From The Nation
Despite all the bickering over language, there is no evidence that the Bush Administration has any intention of basing its go-to-war decision on what the UN resolution actually says, or even on what the inspectors find or don't find. If it is looking for a pretext, the super-tough inspection requirements provide plenty. Within forty-eight hours of the resolution's passage, US and British jets bombed the unilaterally declared "no-fly" zone in southern Iraq. The new resolution specifically prohibits Iraq from threatening any country ostensibly "taking action to uphold any Council resolution"; if Iraq even locks radar on these bombers, the United States may claim it is violating those terms. Further, there is no explicit commitment that if Iraq fully complies, the crippling economic sanctions will finally be lifted.
“Half a Victory at the UN
From The Independent
The effect of war on world oil prices could be devastating. George Perry, an analyst with the Brookings Institute in Washington, has drawn up three scenarios, the middle one of which suggests a tripling of prices to $75 a barrel. That would almost certainly push the world into recession.
Little of this kind of economic analysis has been debated publicly in the United States since the prospect of war against Iraq shot to the top of the Bush administration's agenda in late summer. Most talk has been about the feasibility of defeating Saddam, with some hawkish analysts suggesting superior US firepower and a diminished Iraqi military would make it a cakewalk.
Professor Nordhaus warned that even a quick military operation would have economic costs lasting years. "Although cost estimates are often ignored when war is debated," he wrote, "Most people recognise that the costs in dollars, and especially in blood, are acceptable only as long as they are low.''
“Warning that war could plunge world into deep recession”
From The Guardian
Caught between a potentially hostile Iraqi population bent on revenge and an invading army committed to regime change, those fighting alongside President Saddam will have little choice but to remain loyal to the end. The result could be the worst-case scenario for US military planners: an organised, committed and disciplined force with nowhere to go, defending a highly populated urban area. In front of the world's media, US troops would have the unenviable task of distinguishing these forces from the wider, innocent, civilian population.
“Iraqi army is tougher than US believes”
From The Washington Post
As the United States moved toward a possible war with Iraq, the leaders of America's largest religious denomination this week questioned the ethical grounds for a preemptive attack…
In their three-page statement, the bishops outlined the traditional Christian criteria for a "just war" and said they feared the Bush administration had not met those conditions.
"Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature," they wrote.
“Bishops Question Grounds for War”
From the New York Times
President Bush himself, speaking after a cabinet meeting this morning, did not specifically refer to the Iraqi letter. But White House officials said he had expected Mr. Hussein's response…
The administration's strategy of holding back on a detailed response appeared to be based on two calculations.
The first is that the American military presence in the Persian Gulf has not yet reached the dimensions that would be needed if a military confrontation with Iraq develops.
The second is that Mr. Hussein has no way of knowing what kind of intelligence American officials have about what they say is his development and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. As a result, White House officials say, they believe that the United States has a reasonable chance of making a case that Iraq's detailed inventory of weapons, due on Dec. 8, is deliberately false.
“U.S. Disputes Iraqi Denial That It Has Weapons Banned by U.N.”
|
