Top U.S.
Military Officials Against Striking Iraq
 |
|
Some
U.S. officials believe containment is a better approach than
invading Iraq or destabilizing the Iraqi government by killing
Saddam |
WASHINGTON,
July 28 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) – Many top U.S. military
officers believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein does not pose an
immediate threat, and that the U.S. should not invade Iraq to force a
change of leadership.
U.S.
daily newspaper, the Washington Post, reported Sunday, July 28, that
these officers have reached this conclusion based in part on
intelligence assessments of the state of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons.
This
call for caution by some top generals and admirals in the U.S.
military, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is increasing
tensions in the administration over Iraqi policy, the Washington Post
reported.
The
senior officers’ position - that a containment policy would be far
more successful that a more aggressive military campaign - was made
clear in the course of several interviews with officials inside and
outside the Pentagon, the Post said.
However,
there are high-level non-military officials in the White House and
Pentagon who strongly disagree. They claim that Hussein is still
acting aggressively, is intimidating his neighbors and is eager to
pursue weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.
“The
whole question is, how long do you wait with Saddam Hussein in
possession of the capabilities he has and would like to have?” said
Richard N. Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon
advisory group.
The
uniformed military’s skepticism would not stop Bush if he were
determined to attack Iraq, a White House aide said. “I assume that
if the president decides this is going to happen, they'll go along
with it,” he said.
The
Washington Post said that the military leadership’s insistence on
airing its concerns already appears to have had an effect.
Despite
the Bush administration’s public rhetoric about Iraq, the view of
officials interviewed at the Pentagon in recent days is that there
will be no action against Iraq before next spring, and perhaps not
even then.
They
argue that the administration’s goal of regime change may well be
achieved by Hussein falling into poor health or perhaps by CIA covert
operations aimed at toppling him.
By
making their views known, the top military brass also may bolster
congressional Democrats who are counseling a more cautious approach on
Iraq, the Post said.
The
military’s objections also indicate that while the U.S. government
is united about wanting Hussein out of power, it remains deeply
divided about how to achieve that goal.
The
U.S. military’s support of containment, and its concern about the
possible negative consequences of attacking Iraq, are shared by senior
officials at the State Department and the CIA, according to people
familiar with interagency discussions, the Post reported.
Senior
officers believe that the success of the containment approach can be
proven by the fact that it has deterred Hussein from threatening his
neighbors and from backing terrorist organizations. They said it also
has prevented him from updating his military equipment, the Post said.
“I’d
argue that containment is certainly a better approach than either
marching on Baghdad or destabilizing the Iraqi government by killing
Saddam,” said retired Col. Richard Dunn III, a former Army
strategist. “It only has to work until something happens to him -
he's either killed or dies.”
Jim
Cornette, a former Air Force biological warfare expert who
participated in Gulf War targeting of Iraqi weapons bunkers, added
that “We’ve bottled him up for 11 years, so we’re doing okay. I
don’t know the reason the administration is so focused on Iraq.
I’m very puzzled by it.”
U.S.
defense officials said the current U.S. intelligence assessment is
that Iraq has few, if any, operational long-range missiles that could
be used to deliver those weapons to attack Israel or other U.S. allies
in the region.
One
concern the military officers share is that Iraq could split up under
a U.S. attack, potentially leading to chaos and the creation of new
anti-American regimes and terrorist sanctuaries in the region.
More
than one officer interviewed questioned Bush’s motivation for
repeatedly calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
“I'm
not aware of any linkage to Al-Qaeda or terrorism,” one general
involved in the Afghanistan war said, “so I have to wonder if this
has something to do with his father being targeted by Saddam,” a
reference to the U.S. government’s belief that Iraqi agents plotted
to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush with a car bomb
during a 1993 visit to Kuwait, the Post reported.
|
