North Korea is next....
...but not before an election
Al
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials: No Iraq 'October surprise'
Wed Jul 31, 8:52 AM ET
John Diamond USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials have told key lawmakers not to
expect a U.S. attack on Iraq before the fall elections, allowing time for Congress
to debate the possibility of war.
Senior administration officials gave the assurances in
private conversations with senators planning a series
of hearings that begin today into a possible U.S.
attack on Iraq. The officials said there would be no
''October surprise'' -- a sudden attack before the Nov.
5 congressional elections to remove Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).
The assurances square with Pentagon ( news - web
sites) estimates that it would take until early next
year to have the weapons, intelligence and forces in
place to take on Iraq's 375,000-man army. One key
factor: U.S. soldiers can't fight in Iraq's summer or
autumn heat wearing protective gear against
chemical or biological weapons attack.
Today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
is the first of several on Iraq. But the White House
has decided it's too early in the decision-making
process to participate and won't send witnesses until
the sessions resume after the August recess.
''I'm holding hearings to begin for the first time to
seriously discuss what is the threat, if it's identified,
and what are the scenarios, the forces involved,'' said
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del. ''If we attack, we'll
win. But what do we do the day after? We can't just go in and walk away.''
Biden, who confers regularly with senior Bush administration officials, said the
president's aides have made it clear that no Iraq invasion is imminent.
''There's not likely to be anything before November, and I think they're trying to
get their act together on what to do afterwards,'' Biden said.
Members of Congress want the administration to begin building support at
home for an attack and to counter growing concern among allies, particularly in
the Arab world, about the implications of such a war.
Bush has resolved to remove Saddam from power, but the president's advisers
have not agreed on how to do it. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other
hard-liners are pushing for an invasion.
''They have chemical weapons and biological weapons and have an appetite for
nuclear weapons,'' Rumsfeld said Tuesday. But even Rumsfeld cautioned
against assuming President Bush ( news - web sites) has decided to invade.
''We don't know if the United States would exercise a military option,'' he said.
The Pentagon hasn't settled on an invasion plan, but options are beginning to
emerge from planning by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and generals at the U.S.
Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., the military headquarters
responsible for the Persian Gulf region.
One key consideration is not to simply repeat elements of the 1991 war that
ousted Iraqi forces from Kuwait but left Saddam in power. This time, the goal is
to remove him. Options under discussion include:
* Attacking suddenly, without the lengthy and obvious buildup that preceded the
1991 Gulf War ( news - web sites).
* Using small units to immediately sever Saddam's control over chemical and
biological weapons.
* Planning for a peacekeeping force of up to 50,000 to wean the Iraqi public from
its support for Saddam. |
