[Peace-discuss] SF chronical

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

SPECIAL SECTION: U.S. vs. IRAQ 
Is war inevitable? 

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/24/MN115876.DTL 


Even before the war on terrorism had passed its first year, President Bush 
was turning America's attention to the unfinished business with Iraq. In 
Washington, at the United Nations and in foreign capitals, in the media and 
in conversations all over the country, debate rages on whether to go to war - 
again - with the regime of Saddam Hussein. 

The pace of events is quickening. The White House has received detailed plans 
for military action from the Pentagon. Today, the British House of Commons 
debates the possibility of war. Hearings are under way in the House and in 
the Senate, and by the end of the month, Congress plans to vote on a 
resolution authorizing the use of force. 

Despite calls for the United States to act in concert with other nations and 
appeals to let renewed weapons inspections take their course, Bush has said 
repeatedly he is committed to a "regime change" in Iraq - and that he is 
prepared to go it alone, if necessary, to achieve that goal. As part of the 
buildup, the Bush administration has carefully leaked reports of troop 
redeployments and attack strategies. Traditional U.S. allies have insisted 
that the United Nations, not Washington, is the proper venue for a call to 
action. 

Beneath the poll numbers suggesting public support for Bush's intentions, 
considerable confusion and debate still exist: 

-- Whether there is proof that Iraq really has significant weapons of mass 
destruction, let alone the desire to use them against the United States or 
its allies. 

-- Whether the United States is being deflected from the original war on 
terrorism against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. 

-- Whether a "pre-emptive strike" - a war waged without clear provocation - 
can be morally or constitutionally justified. 

-- And whether a victory would make matters better or worse for the Iraqi 
people, for the populations around them and for the United States in its war 
on terrorism. 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Within President Bush's circle of advisers and in Congress, a debate is being 
waged between the hawks advocating military action, the doves who say Bush 
has failed to make a plausible case for war, and the "realists" who think 
diplomacy and international pressure are the better first-strike weapons 
against Iraq. Here is a breakdown of the leading players' positions: 

HAWKS
Dick Cheney - Vice president: He declared in an Aug. 26 speech that "the 
risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action." 

Donald Rumsfeld - Defense secretary: He has ordered the buildup of war 
materiel in the region. 


Condoleezza Rice - National security adviser: She recently told a BBC 
interviewer that Hussein is an "evil man" who will "wreak havoc" on the world 
if the West does nothing to stop him. 


Other administration insiders: Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy 
Board, an. influential advisory group that meets with Pentagon officials; 
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary. 

Congress: Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.; Rep. Tom DeLay, 
R-Texas, the GOP whip; Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.; House Minority Leader 
Dick Gephardt, D-Mo. 


REALISTS
Colin Powell - Secretary of state: He agrees on the need for a regime change 
but has advocated diplomacy and coordination with U.S. allies over a 
unilateral military solution. Of Hussein's offer to readmit weapons 
inspectors, he noted, "We have seen this game before." 

Former President George H.W. Bush's aides: Brent Scowcroft, the elder Bush's 
national security adviser, and two former secretaries of state, James Baker 
and Lawrence Eagleburger, have said that Iraq poses no imminent threat. 

Congress: Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; Sen. Arlen 
Specter, R- Pa.; and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate 
Intelligence .Committee, who says there is no firm proof Iraq is developing 
weapons of mass destruction. 


DOVES
Dianne Feinstein, Senator, D-Calif.: She co-sponsored a nonbinding resolution 
to have Bush obtain congressional approval before beginning a military 
attack. .After Bush's U.N. speech, .she commended the "welcome shift" in 
policy. 

Dick Armey, R-Texas, House majority leader: He has said Hussein has taken.no 
overt act to threaten.the United States. 

Others: The majority of the Bay Area congressional delegation, including 
House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-S.F., has expressed reservations about 
military action. Vocal opponents include Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and 
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Marin. Nationally, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has 
voiced intense opposition. 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

BOTH SIDES STATE THEIR REASONS
Despite Iraq's apparent concession allowing weapons inspectors to return, 
President Bush and many - but not all - of his inner circle continue to push 
for a "regime change," by force if necessary, to get rid of Saddam Hussein. 
Critics of a military campaign contend such an action is not in America's 
best interests. Here are the major contentions each side puts forward. 


FOR
-- Iraq is continuing to manufacture and stockpile weapons of mass 
destruction, despite its signed agreement not to do so. 

-- Based on his previous history of defiance of U.N resolutions, Hussein's 
latest promises to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors are not credible. 

-- Hussein is a singularly ruthless despot, with an appalling record of 
starting wars and abusing his own citizens. 

-- Hussein has attacked his neighbors - and Israel - before, and there is 
every likelihood he would do so again. Failure to depose him before his 
arsenal gets even larger will embolden him further. 

-- Iraq's beleaguered population will never recover until he leaves the 
scene, and they deserve to choose their leader freely. 

-- Iraq has an educated population, natural oil wealth and qualified 
opposition figures that would enable the country to adapt quickly to a post- 
Hussein era. 

-- Sanctions have not forced Hussein to adhere to international agreements 
while the Iraqi military sector has been rebuilt and Hussein's family and 
political supporters have thrived. 

-- Hussein has hosted terrorist groups and may at some point give or sell 
weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. 

-- Hussein's continued domination might threaten our Middle Eastern oil 
suppliers - Iraq possesses 10 percent of the world's known oil reserves - and 
could interfere with world oil supplies. 

-- The United Nations has failed to do anything about the numerous Iraqi 
violations. If it does not act forcefully now, it will be seen as ineffective 
as the old league of nations. 

-- While preferring U.N. backing, and support from its allies, the United 
States may have to go it alone because Iraq presents too much of a threat to 
its security. 

-- A regime change in Iraq would encourage democratic reforms throughout the 
Middle East. 



AGAINST
-- There is no imminent threat to the United States or any U.S. ally. 
Sanctions have kept Hussein's aggressiveness checked. 

-- An invasion would give Hussein an excuse to use chemical or biological 
weapons against attackers, neighboring Arab states and Israel. 

-- There is no "next" government lined up. The Iraqi opposition is too weak 
and fractured to lead the nation. War could split the country, leading to 
regional instability. 

-- The majority of U.S. allies oppose a unilateral move by the United States. 

-- Ousting Hussein would require extensive U.S. aid for years to rebuild 
Iraq. The United States is spread too thin, both financially and militarily, 
because of its war on terrorism and other commitments. 

-- The Israeli-Palestinian conflict deserves attention first, and an attack 
on Iraq could inflame that situation further, possibly leading to a regional 
war. 

-- Attacking Iraq, under a first-strike doctrine, may encourage other powers 
- some of them nuclear, such as Israel and India - to launch similar moves 
against their perceived enemies. 

-- The price tag for a war is far beyond our means unless taxes are raised or 
other programs are slashed. A war could also lead to a oil price surge that 
could stymie an economic recovery. 

-- Predictions of an easy victory may be overoptimistic. Hussein has proved 
to be good at eluding would-be attackers. The Republican Guard is well 
trained, 

ruthless and intensely loyal to Hussein. 

-- A war could produce a huge number of civilian deaths, alienating much of 
the rest of the world against the United States. 

-- Starting a unilateral strike against a country that has not attacked the 
United States or its allies is illegal and against American values. 

-- The administration is pushing for war in Iraq now to deflect attention 
from the nation's sagging economy and other politically damaging issues. 


©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

  Page A - 9