Iraq and ruin
Toppling Saddam Hussein still tops George Bush's 'to
do' list - how to achieve it is another matter
Brian Whitaker
Monday June 17, 2002
The Guadian
Iraq has kept out of the limelight for several months now, but
various small incidents over the last few days provide a reminder
that toppling Saddam Hussein is still high up on George Bush's
task list, even if he's unsure how to do it.
During a visit to the Gulf, US defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld called Saddam "a world-class liar" and advised Kuwait
to be wary of Iraqi moves towards reconciliation.
On Friday, US warplanes attacked a radar statio in southern
Iraq. Military officials said the strike - the fourth of its kind in a
month - was a response to Iraqi attacks on British and American
aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.
The same day, the US ordered the expulsion of an Iraqi diplomat
based at the United Nations in New York. The man, Abdul
Rahman Saad, was accused of "activities incompatible with his
diplomatic status" - normally a diplomatic euphemism for
spying, though some reports were more specific and said he
had "attempted to recruit US citizens".
Whatever the actual rights and wrongs in these incidents, they
can be seen as helping to build a case against Saddam
Hussein. A news item in the Times today fits the same mould. It
begins: "Iraq is smuggling nuclear-related equipment banned by
the United Nations on board aircraft that have been flying relief
aid to Syria, intelligence agencies believe."
It weaves an intriguing tale around the bursting of a Syrian dam
on June 4, which left more than 20 people dead and thousands
homeless. In response to the disaster (and, presumably, as a
propaganda ploy), Iraq dispatched a couple of dozen planes
carrying humanitarian aid to Syria.
According to the report, the Iraqi planes did not return home
empty: Iraq allegedly "took advantage of the disaster" to
smuggle banned equipment for its nuclear weapons programme.
One plane, it says, citing "some" intelligence reports, was
"filled" with spare parts for flow-forming machines, "which are
used to produce components for uranium-enrichment systems".
The story may be true, but there is no way the average reader
can judge its credibility. We are merely told that intelligence
agencies, whose nationalities are not stated, believe it to be the
case. There are, however, several reasons to be cautious.
A quick search of the internet reveals several companies
supplying new and second-hand flow-forming machines, which
appear to be widely used in steel and aluminium processing.
They may well be able to churn out metal parts for
uranium-enrichment systems, but they have plenty of other uses
besides.
Also, an unnamed intelligence source is quoted as saying that
the smuggling operation "was organised at the last minute,
exploiting the window of opportunity that opened up as a result
of the humanitarian relief operation".
This implies that smuggling opportunities rarely come along,
when the reality is that large quantities of illicit goods enter Iraq
every day. It is therefore unclear why, if Iraq wanted to import
these spare parts, it would have to wait for a Syrian dam to burst
in order to do it.
Whatever the factual basis of the story, it delivers of number
political messages: it bolsters fears about Iraq's nuclear
programme, highlights Iraq's duplicity (even where humanitarian
aid is concerned), and it drags Syria (an associate member of
the"axis of evil") into the frame, too.
If the usual pattern is followed, before long we shall see the tale
regurgitated elsewhere, presented as fact rather than the "belief"
of unidentified intelligence agencies, and with 'the Times of
London' cited as the source to add credibility.
Such stories, accompanied by regular confrontations with Iraq
over relatively minor issues, will have a cumulative effect over the
coming months - or so the hawks in the Bush administration
hope. They are part of the process of creating an atmosphere
where all-out war with Baghdad becomes acceptable in the eyes
of the public.
Whether it will succeed is another matter. There have been so
many weird security scares - both real and imaginary - since
last September that people have become blasé about them.
Any truly damning evidence against Iraq will have to be a lot
more exciting than what has emerged so far. At least the Iraqi
'supergun' affair of the 1980s was interesting - it had all the
hallmarks of a good thriller, including the murder of the central
character - but spare parts for flow-forming machines are
scarcely going to set the world alight.
Outside the United States and Israel, hardly anybody perceives
an imminent threat from Iraq, and Saddam - dressed for the
duration in sheep's clothing - reinforces the majority view by
trying to befriend anyone who will spare him the time of day.
Since the early days of the Bush administration, its policy on
Iraq has been absolutely clear: Saddam must be removed, by
force if necessary. What is less clear is the rationale for the use
of force to do so.
The usual justifications, cited by both Democrat and Republican
members of Congress, are Iraq's alleged pursuit of weapons of
mass destruction and violations of United Nations resolutions
and international law.
But the trouble with this is that the same arguments can be
applied to ISRAEL, though there are no US plans to bomb Tel Aviv
or depose Ariel SHARON. Israel actually has nuclear weapons,
whereas Iraq - so far as anyone knows - is still trying to acquire
them. In terms of flouting UN resolutions and international law,
many would argue that Israel's behaviour is a more serious
threat to international stability, at the present time, than that of
Iraq.
There have also been attempts to implicate Iraq in international
terrorism, though nothing has so far emerged that would justify a
war of the magnitude that is proposed.
The latest attempt at justification is the new Bush doctrine of
"anticipatory self-defence" against hostile states or terrorists
who possess weapons of mass destruction.
Briefly stated, the argument for this is that old concepts of
deterrence no longer work and the US cannot afford to wait until
it is attacked: it must be ready for "pre-emptive action" to defend
lives and liberties.
This, as Professor William Galston of Maryland University
pointed out in the Washington Post at the weekend, is a
dangerous doctrine which amounts to "an international hunting
licence".
Pre-emptive action in self-defence is permissible under
international law, but the threat to the United States would have
to be specific, imminent and extremely grave. President Bush
has yet to come up with any threat from Iraq that meets these
criteria.
There are also doubts among the American military about the
wisdom of attacking Iraq. At a meeting with President Bush last
month, General Tommy Franks laid out some of their concerns.
These included:
· The likelihood Saddam would resort to chemical and biological
weapons if he felt cornered.
· The danger of getting US troops bogged down in a bloody
street-fighting in Iraq.
· The problem of finding a successor to Saddam who would be
capable of improving the situation inside Iraq.
These difficulties provide a context for the disclosure, last
weekend, that President Bush has signed an order authorising
the CIA and American special forces to use "lethal force" to
capture or kill Saddam Hussein - in other words, to organise a
coup.
If it succeeded, the benefit for President Bush would be to
side-step much of the political controversy attached to a
full-scale war involving perhaps 200,000 US troops and
condemnation from many parts of the world. However, according
to CIA director George Tenet, quoted in the Washington Post,
covert action on its own has only about a 10 per cent to 20 per
cent chance of success.
It is possible, therefore, that the CIA and special forces
operations will be directed mainly towards preparing for an
eventual large-scale intervention by identifying targets, gathering
intelligence and making contacts, and so on.
On the other hand, it may simply be a way of keeping the hawks
happy in the absence of a workable plan.
Email
brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk |
