think they have understood it, and increasingly,” Rumsfeld said.
Administration officials so far have not publicly linked the Iraqi government to al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks and Rumsfeld at the hearing offered no new information to suggest otherwise.
“So even if they did not have terrorist connections — which, indeed, they do — the potential they have to use terrorist networks to dispense weapons of mass destruction is what’s qualitatively different in our current circumstance,” he said.
Prospects for Successful Inspections Challenged
Rumsfeld also challenged the idea that unconditional U.N. WMD inspections could be effective.
“You can only have inspections when a country is cooperating with you,” said Rumsfeld.
Citing difficulties faced by previous inspections, he said, “There’s no question that Iraq went to school on the inspectors.”
The White House Tuesday released a chronology describing a “pattern of deception, delay” by Iraq of previous supposedly unconditional inspections.
It said in June 1991, two months after it agreed to unconditional inspections following the Gulf War, Iraqi personnel fired warning shots to prevent inspectors from approaching their vehicles and later that year confiscated documents from the inspectors.
While Iraq’s latest statement, according to the chronology, “is evidence that world pressure can force the Iraqi regime to respond, it is also a return to form. Time after time, ‘without conditions’ has meant deception, delay, and disregard for the United Nations.”
The Security Council must now decide what that phrase should mean, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday inspections should be “unfettered.”
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters in New York Tuesday his government maintains that inspectors are the only appropriate tool for ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and is opposed to a U.N. resolution setting out new rules for inspectors to operate under and the consequences if Iraq does not with previous resolutions.
By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire
UNITED NATIONS — Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told the General Assembly today, “I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. ... Our country is ready to receive any scientific experts accompanied by politicians you choose to represent any one of your countries to tell us which places and scientific and industrial installations they would wish to see.” .
Sabri directly challenged the tough U.S. position on Iraq. “We hope that no one of the representatives of the countries present here will be deceived by the statements that lack any proof, and hence give the American administration a moral and legal cover to the crimes it is now committing against Iraq and other countries or to those crimes that it intends to commit against Iraq in the future.”
He added, “We have defended the U.N. Charter, and the principles by which and on which the Security Council was established.” Accordingly, Iraq wants “that our rights, sovereignty and security be respected in accordance with international law,” said Sabri. “We have accepted the return of the inspection teams to Iraq taking into consideration the arrangements that should safeguard these principles.” In the past, Iraq has placed restrictions on the sites weapons inspectors could visit, such as presidential palaces, claiming that allowing inspectors in would be violations of sovereignty.
Iraq’s letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday said inspectors could return “without conditions.”
Security Council Awaits Draft Resolution
Members of the U.N. Security Council were in a holding pattern this morning regarding Iraq as the United States and United Kingdom worked out the details of a draft resolution to demand Iraq’s compliance with its disarmament obligations.
According to the council’s current president, Bulgarian Ambassador Stefan Tafrov, “There is no text and we cannot discuss something that doesn’t exist.” He added, “There are informal consultations all the time … but there is nothing formal yet.” A British official said the draft would be ready at “the beginning of next week.”
There will be an informal meeting tomorrow to brief the 10 nonpermanent members of the council on the status of the drafting. “Everybody knows that in the last few days there’s a certain amount of sounding out going on among P-5 members,” the British official said, referring to the permanent five members of the council — the United Kingdom, United States, China, France and Russia, which hold veto power over any draft resolution. “Unsurprisingly, the other 10 would like to — and have the right to — know what is going on. But it would just be keeping people in the picture, I wouldn’t expect to see any draft until next week.”
Not all of the permanent five members have been briefed yet, however. According to Ambassador Wang Yingfan of China, “So far we don’t have anything.” He would not say how his government would react to any draft, saying only, “Consensus and unity of the council at this crucial moment is most important. The authority of the Security Council lies in unity and consensus.”
Norwegian Ambassador Ole Peter Kolby, one of the nonpermanent members, made the same point. “It’s very important that the council maintains unity,” he said. “The Iraqi issue has been jeopardized in many ways by the fact we have had a split among the P-5.”
“First we need to see a text and then we have to examine it and only after that will I be able to say whether we can support it or not,” he added. “But Norway is in favor of the council adopting a new resolution because we think that is necessary to keep up the pressure on the Iraqis. ... The best way to do that is to have a resolution. Exactly what is going to go into it, we’re not there yet.”
Hans Blix, the head of U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) — which is in charge of fulfilling the council’s mandate on Iraq’s disarmament — will brief the council this afternoon on the technical talks he had with Iraq officials on Tuesday and answer questions of the council members.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Sabri met with Secretary General Annan and Blix yesterday, at Sabri’s request. A statement from Annan’s office said he “stressed the need for Iraq to provide full and unconditional cooperation to UNMOVIC” and that he hoped the disarmament of Iraq “could be completed as soon as possible.” According to the statement, Blix said he hoped to “get off to a flying start and looked forward to finalizing his talks with the Iraqi authorities on the practical arrangements for the swift resumption of inspections.” Those talks will take place in Vienna at the end of September.
After the meeting, Sabri said he hoped his government’s letter would be the first step to the “lifting of the brutal regime of sanctions.”
A draft report by a nuclear study institute questions Bush administration assertions that high-strength aluminum tubes destined for Iraq were to be used as part of a nuclear weapons effort, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Sept. 9).
Bush administration officials have said the aluminum tubes intercepted on their way to Iraq were destined for use in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. In an effort to sway the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the tubes as evidence of Iraq’s nuclear aspirations.
A draft report from the Institute for Science and International Security, however, says that there are other possible explanations for the tubes and that other materials would make more sense in a centrifuge. The type of aluminum seized is not suited to welding and in Iraq’s pre-Gulf War nuclear efforts, aluminum had been abandoned in favor of specialized steel and carbon fiber, the report notes.
ISIS President David Albright, a physicist who inspected Iraq’s nuclear weapons program as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspection team, authored the report.
“By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing nuclear weapons,” the report says (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Sept. 19).
For further information see:
Institute for Science and International Security
U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to formally ask Congress today for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action if Iraq does not quickly comply with mandates from the United Nations to give up its weapons of mass destruction, administration and congressional sources said yesterday (see related GSN stories, today).
The proposed resolution would grant Bush “maximum flexibility” to conduct any military action regardless of U.N. actions, a senior White House official said. Bush wants overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to demonstrate both domestically and internationally that he is not acting alone, aides said (see GSN, Sept. 13).
Strong action by Congress “is an important signal for the world to see this country is united in our resolve to deal with this threat,” Bush said after a White House breakfast with top members of Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said the resolution is likely to pass with “strong bipartisan support,” possibly by early October (see GSN, Sept. 16).
“We all ought to recognize the military option ought to be the last option, but it ought to be a real option,” Daschle said. “There is a great deal of support for pressing Iraq to open its borders and destroy its weapons.”
Other Democrats have expressed concerns over the potential wording of a resolution, according to the Washington Post. Bush is drafting a document similar to a resolution overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives in 1998, which reaffirmed the U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq, the Post reported.
The Bush administration wants “simple approval for the president’s use of force to enforce resolutions passed by the United Nations,” said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who is leading negotiations on the resolution’s language.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said the congressional resolution would not specifically call for the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. A top Bush administration official said, however, that it would strongly suggest such an action, if not explicitly (VandeHei/DeYoung, Washington Post, Sept. 19).
For further information, see:
UNMOVIC
U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)
U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)
U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions
By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. companies displayed a variety of devices to detect, identify and decontaminate biological and chemical weapons agents at the U.S. Commerce Department’s two-day Homeland Security Tech Expo which began yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2001).
Several of the devices and field tests displayed can be used to detect and identify agents. For example, biotech firm MIDI demonstrated a system that uses gas chromatography to analyze up to 300 types of fatty acid molecules in bacteria. The Sherlock Microbial Identification System processes a culture of suspected bacteriological agent and compares the sample’s fatty acids to a database of more than 100,000 analyses taken from different strains of bacteria. The system then ranks the bacteria varieties that best match the sample.
According to a MIDI release, the Sherlock system can analyze 45 samples daily at an average cost and operator time of $1.50 and six minutes per sample.
Connecticut investigators used a similar gas chromatography study to help identify anthrax in the death of Ottilie Lundgren during last fall’s anthrax attacks, according to MIDI press materials (see GSN, March 27). The method has also been used to identify cases involving other potential biological weapons agents such as plague and tularemia.
Decontamination
Also on display were several personal and large-scale decontamination systems. One such system is a mobile unit developed by KOHLER Mobile Plumbing Systems. Housed in a tractor-trailer, the unit consists of three airtight stations: a disrobing room where contaminated clothing can be safely disposed of, a section of decontaminating shower banks and a dressing room. Electrical and water supplies are installed onboard the unit.
KOHLER, which originally developed the unit to donate it to firefighters working in New York after the Sept. 11 attacks, now has more than 200 orders for it. Among the customers is Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which has ordered two units, according to a company press release.
On a more personal level, Global Specialty Chemicals demonstrated a biological and chemical decontaminant called MDF. The company has used the decontaminant to manufacture hand-size skin decontamination kits, spray bottles and a powder formula that can be used as a laundry detergent. It also has developed systems to clean larger areas such as vehicles and buildings.
MDF is based on a product that Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico originally developed for the U.S. military. It is effective against chemical weapons agents and has a 99.9 percent kill rate against biological weapons agents, according to a company press release. Global Specialty Chemicals is close to having MDF ready for civilian markets pending final U.S. approval, company President James Greenwood said, adding that it might be a year before the product is approved.
For further information, see:
Homeland Security Tech Expo (U.S. Commerce Department)
| 
Back to top
