The truth of Bush's reason for war is keeping other countries from standing by us.
(08-01) 16:46 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
A Senate panel Thursday wrestled with the question of whether the United
States should force Saddam Hussein from power -- especially given the high
costs taxpayers could face in supporting a new Iraqi government.
Caspar Weinberger, former President Reagan's defense secretary, urged quick
and decisive military action to remove Saddam.
"He has violated all of the promises which we accepted when we crushed his
military in the Gulf War," Weinberger told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. "He cannot be believed and he is an implacable foe of the United
States."
But Samuel Berger, former President Clinton's national security adviser, urged
caution. He said the United States needs to consider the impact on neighboring
countries, which allies support an invasion, who would replace Saddam, how
much assistance a new Iraqi government would need and who would pay for it, he
said.
"If we don't do this operation right, we could end up with something worse"
than Saddam, he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Weinberger and Berger were the final witnesses as the committee completed two
days of hearings exploring whether an invasion is needed and what its
consequences would be.
The committee's chairman, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said he hoped the
hearings would stir debate in Congress and among the American public. No
administration officials were asked to participate, but Biden said he may
invite them to appear before the panel later this year.
President Bush has called for regime change in Iraq, citing the threat posed
by Iraq's development of chemical and biological weapons and its pursuit of
nuclear weapons. But administration officials have said no decision has been
made on whether to invade Iraq.
In a surprise move Thursday, Iraq invited the chief U.N. weapons inspector to
Baghdad for talks it said could lead to a return of inspectors after nearly
four years.
Witnesses at the Senate hearings have generally agreed that Saddam's
development of weapons of mass destruction pose a serious risk. But there have
been differences about whether the threat could be ended only by military
action.
Some have advocated tightening the economic embargo on Iraq or working with
other nations to try to force Iraq to submit to strict weapons inspections.
Iraq banned U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
Berger said going back to the United Nations could help win international
support for U.S. actions. "It is a useful vehicle for building legitimacy."
Much of the world is wary of the possibility of the United States invading
Iraq. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in remarks published Thursday
that plans for attacking Iraq were unwise and outside U.N. policies. Annan was
quoted in the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat as saying that the U.N. Security Council
had not endorsed any such move.
Weinberger shrugged off the possibility that the United States may lack allies
for invading Iraq. "If we're alone in the actual removal operations, so be
it," he said.
But Berger said such action needs international support, even if the coalition
isn't as strong as the United States had in the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The
U.S. military would need foreign bases and overflight rights. Moreover, other
nations could help pay for the operations and rebuilding Iraq.
"If it's a coalition of one, it's a bill-payer of one," he said.
Prospects for a post-Saddam Iraq dominated the panel's attention earlier in
the day, with analysts saying Iraq could fall into chaos if the United States
and other nations aren't prepared to take an active, expensive role in
rebuilding the country.
The analysts said preparing for a post-Saddam Iraq must begin well in advance
of an invasion and could require lots of money and a long-term commitment of
U.S. troops.
"If the U.S. is going to take responsibility for removing the current
leadership, it should assume that it cannot get the results it wants on the
cheap," said Phebe Marr, an author specializing in the Middle East.
Marr said the Iraqi nation is unlikely to dissolve upon Saddam's fall, despite
divisions among the three main ethnic groups: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
But she said serious problems could occur if a new leadership isn't in place
immediately after Saddam is removed. She warned of possible "retribution,
score-settling and bloodletting" in the immediate aftermath. Ultimately, she
said, groups could struggle for power or control of oil fields, possibly
leading to intervention by Turkey or Iran. |
