When I looked for that Baker/Iraq piece, I noticed there was some followup. I'm going to sleep now, but here it is.
August 25, 2002
Baker's Iraq Inspection Proposal Wins Support
By REUTERS
Filed at 2:41 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid an intensifying debate over whether the United States should attack Iraq, former Secretary of State James Baker won early support on Sunday for suggesting the United Nations send in weapons inspectors backed by the threat of force.
Baker, writing an opinion piece in The New York Times, was the latest in a series of public figures and former U.S. officials voicing reservations about unilateral U.S. military action to topple Saddam Hussein as President Bush pushes for ``regime change'' in Baghdad.
The former secretary of state, who helped Bush's father craft the international coalition behind the 1991 Gulf War, said the United States should first approach the United Nations for a final resolution authorizing weapons inspections in Iraq at any time, backed by the threat of the force.
``Seeking new authorization now is necessary, politically and practically, and will help build international support,'' Baker wrote.
Baker's proposal for intrusive U.N. inspections as a way to justify military action against Baghdad won swift bipartisan backing from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, and Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Both appeared on CBS' ``Face the Nation'' program.
``By going to the United Nations, making the request, even if it results in Iraq stonewalling it, would move us into the moral high ground in appealing to our allies for their collaboration and gaining the support of the world for whatever form of action we end up taking against Iraq,'' Graham said.
Specter agreed. ``Before we use military force, we ought to try all of the alternatives: economic sanctions, diplomacy, inspections.''
``The beauty about what former Secretary Baker said is ... that Saddam Hussein has already committed himself to inspections by the United Nations, and he's thumbed his nose at the U.N. So going into the U.N. on that one aspect and saying, 'Provide force to do those inspections,' if he continues to stonewall us, I think, is a very sound idea.''
DEBATE OVER IRAQ CONTINUES
The new proposal by Baker on Sunday fueled the debate that has raged in recent weeks over Bush's plans for Iraq, which he accuses of pursuing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
While U.S. officials continue to say the president has no war plans on his desk, Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican and No. 3 in the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, again defended military action against Iraq and predicted on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program that a huge number of Iraqi troops would surrender immediately once the U.S. acted.
DeLay disagreed with Baker's proposal.
``I hope the president will do what he's been doing ever since 9/11, and that's showing strong moral leadership,'' the conservative lawmaker said.
Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and member of the Armed Services Committee, told CNN ``the only thing that would concern me is if they lost the (U.N.) vote.''
Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, another panel member, said the Baker proposal, following similar calls for a more cautious approach, demonstrated a ``huge split'' of opinion among Republicans.
Some opponents argue Iraq poses no real threat to the United States and an attack would alienate America's Arab and European allies, further inflame the Middle East and hurt the global fight against terrorism.
Others say a preemptive campaign, without direct provocation, would mark a historic turn in U.S. foreign policy. In the 1991 Gulf War, the United States led a coalition of about 40 countries to force Iraqi troops from neighboring Kuwait. The $60 billion-dollar effort involved 500,000 American soldiers and more from allied countries.
Public opinion polls show a majority of Americans back sending ground troops to remove Saddam but support has fallen since the weeks following the Sept. 11 attacks. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll on Friday found 53 percent of Americans favored sending U.S. troops into Iraq, compared to 74 percent in November 2001.
Washington's European and Arab allies almost all oppose military action. Even Britain, the country usually closest to U.S. foreign policy, said on Thursday its aim in Iraq was to get U.N. weapons inspectors back in.
Copyright 2002 Reuters Ltd. | Privacy Policy
nytimes.com |
