Here's a roundup of world opinion on the Iraq invasion, from the WaPo. Sounds like the world is regarding it as inevitable, but the Administration has not made a case for it in the court of public opinion -- and it should. May I respectfully suggest that our elected representatives crawl out from under their desks and debate the issue?
____________________________________________________
Preparing for the Attack on Iraq
By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff
Friday, July 19, 2002; 12:02 PM
While Washington grappled with corporate scandal and homeland security, the international online media focused on U.S. preparations for war with Iraq.
There was no shortage of news on the subject. In London, a group of exiled Iraqi military officers met publicly to talk about overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein. Leaders of the Kurdish enclave in Iraq paid visits to various capitals of the region. And deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading hawk in the Bush administration, paid a well-covered visit to Turkey.
As columnist Michael Kinsley recently noted in his Post column, Americans have scarcely discussed the idea of attacking Iraq. The possibility of war is debated much more vigorously in the region where the war would take place than in the country that would launch it.
Turkey: Terms of Engagement
In Turkey, commentary focused on the bargaining between Wolfowitz and Turkish leaders. Wolfowitz, it was widely reported, stressed the importance of Turkey's Incirlik air base in any U.S. attack on Iraq. In response, the Turks expressed fears that a war would result in the creation of a Kurdish state that could stoke secessionist feelings among Turkish Kurds.
According to a survey of the Turkish press published by Turkish Daily News, most press observers agree that the U.S. has already decided to invade Iraq and that Turkey has little choice but to go along. The mass appeal daily Hurriyet concluded
"Under the circumstances, Ankara is faced with a dilemma. If Turkey does not cooperate with the United States on the Iraq issue the U.S. forces will enter Iraq anyway and Ankara will not have the chance to have his demands fulfilled... Turkey would be able to 'sit at the table' for the designing of post-Saddam Iraq and have its expectations met only if Turkey enters into cooperation with the United States."
The country's second largest paper, Cumhuriyet, lamented Turkey's position saying
"The politicians in Ankara seem to be blinded by their political ambitions, bickering with one another. They do not seem to have the will or capacity needed to protect Turkey from war."
Iraq: A Thorn in the Eye
In the state-controlled Iraqi media, a U.S. attack is seen as inevitable. The Badghad daily Al Iraq predicted,
"The aggression will be launched under the banner of fighting 'terrorism,' although everyone knows, including the United States, that Iraq has nothing to do with any terrorist organizations or actions, as defined by the United States, and that Iraq has no connection at all with the events of 11 September 2001."
The English-language Iraq Daily responded to the threat of war with bravado. The United States, the government-owned paper declared,
"is a huge entity but one that is as feeble as the elephant that is terrified by ghosts. Moreover, Iraq is not an easy morsel to chew for the United States or anyone else. Iraq is a thorn that can gouge out the eyes and bleed the hearts of its enemies.
Iran: Between Two Enemies
A senior Iranian official carefully staked out a position that seemed designed to provide no comfort to either the United States or Iraq. According to the Tehran Times
"Iran's Supreme National Security Council Chief Hassan Rowhani on Wednesday said any further anti-terror measures, notably against Iraq, should be headed by the United Nations, state radio reported. Rowhani, who was responding a question on a possible U.S. military attack against neighboring Iraq, said: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran does not consider attacks and wars a solution to problems.' "
Lebanon: Syria's Doubts
In Beiruit's Daily Star Syrian journalist Ibrahim Hamidi writes that Turkey and Iran "are likely to cooperate with Washington's plans . . . if they are provided with guarantees about the nature of the 'new regime' in Baghdad."
But Syria, Hamidi, said is a different matter.
"It's not as though there is any great love lost between Baghdad and Damascus. The former supported the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood during their violent insurgency in the late 1970s, and the latter backed Iran in its 1980-1988 war with Iraq. . . . Nevertheless, nothing troubles the Syrians as much as the prospect of Iraq being partitioned or broken up. They have always perceived Iraq as their country's 'strategic depth' irrespective of any transient disputes between them."
Jordan: Serving Israeli Interests
In Iraq's other western neighbor, the talk of war was denounced. The Star, an independent weekly, said
"It is clear to our mind, as it is to most European countries, that US claims about Iraq's perceived threats to regional and world security, are unfounded or at least uncorroborated. The core of Iraq's conflict with the world community, which broke out when it invaded Kuwait in August 1990, has been resolved.
The paper concluded that
" the planned aggression is designed to serve Israeli interests, isolate Iran even further, solidify US presence in the oil-rich Gulf, open Iraqi markets to US goods and services and dictate a new reality on the people of the region. As to saving world peace and reducing the risk of terrorism, well, believing in such rubbish only adds insult to injury."
Israel: Saddam's Elba
Ron Dermer, an Israeli political consultant, writes approvingly of the idea of invading Iraq in the Jerusalem Post but adds that "a far more dangerous conceptual dilemma must be addressed: How does one deter a regime marked for death?"
Saying that Saddam Hussein may use chemical or biological weapons to defend his country, Dermer urged U.S. policymakers to focus on guaranteeing the Iraqi leader sage passage out of his country.
"The message to Saddam must be clear. The United States will topple your regime. If you choose to fight using weapons of mass destruction you will die. If you do not use those weapons, you will live in safe exile."
As for where Hussein might go, Dermer suggests France which long ago exiled the emperor Napoleon to the Mediterranean island of Elba: "A modern Elba may be a small price to pay for the life of millions," he said.
Great Britain: Fear of retaliation
Dermer isn't the only one who is worried. London's Financial Times said the United States still faces large obstacles in overthrowing Hussein.
"Iraq may be correct to prepare for a US attack but one of the many factors delaying that attack is fear of retaliation. In Washington, senior administration officials concede they have little idea how Mr Hussein will respond with the very weapons of mass destruction that they suspect him of having."
washingtonpost.com |
