WASHINGTON, Aug 17 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - While Israel signaled its decision to put public pressure on U.S. President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, Bush downplayed reservations from key figures in his Republican Party concerning his strategy to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, as well as comments urging him to make a more convincing case for military action against Iraq, news agencies reported Saturday, August 17, 2002. With foreign policy experts in Washington becoming increasingly critical of the wisdom of a military strike, and European governments showing no willingness to support an attack, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, wants to make it clear that he is the U.S. President's most reliable ally, according to British daily The Guardian. "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Ranaan Gissin, a senior Sharon adviser said Friday, August 16. "It will only give Saddam Hussein more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction." Israeli intelligence officials had new evidence that Iraq was speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, he claimed. Gissin's statement appears to mark a change of tactic by the Israeli Prime Minister as he sees Bush coming under pressure to back away from an attack on Iraq. Earlier this week, Sharon told the Knesset's foreign affairs committee that Iraq was Israel's "greatest danger" but Israel was not pressing for an attack. A day later, however, he met Israel's air force chiefs and toured Israel's air defenses. "Gissin is usually more alarmist than anybody else but there is no doubt that he is his master's voice. It is in the interest of the prime minister to heat things up a bit," Ron Pundak, director of the Peres Center for Peace, said, according to The Guardian. "Sharon sees eye to eye with the extremists in the Pentagon. He is a very cunning tactician. It suits him to speak like this at this juncture." On the other hand, Republican members of Congress such as Chuck Hagel and Dick Armey, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, have one by one expressed reservations about a U.S. attack on Iraq and looked to Bush for clarity on his intentions. They raised some interesting questions: How much of a threat is the Iraqi arms program, really? Is there proof of a link between Baghdad and the September 11 terrorists? Would such a move destabilize the Middle East? Is the US ready to rebuild a "post-Saddam" Iraq? Which allies are behind us? Is public opinion ready to accept US casualties?, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). "Don't attack Saddam ... An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter terrorist campaign we have undertaken," Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to former presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush, said Thursday in a Wall Street Journal article. Despite Saddam's sabre-rattling, "there is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression," Scowcroft said. Instead Scowcroft said the United States should issue an unconditional ultimatum that Iraq reopen its border to UN arms inspectors. At the same time, Scowcroft recalled that he has yet to see any evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, thought to be (allegedly) responsible for the September 11 attacks against the United States. Scowcroft is part of a moderate camp of Republicans, which includes Secretary of State Colin Powell. During the Gulf War Scowcroft and Powell supported the liberation of Kuwait but opposed a U.S. push to oust Saddam.
Henry Kissinger, former President Richard Nixon's illustrious secretary of state, also weighed in this week saying, "Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed" to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. "The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein all combine to produce an imperative for pre-emptive action," Kissinger said. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel also said the Bush's administration has not provided convincing proof that the situation in Iraq warrants such a large response. The CIA has "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons, he said. Dick Armey, the House Republican majority leader, also came out against a war "without proper provocation" from Iraq. However, according to Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice Washington does "not have the luxury of doing nothing" about Iraq. Saddam is "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," Rice told the BBC, while at the same time underling that Bush has yet to make a definitive decision about Iraq. On Friday night Bush, speaking in Crawford, Texas, said he would consult with others on U.S. policy on Iraq, but would make his decisions based on the "latest intelligence". "We'll continue to consult. ... People should be allowed to express their opinion. But America needs to know I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies," Bush told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where he is vacationing on his ranch.
|
|
|
