The
word of caution comes amid intensifying discussions among top members
of the Bush administration and other prominent Republicans about ways
of dealing with Iraq without undermining U.S. interests in the Middle
East.
Bush
has declared Iraq “an axis of evil” nation and said a regime
change in Baghdad was a key goal of his administration.
U.S.
officials charge Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would not hesitate
using weapons of mass destruction against U.S. interests and U.S.
allies, if he is given a chance.
But
the past two weeks have seen Republican heavyweights like former
national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, ex-secretary of state
Lawrence Eagleburger, Senator Chuck Hagel and Representative Dick
Armey voice concern that a unilateral U.S. military operation against
Baghdad could trigger an explosion of anti-American sentiment in the
region, AFP said.
In
addition, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup opinion poll showed
that public support from a U.S. ground invasion of Iraq slipped from
74 percent last November to 53 percent now. Only 20 percent of those
surveyed favored sending troops to topple Saddam Hussein without
allied support.
Baker,
who served in the 1989-93 administration of the president's father,
George Bush, rejected the argument that Iraq's 1998 decision to end UN
weapons inspections was grounds enough for military action.
In
his view, the United States should seek a new U.N. Security Council
resolution requiring Iraq to submit to intrusive inspections with no
exceptions and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it.
“Unless
we do it in the right way, there will be costs to other American
foreign policy interests, including our relationships with practically
all other Arab countries (and even many of our customary allies in
Europe and elsewhere) and perhaps even to our top foreign policy
priority, the war on terrorism,” he said.
The
president should do his best to stop his advisers and their surrogates
from playing out their differences publicly and try to get everybody
on the same page, Baker said, adding that the United States should
advocate the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of a
simple and straightforward resolution requiring that Iraq submit to
intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions, and
authorizing all necessary means to enforce it.
We
should frankly recognize that our problem in accomplishing regime
change in Iraq is made more difficult by the way our policy on the
Arab-Israeli dispute is perceived around the world, he said.
To
avoid that our policy toward Iraq be linked to the Arab-Israeli
dispute, we need to move affirmatively, aggressively, and in a fair
and balanced way to implement the president’s vision for a
settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute, as laid out in his June
speech.
“That
means, of course, reform by Palestinians and an end to terror tactics.
But it also means withdrawal by Israeli forces to positions occupied
before September 2000 and an immediate end to settlement activity,”
he added.
Baker
concluded by saying that “if we are to change the regime in Iraq, we
will have to occupy the country militarily. The costs of doing so,
politically, economically and in terms of casualties, could be
great.”
