U.S. Response:  U.S Border Security Improving, Official Says

The head of the U.S. Homeland Security Department’s border protection bureau has said that U.S. borders are more protected now against terrorists attempting to sneak into the country, possibly armed with weapons of mass destruction, than they were previously, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, March 21).

“Our assignment is pretty simple:  Keep terrorists and weapons of terrorism out of the United States; and while we’ve only begun to unify and integrate the federal agencies that will do the job, we are off to a good start,” said Robert Bonner, commissioner of the Homeland Security Department’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

The new bureau consists of all the formerly independent U.S. agencies that had been responsible for border enforcement, protection and inspection.  The bureau united these formerly disparate agencies into a single chain of command and eliminated up to six layers of bureaucracy between field agents and command staff, the Times reported.

Bonner said the bureau would continue to work to keep possible terrorists from entering the United States by developing “smarter border initiatives that extend our zone of security abroad.”  The bureau is currently managing two programs to that end: the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program, which calls on shipping companies to develop measures to prevent ships from being used for terrorist purposes; and the Container Security Initiative, which stations U.S. inspectors at foreign seaports to check cargo prior to shipment to the United States, he said (see GSN, March 17; Jerry Seper, Washington Times, March 28).

Back to top

Iraq:  Baghdad Could be Target of Siege, Not Assault

U.S. forces in Iraq might attempt to lay siege to Baghdad in the hopes that the city’s population will rise up in revolt, rather than attempt to take the city by force, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indicated yesterday (see GSN, March 27).

Asked by Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) during a congressional hearing yesterday as to the U.S. strategy for the capture of the Iraqi capital, Rumsfeld alluded to the current British siege of the southern city of Basra, where a revolt by the city’s Shiite Muslim population is hoped.  Baghdad has a large Shiite Muslim population as well, Rumsfeld said.

“They are not terribly favorable to the regime,” Rumsfeld said.  “They’ve been repressed, and they are in the present time in Basra assisting us,” he added.

While U.S. and British troops might not assault Baghdad, nothing short of total victory will be accepted, Rumsfeld said.

“There isn’t going to be a cease-fire,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.  The war “will end at the point where that regime does not exist and a new regime is ready to go in its place,” he later said (Robert Burns, Associated Press/Salon.com, March 28).

Iraqi Tactics, Supply Problems Likely to Extend War

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army’s senior ground commander in Iraq said yesterday that stretched U.S. supply lines and Iraqi unconventional tactics could extend the war longer than had been planned.

“The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we’d war-gamed against,” said Lt. Gen. William Wallace, commander of the Army’s V Corps.

Two of the V Corps’s main divisions — the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division — have paused their ground operations to allow logistics troops to develop a 10-day stockpile of supplies, according to the Washington Post.  The duration of the pause will depend on the advice of logistics specialists, Wallace said. 

Wallace has been forced to use some of his combat troops to protect the 250-mile U.S. supply line, stretching back into Kuwait, from Iraqi paramilitary attacks, the Post reported.

“We knew we’d have to pause at some point to build our logistics power,” Wallace said.  “This is about where we’d expected,” he added.

The unconventional tactics of the Iraqi paramilitaries, and the zeal with which they conduct their attacks, has surprised U.S. military officers, the Post reported.  For example, there have been instances when Iraqi guerillas were willing to conduct suicide attacks against superior U.S. forces, Wallace said.

“The attacks we’re seeing are bizarre — technical vehicles (pickups) with .50 calibers and every kind of weapon charging tanks and Bradleys,” Wallace said.  “It’s disturbing to think that someone can be that brutal,” he added.

U.S. military planners had expected to combat an Iraqi military made up of three types of units — mediocre regular Army units, about six elite Republican Guard units and a smaller and incredibly loyal Special Republican Guard force, according to the Post.  Even though U.S. planners had recognized the paramilitaries, their morale and fighting ability has taken U.S. forces by surprise, the Post reported.

“The theory was that they might not welcome us but that they wouldn’t resist us,” a senior officer said.  “I hope this is what’s being cast in some quarters as the dying gasp of a regime on the ropes.  But I’m not so sure,” the officer added (Rick Atkinson, Washington Post, March 28).

War Status

U.S. and British aircraft conducted airstrikes yesterday and today against targets within Baghdad and the Iraqi forces deployed outside of the city in its defense, according to the Washington Post.  The airstrikes involved the use of two 4,700-pound “bunker-busting” bombs, which a B-2 stealth bomber dropped this morning on a communications tower located on the banks of the Tigris River in downtown Baghdad (Chandrasekaran/Baker, Washington Post, March 28).

According to reports, the U.S. airstrikes have reduced the Republican Guard Medina division to about 65 percent capacity (CNN, March 28).

North of Baghdad, Iraqi troops withdrew from the town of Chamchamal, close to the border of the Kurdish-controlled part of the country, according to the New York Times.  Kurdish militiamen then moved into the city, the first time they have crossed the informal border

On the southern edge of Baghdad, the Iraqi Republican Guard Medina division received reinforcements and possibly chemical weapons yesterday, intelligence officers said (see related GSN story, today).

In the city of Nasiriya, about 230 miles south of Baghdad, U.S. Marines continued to battle Iraqi paramilitaries.  U.S. troops in the city, which is an important crossing point on the Euphrates River, suffered an undisclosed number of casualties during a 90-minute battle, said Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks of the U.S. Central Command  (Patrick Tyler, New York Times, March 28).

In western Iraq, U.S. Special Operations forces have taken control of an area that stretches about 200 miles into the country from the Jordanian border, U.S. military officials said yesterday.  While most of the area is empty desert, it does contain several Iraqi airfields and a number of places Iraq could have conducted missile strikes from against Israel.

Some “pockets of resistance” might still remain in the area, but Iraqi forces have been effectively pushed out, a senior official said.  “I wouldn’t say we control all the area, but it is territory that [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] no longer controls,” the official added (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, March 28).

Rumsfeld yesterday signed deployment orders that will add an additional 100,000 U.S. troops to the force currently in the Persian Gulf region, according to the Chicago Tribune.  The orders went to the 1st Armored Division, the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, a U.S. Defense Department official said (Zeleny/Holt, Chicago Tribune, March 28).

Blix Bids Adieu

U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday that he plans to leave his position in three months.

“My contract expires at the end of June and I do not propose to stay beyond that,” Blix said in an interview with Nippon TV.

An associate of Blix said he is likely to return to his home in Stockholm after his retirement and spend time studying and writing (Felicity Barringer, New York Times, March 27).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Missile Defense Ambitions Show Bush Moving Away From MAD Doctrine, Official Says

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s pursuit of a national missile defense is part of a new national security strategy that reduces reliance on the long-held doctrine of deterrence through mutual assured destruction, a White House official said last week.

The administration’s national missile defense effort, scheduled to cost $9 billion annually in the near future, is part of the U.S. strategy for dealing with threats from “rogue” countries, said Robert Joseph, the National Security Council’s senior director for proliferation strategy, counterproliferation and homeland defense.

“The strategic environment … is different today than it was 20 years ago and President Bush has made very clear that for an effective deterrence against today’s threats, against the rogue threats, requires both offenses and defenses, a combination of capabilities, requires other capabilities as well, capabilities from homeland defense to counterproliferation capabilities in the field,” Joseph said at a Heritage Foundation event commemorating the 20th anniversary of former President Ronald Reagan’s announcement of his national missile defense plan, the Strategic Defense Initiative.

The question of national missile defenses has produced debate on whether they would increase or decrease U.S. security and international stability, with some critics charging that effective missile defenses could offer the United States greater “freedom of action” for offensive military efforts.

“It’s something that a lot of people have been arguing for a long time, it’s more than a defense, it’s a shield for offensive action,” said Wade Boese of the Arms Control Association.

“This administration has definitely endorsed this concept, that missile defense is not only a potential deterrent to another country from pursuing and acquiring missiles that could threaten the United States but also as enabling the United States to intervene in support of its interests abroad without having to fear the U.S. homeland will be attacked,” he said.

That prospect has caused some contention.  British Member of Parliament Malcolm Savidge, a leading missile defense opponent there, has said he objects to the system in part because “missile defense would ultimately give the United States the capacity to wage pre-emptive war against whomever it wants to.”

He said he is also concerned that missile defense “could make the United States much more robust in dealing with China on Taiwan and other issues.  If that meant that the United States could be gung-ho about going to war with China, perhaps it didn’t make the rest of the world that much safer.”

Offensive and Defensive Applications

President Ronald Reagan originated the approach with his controversial Strategic Defense Initiative, said Joseph.

Joseph said Reagan’s speech was considered “very heretical” at the time.

“In doing so, he took head on decades of myths associated with the almost dogma of mutual assured destruction and of course the ABM [Antiballistic Missile] Treaty,” said Joseph, addressing concerns that the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty would encourage nuclear arms buildups and proliferation.

Reagan had effectively rejected the historical requirement that the United States be subjected to possible mutual destruction from Soviet nuclear weapons.

“It was originally a way to become stronger than the Soviet Union, encourage others to stand up to Soviet threats and reassure Americans and others around the world that our cause in countering the Soviet Union was just,” wrote Heritage analyst Baker Spring in a commentary published on the organization’s Web site last week.

Critics then, as they do with the Bush national missile defense program today, charged that a national missile defense would be a very expensive, technologically improbable endeavor (see GSN, March 21).  They also, as they do today, charged that such defenses could be seen by the Soviet Union and now Russia as a tool for aggression, and thereby be potentially destabilizing, because it could undermine the Soviet deterrence capability.

“Any system designed for defense can also have an offensive utility,” said John Isaacs, a national missile defense critic with the Council for a Livable World.

Reagan, himself, in his 1983 speech suggested such defenses could be viewed as threatening.

“If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that,” he said.

Reagan also in that speech, however, appeared to discourage that concern.

“The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise:  The United States does not start fights.  We will never be an aggressor.  We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.”

An Alleged Aggressive Strategy

The administration first signaled a new strategic role for missile defense in excerpts of its Nuclear Posture Review leaked in February 2002, saying missile defense would help “preserve U.S. freedom of action,” as well as help “provide deterrence” and “strengthen the credibility of U.S. alliance commitments.”

The administration’s National Security Strategy released last September also made the suggestion, saying, “We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.  Our response must take full advantage of … modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system.”

Critics today say the missile defense system could be viewed as destabilizing in light of the Bush administration’s policy of threatening or launching pre-emptive attacks on countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction and aiding terrorists.

Bush administration officials argue, similar to the Reagan administration, that development of the system will discourage potential aggressors from investing in long-range ballistic missile technology.

“I think the overall impact of this has yet to be seen, it depends upon a lot of things that one can’t predict right now, but it has the potential to lead to instability in the sense that other countries may build up their offensive forces so they don’t feel the United States can have a free hand,” said Boese.

Joseph, at the conference, said the administration’s new strategic approach is needed because of the strategic environment it is faced with, asserting the rogue states seek nuclear arms and missiles for blackmail and to deter a U.S. response to potential regional aggression.

“This is not about first strike and secure second strike … this is about the ability of these rogue nations to deter us from coming to the assistance of our friends and allies in critical areas or regions of our national interest,” he said.

The policy of pre-emption is needed, “given the nature of the threats that we face, is something that we must contemplate under certain circumstances,” Joseph said.

“The nature of warfare has changed.  The scale of lethality that can occur from types of threats we face means that we can’t simply wait to be struck.  We must protect our friends, our allies, and our whole nation against the threats that we face,” he said.

Back to top

Iraq:  Some CIA Officials Knew Niger Documents Were False, Former U.S. Intelligence Official Says

A former high-level U.S. intelligence official has said that some in the CIA knew that a set of documents purporting to show an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger were false, the New Yorker reported this week (see GSN, March 24).

Previous reports said CIA officials doubted the veracity of the Nigerien documents, which Bush cited in his State of the Union address in January as an example of Iraq seeking weapons of mass destruction, but some senior CIA officials knew the documents were actually fraudulent, the former U.S. intelligence official said.

“It’s not a question as to whether they were marginal.  They can’t be ‘sort of’ bad, or ‘sort of’ ambiguous,” the official said.  “They knew it was a fraud — it was useless,” the official added.

Some analysts at the U.S. Energy Department and the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research questioned the authenticity of the Nigerien documents, a former U.S. intelligence officer said.  These questions, however, were ignored before the documents became part of the public evidence that Iraq was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, according to the New Yorker.

“Somebody deliberately let something false get in there,” the former high-level intelligence official said.  “It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved.  Therefore it was an internal intention.  Someone set someone up,” the official added (Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, March 31).

The increasing reports that the Nigerien documents were fraudulent have led to the FBI launching an investigation into the issue and have caused some members of Congress to question their support for the war (see GSN, March 13).

In a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush dated March 17, Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was one of the reasons why he supported a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.  He noted, however, that even the CIA never regarded the claim as reliable.

“The implications of this fact are profound,” Waxman said in his letter.  “It means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraqi is evidence that your own intelligence experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is credible,” he said (Waxman release, March 17).

Back to top

North Korea:  China Puts Pressure on Pyongyang

In contrast to the historically cooperative relationship between China and North Korea, China has lately exerted diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea to back off its nuclear ambitions, the Baltimore Sun reported today (see GSN, March 26).

China has sent diplomatic messages urging Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program and last month Beijing temporarily halted fuel deliveries to North Korea, according to reports (see GSN, March 19).

“When you talk with Chinese officials, ask them, ‘Are you OK with nuclear weapons in Taiwan?  In Japan?’” said Park Syung-je, a North Korea expert at the Institute for Peace Affairs in Seoul.  “I don’t think so,” he added.

During a meeting in Beijing last month, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi asked North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun to calm his country’s antagonistic behavior, according to two veteran diplomatic sources.  Wang said that if Pyongyang did not change its ways China would drop its resistance to economic sanctions, according to the Sun.

Chinese scholars who questioned the wisdom in standing by a belligerent North Korea might have pushed Beijing’s new stance.

“We can’t afford to shield North Korea any longer,” Zhu Feng, an international security expert at Beijing University, said last month.  “There is an increasing recognition here if North Korea is finally armed with nuclear weapons, it will be a big threat to China,” Zhu added (Gady Epstein, Baltimore Sun, March 28).

Maurice Strong, an envoy of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, said that North Korea is not in any rush to resolve the nuclear crisis.  Strong returned recently from four days of talks in Pyongyang and he said North Koreans are tense and the country is “preparing for war.”

Japanese and South Korean officials have dismissed such assertions as reflecting North Korean propaganda, the Christian Science Monitor reported today.

“It is a paradox.  The view in North Korea is that time is on their side,” Strong said of his recent talks.  “We expressed the counterview — that in fact time is not on their (North Korea’s) side.  I’m not sure time is on anyone’s side.  The North says it is willing to abandon its program, that it doesn’t want to test weapons.  Yet they claim the capability to reprocess plutonium and the right to test missiles, and say they may do so if they determine it is in their interest, until serious talks are offered.  The core paradox is that neither side says it feels any urgency; at the same time, the situation is deteriorating.  The longer it takes, the more risks are involved,” he added (Robert Marquand, Christian Science Monitor, March 28).

In a recent formal communication to North Korea, the United States proposed convening a multilateral summit, the Washington Times reported, and U.S. officials are also working on a U.N. measure to urge North Korea to end its nuclear activities.  China is delaying the U.N. measure, however, which would come in the form of a statement and not a formal resolution, the Washington Times reported (see GSN, March 14).

“We have broad support in the Security Council and it’s just a matter of time when the statement will be issued,” a U.S. administration official said.  “China doesn’t object to it, but it would like first to hear back from the North Koreans,” the official added (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, March 28).

Backchannels Continue

At a security conference this month in Berkeley, Calif., North Korean envoys said they wanted to end the nuclear crisis and they maintained the standoff is being fueled by Bush administration rhetoric.  Led by U.N. Ambassador Han Song Ryol, North Korea’s delegation held discussions with low-level U.S. State Department officials, conference organizers said.

North Korea has also invited a group from the Council on Foreign Relations to visit Pyongyang next month.  Trip participants, scheduled to visit Pyongyang April 19-20, would include former U.S. ambassador to South Korea James Laney and former senior U.S. diplomat Morton Abramowitz.

The White House has granted the group permission to visit, but said it does not expect results.

“We have no illusions about what might be accomplished,” said a person involved in the trip.  “It’s an opportunity to see where they stand,” the person added (Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, March 28).

Back to top

Iran:  U.S. Criticism of Russian Nuclear Aid Is Unfair, Rumyantsev Says

Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev has accused the United States of being hypocritical in its criticism of Russia for aiding Iran’s nuclear program while ignoring similar activities by Western countries, Reuters reported today (see GSN, March 13).

“We also have complaints against the United States,” Rumyantsev said.  “It is always criticizing us, but its close economic partners supply Iran with sensitive technology,” he added (Reuters/Planet Ark, March 28).

Rumyantsev has said he was concerned about recent reports that a gas centrifuge, recently found during an International Atomic Energy Agency inspection, was similar to those produced by the British company Urenco, according to the London Guardian.  The centrifuge could be used to enrich uranium for both civilian and military purposes. 

“According to specialists, such equipment could not be produced by Iran itself and it is similar to that which Urenco has produced,” a spokesman for Rumyantsev said.

Urenco, however, has denied that it produced centrifuges for Iran (Nick Paton Walsh, London Guardian, March 28).

Iran yesterday denied that it had purchased uranium-enrichment equipment from Western companies.

“The nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic are indigenous and Iran uses its own know-how and possibilities,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said (Moscow Times, March 28).

Back to top

Smallpox:  Emergency Meeting Called on Smallpox Immunization Program

Following the death of second smallpox vaccine recipient, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called an urgent meeting today of medical specialists and its vaccine advisory committee to consider modifying the smallpox immunization program.  A 57-year-old Florida nurse suffered a fatal heart attack Sunday and 17 people have reported heart trouble that might have been caused by the vaccine, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, March 27).

“This is a vaccine that carries substantial risks with as-yet-unknown negative consequences,” said Brian Strom, chairman of the Institute of Medicine’s committee on smallpox vaccination (Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, March 28).

The institute recommended yesterday that the CDC suspend the immunization program while concerns linger, the Los Angeles Times reported.  Walter Orenstein, director of the CDC’s national immunization program, dismissed that suggestion.

“We are not recommending a pause because of the need to get prepared, especially with events going on around the world,” he said.

Orenstein also said that two-thirds of immunized health workers have been more than 45-years-old and the current rate of heart problems is “within” the normal range for that age group.  The most recent victim had a long history of heart disease.

U.S. health officials, in fact, said they plan to expand the program, the Times reported (Vicki Kemper, Los Angeles Times, March 28).

Strom said the White House should rethink the effort to vaccinate millions of health care workers.

“Let’s go back to the purpose of the campaign, which is preparedness,” he said.

J. Michael Lane, former chief of the CDC’s smallpox eradication program, has also urged U.S. officials to rethink the goals of the program (Connolly, Washington Post).

As of March 21, 25,645 civilians had been immunized, according to the CDC (CDC release, March 27).

“Is it really important for us to vaccinate five or 10 times that many?” Lane said (Connolly, Washington Post).

New York state suspended smallpox vaccinations while health officials investigate the link between heart problems and the vaccine (Associated Press/New York Daily News, March 28).

Public health officials in Illinois suspended their immunization program yesterday for the same reason, AP reported.  Illinois is aiming to vaccinate 6,000 health care workers and 118 received the vaccine before the program was suspended, according to Department of Public Health spokesman Jena Welliever (Associated Press/WBBM780.com, March 28).

The Service Employees International Union told U.S. President George W. Bush in a letter Wednesday that unless a compensation plan for those sickened and killed by the vaccine is put in place, “the pre-event vaccination program should be suspended entirely.”

The Bush administration put forward a plan earlier this month to resolve the compensation issue, but it has stalled in both chambers of Congress (see GSN, March 7).  Representative Richard Burr (R-N.C.) yesterday introduced a revised version of the White House’s original proposal.  Burr’s legislation would pay workers up to 75 percent of their lost wages, with a cap of $50,000 per year and $262,100 total.  Representative Lois Capps (D-Calif) said the plan is still insufficient (Kemper, Los Angeles Times).

The CDC has also opened the immunization program up to other nonmedical emergency workers, the Post reported.

“This is part of our effort to prepare the United States for a smallpox attack should that ever occur,” Orenstein said (Connolly, Washington Post).

Back to top

Iraq:  Reports Indicate Hussein Arming Republican Guard with Chemical Weapons

U.S. Army officials have said there is information indicating that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has transferred chemical weapons to the Republican Guard Medina division, currently deployed in defense of Baghdad, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, March 27).

Intelligence information indicates that Hussein has begun to deploy 155 mm artillery weapons with shells loaded with mustard gas and sarin, officials with the Army’s V Corps said.  Some military officers have said that Hussein had in the last several days also moved such artillery pieces into western Iraq for hiding.

In the event of a chemical weapon attack, U.S. troops might receive some advance notification if satellite photographs showed Iraqi troops wearing chemical protective gear at a weapons site.  Protective suits are usually worn at least one hour before a chemical attack is launched, they said (Bernard Weinraub, New York Times, March 28).

London Says Iraq Ready to Use Weapons

Meanwhile, British troops have found evidence that Iraq is prepared to use chemical weapons, British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said yesterday.

“British forces have made significant discoveries in recent days which showed categorically that Iraqi troops are prepared for the use of such horrific weapons,” Hoon said.

British troops operating in southern Iraq have found more than 100 chemical and biological protective suits at an Iraqi command post, said Adm. Michael Boyce, chief of the British armed forces.  The suits, along with discovered documents, are currently being examined, Boyce said (Peter Kononczuk, Agence France-Presse, March 28).

While the find was not “conclusive” proof that Iraq was preparing to use chemical weapons, it did indicate an intention on Hussein’s part to do so, Hoon said.

“It’s clearly indicative of an intention; otherwise why equip his own forces to deal with a threat which he knows we do not have?” Hoon said.  “So it must only be to protect his forces from his own use of those weapons,” he added (Paul Waugh, London Independent, March 28).

Hoon also urged Iraqi commanders to refrain from ordering WMD attacks.

“I want to make it clear that any Iraqi commander who sanctions the use of such weapons of mass destruction is committing a war crime and will be held personally responsible for his action,” Hoon said (Sydney Morning Herald, March 28).

U.S. Troops Will Find Nothing, Former U.N. Inspector Says

A former inspector with the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq has said U.S. troops in Iraq will not find any Iraqi WMD facilities.

“U.S. troops in Iraq will not find any facilities with weapons of mass destruction.  I am sure of that,” the former UNSCOM chemical and biological expert said.

Instead, Iraq is likely to have shut down its WMD operations and is now moving its stockpiles around the country, the former inspector said.  By constantly moving them, it makes it harder for U.S. and British forces to attack them as well as giving Iraq the flexibility to move them where “conditions warrant,” he said.

“They (the weapons) could be in railroad cars, barges or refrigerator trucks.  They are being kept on the move,” the former inspector said.

The recent movement of Iraqi Republican Guard forces near Baghdad south toward U.S. troops could be an attempt to create an optimal situation to use biological or chemical weapons, the former inspector said. 

“If Iraq still has chemical weapons it wants to use, it would want to cause as much damage as possible in one short attack,” the former inspector said.  “Therefore, the U.S. needs to be careful not to amass large numbers of troops in any central location,” he added.

The former inspector said, however, that he believed there was little chance Iraq would actually use chemical or biological weapons.

“My guess is that the probability of a WMD attack is small,” the former inspector said.  “Right now, Saddam has 80 percent of the world supporting him.  If he used WMD, that support would dissolve.  So, he has no incentive.  Even if he did, it would not cause enough damage to change anything.  About the only thing he may accomplish is to scare you reporters,” he added (Stewart Stogel, Time, March 27).

Back to top

United States:  Patriot Intercepts Eighth Iraqi Missile

A Patriot missile defense system intercepted an Iraqi missile fired toward Kuwait yesterday, marking the eighth missile that has been intercepted out of 11 that Iraq has fired toward Kuwait, according to the U.S. Defense Department.  Reports were unclear whether every Iraqi missile had been engaged or whether some were deemed nonthreatening and were allowed to fall into safe areas (see GSN, March 27).

Kuwaiti officials say Iraq has fired closer to 15 missiles toward Kuwait, but residents have become comfortable with the Patriot as a protector, the Washington Post reported.

“People are putting their faith in the Patriots,” said Sami Faraj, a military expert advising the Kuwaiti government on civil defense.  “They don’t want to go to shelters because they are so confident — we don’t want them to be so confident,” he added.

The Pentagon said that two of the three missiles that were not shot down landed in the desert while the other fell into the Persian Gulf.  No injuries or deaths have been reported from the missiles.

Officials at the U.S. Central Command in Qatar said eight of the missiles were Ababil 100s and two of the missiles were al-Samoud 2s (Susan Glasser, Washington Post, March 28).

U.S. defense forces, meanwhile, are searching for Iraq’s alleged Scud missile arsenal, InsideDefense.com reported yesterday.  During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq launched 39 Scud missiles from its western desert toward Israel.

“We’re very active in those areas to make sure that it doesn’t happen again,” said Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, the Central Command’s deputy director of operations (John Liang, InsideDefense.com, March 27).

Back to top

Japan:  Tokyo Launches Spy Satellites Into Orbit

Japan successfully launched a pair of spy satellites into orbit today, prompting protests from North Korea, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Feb. 24).

The two imaging satellites were launched atop an H-2A rocket from the Tanegashima Space Center, about 700 miles southwest of Tokyo (see GSN, Sept. 10, 2002).  “It was a nearly flawless launch,” said Shuichiro Yamanouchi, head of Japan’s National Space Development Agency.

The satellites, equipped with conventional photographic and radar imaging capabilities, are expected to be operational for about five years, AP reported.  Japan plans to deploy at least four such satellites.

One of the main functions of the satellites is to provide information on North Korea, such as preparations for missile tests.  Japanese officials said, however, that the satellites would be used for other purposes as well, such as weather monitoring.

“It means we can obtain important information on our own to secure our country’s peace, safety and independence,” said Shigeru Ishiba, head of Japan’s Defense Agency.  “These satellites are not to attack some other country in the realm of science fiction,” Ishiba added.

North Korea, however, has strongly opposed the satellite deployment and criticized today’s launch.

“Japan will be held fully responsible for causing a new arms race in Northeast Asia,” a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

North Korea has indicated that Japan’s satellite deployment could lead to Pyongyang abandoning its missile test moratorium (see GSN, March 19).  Japanese officials said, however, that there are no signs North Korea plans to soon conduct a missile test.

“So far, there is nothing that would lead us to believe that North Korea may test a ballistic missile in the immediate future,” said Defense Agency spokesman Akihiro Kobe.  “We have no specific information indicating North Korea is pushing ahead with preparations for missile tests in response to Japan's satellite launch,” Kobe added (see GSN, March 12; Associated Press/London Guardian, March 28).

Japanese newspapers have also reported that Tokyo is considering purchasing Tomahawk cruise missiles and Patriot PAC-2 missiles to enable Japan to strike North Korean missile sites or intercept North Korean missiles at greater distances from Japan, according to the New York Times.  In addition, Ishiba supports Japanese participation in the missile defense system the United States plans to deploy next year (James Brooke, New York Times, March 28).

Back to top