Opposition to Striking Iraq Increases in U.S. Administration

WASHINGTON, August 13 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - Despite the fact that U.S. President George W. Bush has been talking about a war in Iraq to remove the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, there is much talk within the U.S. administration which indicates that not everyone shares Bush’s enthusiasm.

The U.K. daily newspaper, the Times, said that while in Europe there has been a tendency in the past fortnight to portray the U.S. as united in its enthusiasm for war, it is a fact that the public, congress and the administration are not united on the war against Iraq.

The Republicans, the paper said, are troubled and the Armed Services Committee, called in witnesses with military expertise, tapping into the vein of dissent within the Pentagon that is now the first battle that President Bush must win if he wants to attack Iraq.

This dissent is being seen through alternative battle plans that members of the U.S. administration are presenting in the U.S.’s daily newspapers everyday, said the Times.

For instance, Secretary of State Colin Powell feels that it is better if U.S. troops go in with large numbers and use overwhelming force, reported the paper.

The paper added that many diplomats question the wisdom of an invasion, favoring containment and diplomacy in the region.

Against them are ranged the Pentagon civilians: Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, and Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy, with the warm support of Dick Cheney, the Vice-President.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are of the school supporting a smaller invasion - “Desert Storm Lite”, as it has been dubbed, said the Times.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Sun Times said that Powell and U.S. Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage have had a heart-to-heart talk with Bush about the difficulties of initiating war with Iraq.

Powell and Armitage, who normally do not spend much private time with Bush, are described as having walked Bush through consequences of a unilateral U.S. attack with little support from European allies and hostility from moderate Arab states, said the paper.

As a pillar of the Republican foreign policy establishment, Gen. Brent Scowcroft for months had been turning down invitations from Sunday televised talk shows because he did not want to oppose the administration led by his former chief's son, it said adding however, that he broke the silence and went to CBS’s ''Face the Nation” and said: “To attack Iraq while the Middle East is in terror and America appears not to be dealing with something which to every Muslim is a real problem.”

“I think could turn the whole region into a cauldron.”

Also, said the Chicago Sun Times, there were other Republican voices which urged restraint such as Jack Kemp as well as members of Congress from both parties, with House Majority Leader Dick Armey last Thursday, August 8, warning against an unprovoked attack on Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin, a liberal Democrat from Michigan, has moved toward the skepticism of Sen. Chuck Hagel, a conservative Republican from Nebraska. Levin calls Saddam a “survivalist” who would not employ any available chemical or biological weapons that would sign his own death warrant but would lash back in desperation if attacked.

Hagel now embraces that view. Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, a well-informed Republican, wonders when “pre-emption” replaced “deterrence” as basic U.S. strategy, reported the paper.

The Times also reported on Tuesday, August 13, that former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger urged Bush to use extreme care in drafting war plans against Iraq or risk isolating America in the eyes of the world.

With his intervention yesterday, Kissinger joined a growing band of prominent American military and foreign policy experts appealing to the President to show caution in his desire to oust President Saddam Hussein, said the paper.

He said that the ground-breaking status of such an attack, which breached international codes about using force only in self-defense, required meticulous planning to counter the skepticism of allies and the hostility of foes.

Bush should contemplate military intervention only if he were ready to see through a much longer diplomatic offensive, preparing the ground for war and ensuring a stable settlement afterwards, Kissinger said, reported the Times.