WASHINGTON,
August 21 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - The U.S. administration
has invested so much political capital in the claim they will get Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein, U.S. political analysts say, so Americans
shall go to war, "slaughter however many thousands of Iraqis and
put at risk however many young American men and women GIs because
somebody doesn't want to lose face."
Richard
Perle, current board member at Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs (JINSA) and Pentagon Defense Policy Board chair, the Pentagon
adviser who has led the campaign to overthrow Saddam, confirmed last
week that Bush's reputation was now part of the equation.
"The
failure to take on Saddam after what the president [George W. Bush] said
would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it
would set back the war on terrorism," he told The New York Times.
"If
Mr. Bush doesn't get rid of Saddam after all this saber rattling, he
will look like the biggest wimp since - well, his father,"
commentator Frank Rich wrote in Times on Saturday, August 17.
Perle’s
comment came in answer to former national security adviser in Bush’s
father’s administration, Brent Scowcroft’s prediction last week that
an attack on Iraq would seriously jeopardize the current Bush
administration's "global counter-terrorism campaign."
And
former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who like Scowcroft
served under the first Bush, said Sunday, August 18, that he too did not
believe that "regime change" in Iraq was a legitimate policy
at this stage, news agencies reported.
Meanwhile,
commenting on the administration’s efforts to launch a fresh strike on
Iraq, Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies,
said, "They have invested so much political capital in the claim
that they are going to get him [Saddam] that it does become a
self-fulfilling commitment."
"The
real issue becomes that we would lose face. So we'll go to war, we'll
slaughter however many thousands of Iraqis and put at risk however many
young American men and women GIs because somebody doesn't want to lose
face," she added.
In
answer to growing doubts about the legitimacy of any attack on Iraq from
some members within the administration and the Republican Party, U.S.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed Tuesday, August 20, that
Al-Qaeda members have taken refuge in Iraq, arguing that it was
"ludicrous" to believe the Baghdad government was not aware of
it.
"In
a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near total control of
its population, it's very hard to imagine that the government is not
aware of what's taking place in the country," he said.
It
was the second time this month that Rumsfeld has charged that Al-Qaeda
members, who fled Afghanistan have gone to Iraq.
But
he provided no other details on their connection, if any, to the
government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
"I
suppose at some moment it may make sense to discuss that publicly. And
it doesn't today," Rumsfeld told reporters at a Pentagon news
conference.
"But
what I have said is a fact, that there are Al-Qaeda in a number of
locations in Iraq, and the suggestion that those people who are so
attentive in denying human rights to their population aren't aware of
where these folks are, or what they're doing, is ludicrous," he
said.
The
administration has pointed to the nexus between terrorism and so-called
rogue states with weapons of mass destruction as a rationale for
pre-emptive military action.
Missing
so far in its case against Iraq, though, is a clear link between the
Iraqi regime and either Al-Qaeda or the September 11 attacks.
Rumsfeld
refused to comment on reports that a group with Al-Qaeda links has been
experimenting with toxins in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, where
Saddam exerts no authority, using barnyard animals and at least one
human as guinea pigs, saying, "I have said for some time that there
are Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and there are."
"They
have left Afghanistan," he said in reference to Al-Qaeda.
"They have left other locations. And they've landed in a variety of
countries, one of which is Iraq."
A
U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the activity in
the Kurdish area by a group known as Ansar al-Islam was in an area not
controlled by Baghdad.
Ansar
al-Islam, which controls a handful of Iraqi Kurdish villages that abut
the border with Iran on the eastern end of the U.S.-protected Kurdish
safe area in northern Iraq, said the official, remains a serious
concern, in part because of indications they are connected to Al-Qaeda.
Rumsfeld
took pains to avoid adding fuel to a debate raging among allies and
within the Republican party over the wisdom of an invasion of Iraq.
For
his part, Rumsfeld, continued chiding the media for what he described as
excessive focus on Iraq, saying, "Clearly, in any endeavor one
would prefer to have near acclamation and support. Life is not like that
generally."
"We
find that leaders have to make decisions that may be close calls and
that's what they do and sometimes they find that when the situation is
ultimately made that the tone and the tempo changes dramatically,"
he said.
Asked
about allied opposition to an invasion, Rumsfeld said he did not
necessarily agree that there was "a notable accumulation of
opposition."
"As
a student of history, we all know that, in a number of periods of
history, there has been almost unanimity in a certain position, and it's
proved to be wrong," he said." So the fact that voices can
cluster in a certain way does not mean that is necessarily the wise
course or the prudent course."
"Second,
I think you'll find if you look below the surface that an awful lot of
the voices one hears get somewhat louder during election periods and
then seem to be less noticeable after elections are over," he said.
