On 16 Aug 2002 at 3:14, Hermit wrote:
>
> US adviser warns of Armageddon
>
> Source: The Guardian
> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,775532,00.html) Authors:
> Julian Borger, Richard Norton-Taylor Dated: 2002-08-16
>
> One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus
> yesterday appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade
> Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon in the Middle East".
>
> The outspoken remarks from Brent Scowcroft, who advised a string of
> Republican presidents, including Mr Bush's father, represented an
> embarrassment for the administration on a day it was attempting to
> rally British public support for an eventual war.
>
> The US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, yesterday spelled
> out what she called the "very powerful moral case" for toppling Saddam
> Hussein. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing," she
> told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said the Iraqi leader was "an
> evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his
> own population, his neighbours and, if he gets weapons of mass
> destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us".
>
> But while Ms Rice was making the case for a pre-emptive strike, the
> rumble of anxiety in the US was growing louder. A string of leading
> Republicans have expressed unease at the administration's
> determination to take on President Saddam, but the most damning
> critique of Mr Bush's plans to date came yesterday from Mr Scowcroft.
>
> The retired general, who also advised Presidents Nixon and Ford,
> predicted that an attack on Iraq could lead to catastrophe.
>
> "Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when
> Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using
> weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to
> respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the
> Middle East," Mr Scowcroft wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
>
Once Saddam obtains nuclear weapons, this possibility becomes much
more critical and much more likely. I do not believe that Israel would
launch a nuclear response to a SCUD missile attack, even one containing
chemical weapons; more likely would be conventional weapons bombing
raids. It most DEFINITELY would launch such a response to a nuclear
attack by Saddam Hussein, something he has promised to do as soon as
he can manage it. The longer the US waits, the greater the danger of this
scenario coming to pass will be.
>
> The Israeli government has vowed it would not stand by in the face of
> attacks as it did in 1991, when Iraqi Scud missiles landed on Israeli
> cities. It claims it has Washington's backing for retaliation.
>
> Mr Scowcroft is the elder statesman of the Republican foreign policy
> establishment, and his views are widely regarded as reflecting those
> of the first President Bush. The fierceness of his attack on current
> administration policy illustrates the gulf between the elder Bush and
> his son, who has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues
> on domestic and foreign policy.
>
The four leading Bush Jr. advisors (Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick
Cheney and Condoleezza Rice) all have extensive administration service
connections to his father, Bush Sr.
>
> In yesterday's article, Mr Scowcroft argued that by alienating much of
> the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would halt much of the
> cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle against the
> al-Qaida organisation.
>
> "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not
> destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr
> Scowcroft wrote.
>
Counterbalanced against this is the intimidation factor. Countries might
be even more reluctant to be uncooperative in such a campaign against a
US that has proven that the 'paper tiger' has real and far-reaching claws
when its national security interests are substantially threatened.
>
> Both the American and British governments are expected to time a
> public relations effort to rebuff the critics and build public support
> in the immediate run-up to an invasion.
>
> Senior Whitehall figures say that crucial in that effort will be
> evidence that President Saddam is building up Iraq's chemical
> biological warfare capability and planning to develop nuclear weapons.
>
It is a reasonable idea for the US and Britain to counter the PR campaign
that Saddam has been engaging in to attempt to split or influence the US-
Britain alliance regarding him.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT