September 23, 2002
Smart Move, Saddam
Saddam may be up to his old tricks, but by agreeing to an unconditional resumption of arms inspectors, Iraq has slowed Washington's efforts to build support for military action. As long as Baghdad indicates a willingness to submit to will of the international community, the U.S. is unlikely to find international support for military action. That may force it to accept a return of inspectors if only, in Washington's mind, to demonstrate Saddam's bad faith and make the case that there is no alternative to an invasion. Among the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council, the U.S. and Britain responded skeptically to Saddam's offer, France and China were cautiously positive but said Saddam should be held to his word, while Russia proclaimed Iraq's letter sufficient reason to refrain from any further Security Council pressure.
That suggests the attainable consensus at the UN is one that requires that Saddam's offer be tested by sending the inspectors back. This even though some key former arms inspectors and others believe inspections are bound to fail. But the current inspectors are positive, and ready to go to work in Baghdad. London's Times offers some interesting insights from former weapons-inspector Olivia Bosch into how a new inspection regime might work. She explains why accountants may be as important as chemists in tracking down Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
U.S. Maintains the Pressure
The Bush administration has no intention of allowing Iraq to define the process from here. It continues to press for a a tough UN Security Council resolution to specify exactly what is required of Iraq, but the latest Iraqi offer — and Russia's enthusiastic embrace of Baghdad's move — suggest that while Washington is likely to get Security Council endorsement of a resolution spelling out what is required of Iraq, it may have a harder time including the authorization of force for non-compliance in the same resolution. The French have insisted that this would require a second resolution and that certification of Iraq's compliance or non-compliance is the prerogative of the Security Council, but Bush administration officials want the right to make their own determination of whether Iraq is in compliance. Also, as the Sydney Morning Herald points out, expect a tough debate in the coming days on the exact meaning of 'unconditional' — the Iraqis are assuming the inspection process will take at least eight months, and will do their best to ensure that it's a lot longer than. But the Bush administration has no intention of simply restoring the pre-1998 inspection regime, and will be agitating for a far shorter fuse than the one envisaged by Baghdad.
Ready to Rumble
Washington is certainly not about to take the heat off. No matter what happens with inspections, U.S. war plans appear to be going ahead full steam. Military material continues to be dispatched to the Gulf Region, and the Pentagon has instructed U.S. and British pilots policing the "no-fly" zone to begin systematically degrading Iraq's air defense capability — the first-step towards a full-blown bombing campaign in the U.S. military play book. For a detailed look at the military requirements for a full-blown invasion, try the explanation by veteran Gulf War commander Rear Admiral Stephen H. Baker of the Center for Defense Information. The CDI also offers a preview of some of the new military technologies that may make their debut in an invasion of Iraq.
The Search for Allies
Although the U.S. had been encouraged in recent days at growing signs of international support for Washington's position following President Bush's UN speech, the key difference between the Bush administration and most of the Arab and European allies concerns regime-change. The Saudis, for example, by announcing that they'd allow their territory to be used for a UN-authorized attack on Iraq were not necessarily changing their position over a war. As the Financial Times's Roula Khalaf explains, that announcement was designed to send Baghdad a warning that nobody would be able to restrain the U.S. if Iraq continues to defy the UN. And Monday's initiative from Baghdad seems to suggest the message was heard.
The major concern of the war-wary Europeans and Arabs, according to Britain's Observer, is that ousting Saddam's regime may be a recipe for chaos in Iraq. And if you're wondering why the administration continues to have a hard time persuading the Senate to sign on for war, check out the Washington Post's account of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's recent top-secret briefing to Senators. It seems Rumsfeld isn't inclined to reveal anything to lawmakers sworn to secrecy and gathered in a secure location that he's not prepared to divulge at a Pentagon media briefing.
Nor will the Defense Secretary be pleased by a Newsweek article that names him as the Reagan administration's point-man in forging U.S.-Iraq cooperation against Iran in 1982. The piece claims that Washington was willing to mostly turn a blind eye to Saddam's brutality as long as he was fighting the Iranians, and that the Reagan administration even sought initially to blame Iran for his gassing of the Kurds in 1988.
The War Economy
Economists and political leaders are divided on the impact of a war in Iraq. White House adviser Lawrence Lindsey said Monday that an invasion could cost the U.S. up to $200 billion, but he predicted that the outcome would lower the oil price and improve the business climate. Others see a gloomy precedent in the 1991 Gulf War, and warn that this time the U.S. government has fewer tools at its disposal to manage any resultant slowdown.
pagebreak Countdown to War?
(September 13, 3pm)
President Bush clearly believes the countdown to war in Iraq began with his UN speech, telling African leaders Friday that the U.S. doubts Saddam will comply with his demands. And, indeed, Iraq's deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz appeared to confirm that suspicion, Friday, when he told a Gulf TV station that Iraq would not accept an unconditional return of inspectors, because it believes that the U.S. plans to attack regardless of what Baghdad does.
Still, to borrow a phrase from President Bush, what the UN was "born to do" above all else is to avoid war, and diplomats are likely to go into overdrive in pursuit of that objective — by persuading Iraq to accept new inspections. The first step for the U.S. is to secure a consensus among the veto-empowered 'Permanent Five' members of the UN Security Council. Britain is on board and France has indicated it will support a resolution threatening force if Baghdad refuses new inspections. China is taking a relatively neutral position, saying simply that it will play a constructive role to resolve the problem through the UN. The wildcard is Russia. President Putin says diplomatic means of resolving the crisis are far from being exhausted, and it has opposed military action until now. Conflict between Washington and Moscow over Russia's desire to send troops into neighboring Georgia may also muddy the waters somewhat, although most analysts believe Russia will go along with U.S. plans if its own interests are protected.
The Preferred Peace Plan
But even if though most allies appear inclined to support a resolution demanding that Iraq readmit inspectors or face the military consequences, almost all would prefer to see Baghdad relent rather than see the U.S. launch a war for "regime-change." One proposal gaining ground in diplomatic circles is the call for "armed inspections" being championed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This involves the creation of an international military contingent to accompany inspectors back into Iraq, and a warning that any refusal of inspection rights will be followed by immediate military action. The proposal, they argue, is entirely imperfect; its virtues only emerge in comparison to the alternative of a war.
Greenspan's War
So can the U.S. economy afford a war? Worried congressmen on Thursday asked Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to comment, with specific reference to oil prices. The Fed chairman was reassuring on the impact of oil prices of a new Gulf War, but his emphasis on the budget deficits certainly raises a question. "Returning to a fiscal climate of continuous large deficits would risk returning to an era of high interest rates, low levels of investment and slower growth of productivity," said Greenspan. And, of course, pundits have suggested that invading Iraq would cost upward of $60 billion, and whereas the Saudis and Japan paid for the Gulf War, this time the bill looks likely to arrive in Washington.
Schroeder's War
Early in the summer, Germany's chancellor Gerhard Schroeder looked set for a drubbing at the hands of conservative challenger Edmund Stoiber when his country votes on September 22. His timely response to the catastrophic European floods helped Schroeder regain ground, but the single most important factor in his recovery has been the Bush administration's plans to attack Iraq. The prospect of a new Gulf War so alarmed Germans that Schroeder managed to reel in Stoiber's lead in the polls simply by declaring his firm opposition to any U.S. invasion. But some German analysts suggest that President Bush taking the matter to the UN could swing opinion back to Stoiber. After all, a renewed, more forceful press for weapons inspections, rather than preemptive "regime change," is the consensus position in Europe, and right now that's what Bush is pushing for.
What next at the UN?
(Sept. 12, 2pm)
President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet to the international community to enforce UN resolutions routinely defied by Iraq, particularly in respect of weapons of mass destruction. So how will the international body respond? UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned in his speech just before Bush spoke that the U.S. should avoid acting unilaterally against Iraq, but also insisted that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors. And in what may prove to be a a crucial carrot dangled for Saddam, Annan emphasized that readmitting inspectors would be an indispensable step towards ending U.N. sanctions against Iraq, which is Baghdad's key demand. U.N. diplomats, meanwhile, are hard at work crafting a Security Council resolution to set Baghdad an ultimatum. Britain is on board and France has indicated that it will back a resolution setting Saddam an ultimatum to readmit inspectors or else face the consequences. That leaves Washington to win over the remaining two members of the veto-wielding "Permanent Five" — Russia and China. Publicly, Moscow maintains it would veto an invasion — but observers believe Putin won't pose an obstacle if he receives guarantees that Russia's considerable economic interest in Iraq will be protected. Terms like "regime change" send shudders through the leadership compound in Beijing, and bringing China on-side may take considerable diplomatic effort.
The problem for the Bush administration is that while its objective is "regime-change" in Baghdad, the international body remains concerned primarily with restoring the weapons inspection regime. But the most important reason for the UN's existence is to prevent war, and that may drive its members to press Iraq to relent on inspections.
Inspectors Divided
Former weapons inspectors are divided on what a new inspection team will find. Scott Ritter insists the U.S. has no proof of any new WMD threat from Iraq, and that despite Baghdad's trickery, the UNSCOM inspectors accomplished most of their goals. But Charles Duelfer warns that any new inspection regime is bound to be dashed by Iraq's determination to hold onto its weapons of mass destruction, and urges the U.S. not to be too reliant on the UN to authorize action.
Battle Plans
Even as the discussion at the U.N. continues, the U.S. is planning a massive military exercise in the Persian Gulf in October, which includes moving the entire U.S. command center that ran the war in Afghanistan from its headquarters in Florida to the Gulf kingdom of Qatar. In the face of Saudi opposition to any strike on Iraq, Qatar has been singled out as the likely headquarters for a U.S. campaign.
The Center for Defense Information reports that Iraq could potentially field up to 1 million men, but Pentagon officials express doubt over whether regular army units would remain loyal to the regime in the heat of battle, suggesting instead that Saddam can only really count on the approximately 100,000 troops in various Republican Guard formations. As to how they'll fight, the Iraqis have long made clear that rather than make themselves sitting ducks for U.S. air power out on the plains, they plan instead to draw any U.S. invading force into their cities where U.S. and civilian casualties would be higher. Time's Mark Thompson offers an excellent analysis of U.S. military preparations for a battle in downtown Baghdad.
In Search of a Smoking Gun
(Sept. 10, 2pm)
Well, okay, "smoking" is the wrong word, because that implies it has been fired. Even "gun" may be the wrong word at this stage — the Bush administration's case for taking out Saddam Hussein rests primarily on the idea that the world cannot tolerate even the active quest for nuclear weapons by the Iraqi regime. The argument repeated forcefully at the weekend by Vice President Cheney is that Saddam is actively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and in light of his track record that's sufficient reason to take him out.
The White House got a helping hand Monday from the release of a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs by a respected British think-tank, the Institute for International Strategic Studies. The IISS study suggested Iraq's chemical and biological weapons could potentially kill millions of his neighbors and warned that Iraq could build a nuclear device within six months — if it obtained fissile material from an outside source. That's a big if, says BBC analyst Paul Reynolds. IISS spokesmen conceded that the probability of such acquisition was low, he notes, and other sources, including the U.S. Defense Department argued until last year that it would take five years for Iraq to refine its own weapons-grade material.
The Financial Times says the gist of the IISS report is that Saddam's primary threat remains in hid neighborhood, where his chemical and biological weapons could wreak havoc. But those neighbors remain hostile to a war, and don't believe they're in any imminent danger from Iraq.
Ritter's Switch
The administration's PR efforts have not been helped by the return to Baghdad of Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector who this week popped up in Saddam's capital to trash the administration's case. Ritter, who rose to global prominence as the tough-talking hero of the 1998 showdown when Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors but has since become an antiwar activist, says the U.S. has no evidence to back its claims on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But he also warned the Iraqis that the unconditional return of arms inspectors was Iraq's only hope of avoiding a war — a line also being pushed hard by the Arab League and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in their efforts to avert a clash.
Last Chance
For now, however — against the better judgment of some of the more hawkish Bushies — the matter appears to be headed back to the U.N. where Saddam will be given one more chance to get on the right side of the law. That fits, also, with new proposals from France's President Jacques Chirac who has suggested that the Security Council set Baghdad a three-week deadline to unconditionally readmit inspectors — and that a refusal could be followed up by a resolution authorizing the use of force. Tony Blair took the same line in his address to a skeptical Trade Union Congress, Tuesday.
As my colleague Michael Elliot argues in this week's Time, by threatening unilateral action the Bush administration may have succeeded in rousing its allies to press more actively for an acceptable multilateral solution rather than simply ignoring Saddam's weapons programs. But while the President appears to have finally gotten his aides to speak with one voice on the demand that Saddam's defiance of the international community must be dealt with, deciding on just how, where and when it is to be dealt with remain the key questions facing President Bush.
It's Up to Saddam
Now that inspections are shaping up as the "trigger" issue, the question of whether or not the U.S. goes to war in Iraq may depend largely on the choices made by Saddam Hussein. Baghdad has signaled it is willing to negotiate over allowing the inspectors back in, but everyone from Kofi Annan and Scott Ritter to the leaders of Europe and the Arab world have made it clear that the international community will accept no conditions or fetters on a renewed inspection regime. So the question becomes, Is Saddam prepared to lose face in order to remain in power? Right now, that's an open question. Some Arab commentators suggest the sudden appearance of Scott Ritter in Baghdad signals that Iraq is preparing to readmit inspectors; others suggest that if he believes military action is inevitable regardless of his actions that he'll hang tough.
Copyright © 2002 Time Inc. |
