|
 |
 |
UNITED NATIONS — The USA is preparing the political ground for a much deserved military strike on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Note the circumstantial evidence, see the time line, and begin to connect the strategic dots.
U.S. warplanes softening up or "degrading" air defense sites in southern Iraq. The UN Security Council signing off on another six months of economic sanctions, as well as also extending the humanitarian oil-for-food program. And most significantly, the call by President George W. Bush that arms inspectors be allowed to return to Iraq to monitor suspected production sites for weapons of mass destruction.
President George Bush, has demanded that UN weapons inspectors be allowed back into Baghdad. The multinational teams were withdrawn from Iraq in 1998, and have not since been allowed to monitor what experts describe as significant chemical and biological weapons capability by Saddam Hussein. And for those who scoff at Saddam's serious chemical capabilities, recall for a moment the fright from the national anthrax scare, which was likely perpetrated by a left wing loony rather than an organized group.
President Bush stated, "Saddam Hussein agreed to allow inspectors into his country and in order to prove to the world that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction, he ought to let the inspectors back in." When pressed how Washington would react if Saddam says no, Bush replied, "He'll find out."
Secretary of State Colin Powell, when pressed by reporters concerning any new Iraq policy stated, "I will tell them to listen carefully to what the President said...The President and the international community all have a full range of options available to us to keep trying to get rid of these programs of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein has been trying to work on for the last ten years. But the President's statement seemed to me to be clear, declaratory, and not requiring any amplification. I think everyone understood what he means."
Iraqi government officials have already said that they expect an American attack
and they may not be far off the mark.
Saddam will likely take the bait feeling that his control of the Arab masses or "The Street" will again put him on the shortlist for sympathy not only in the Arab world, but among the chattering classes in Western Europe who will view this showdown as an example "of America going too far against its enemies."
Saddam, is being tactfully maneuvered into a situation where he will say No, rebuff the international inspections, and thus provide the USA with the clear option to hit the Iraqi regime with maximum fury. Naturally if Iraq had come clean as his regime has long alleged, Saddam would be wise to allow inspectors, play the usual shell games, and effectively stop the clock from any attack.
Of course while the USA has sufficient military might to do some very unpleasant things to Iraq, the issue is whether many of the commerce conscious Europeans would follow as allies. Afghanistan is one thing, the Taliban thugocracy had no real consituency nor support network, whereas oil rich Iraq is quite something else for French, Russian and Chinese businessmen.
Periodic renewal of Iraq's oil for food program illustrates the point; since 1996, Saddam has earned more than $38 billion by selling petroleum in exchange for humanitarian goods and medicine. Two million barrels of oil on average, are pumped from Iraqi wells daily. Countries wish to get in on rebuilding Iraq's dilapidated infrastructure and thus wish to curry favor with Baghdad; $4 billion in contracts remain "on hold," by the UN sanctions committee. A post-sanctions Iraq would provide a business bonanza.
This is part of the problem in pursuing Stage Two of the War on Terror; an attack on Baghdad. Neither the British, French nor the Russians wish to give Washington the carte blanche to go after Saddam while many business deals are in the works. But the matter goes farther; while Washington knows that serious deterrence depends on an active defense, few European Union states nor Russia wish to see things quite so clearly.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
