From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 03:05:06 MDT
The only article I plan to post today concerning our present Iraqi
dilemma. It raises extrermely pertinent questions.
HAS BUSH ALREADY CHOSEN SADDAM'S SUCCESSOR?
On why Tony Blair and Jack Straw must do the decent thing and
answer such vital questions
Christopher Hitchens
THE volume and density of the leaks, to say nothing of their frequency,
seem to point unfailingly in one direction.
The decision to invade Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein appears
already to have been taken.
Iraqi dissident sources in Washington have told me that they expect an
American-led attack before this year's mid-term elections; in other
words before November.
But this was not because they had been confided in by the Bush
administration, which has been keeping the Iraqi opposition at arm's
length.
And it was before the recent meltdown of confidence in Wall Street and
the American corporate culture, which might prompt cynics to charge
that the President was going to war in order to divert attention from
domestic woes. (Perhaps the phrase for this would be "weapons of
mass distraction"?)
The key roles would be taken by American, British and Turkish forces,
landing hard on Iraqi strongpoints.
American forces would attack principally from bases in the Gulf States,
though perhaps not from the airfields in Saudi Arabia, whose monarchy
remains on the fence for reasons which will appear later.
In addition, we have learned of an American approach to the Jordanian
government, asking for the right to station troops and missiles in Jordan
and thus to anticipate and thwart any Iraqi counter-attack directed at
Israel.
Meanwhile, forces based in Turkey would help guarantee the semi-
autonomous Kurdish zone, carved out of northern Iraq and removed
from Saddam Hussein's jurisdiction at the end of the last Gulf War.
In addition, Mr Bush has stated publicly and repeatedly that he does not
intend to coexist with Saddam Hussein much longer, and the President
has sought additional authority for the CIA to undertake destabilising
activities within Iraq itself.
This puts us, the voters and taxpayers, in an almost unprecedent- ed
position. The military strategy is known in advance. Saddam Hussein
has been given ample notice of what is in store for him. There are, in
effect, no secrets. Except one.
Neither from Washington nor London is there the smallest willingness
to discuss what sort of regime is intended to replace the present one.
This is not the case in the other current instance of American-
sponsored "regime change" in the region.
The Palestinians have been told that they may get a "provisional state"
(whatever that is, or might look like) if they opt for a pluralistic and
parliamentary system based on civilian rule and the principles of free
enterprise.
And they have been told to have an election, and also told which
candidate must not be permitted to win it. At least this is plain enough.
The long-suffering peoples of Iraq, by contrast, have been told nothing
of what is in store for them. (I say "peoples" because Iraq is made up of
a large Kurdish minority, a large and ruling Sunni Muslim Arab minority,
and a Shi'a Muslim Arab majority.)
The Kurdish leadership, for example, recently went public with a series
of misgivings.
THEY live within the range of Saddam Hussein's planes, helicopters
and tanks, and have vivid memories of what these can do.
They have also, in the past, been given Western promises and
assurances that turned out to be false. They are not inclined to risk their
existing partial independence, or their fighting men, for a new Baghdad
regime which does not explicitly recognise Kurdish rights.
And, given the repression of the Kurds in neighbouring Turkey, they are
not completely happy about the increased weight given to the Turkish
army by current planning, either. Meanwhile, the largest democratic
opposition group in Iraq, the Iraqi National Congress, has been
effectively frozen out of discussions in Washington.
There is even a standing order that no United States government
employee is allowed to meet with INC representatives.
At a recent gathering in Washington, where many foreign-policy and
national-security types were present, I tried to introduce some INC
members informally. The effect was that of Moses on the Red Sea. It
was like trying to get them to press flesh with Osama bin Laden.
This is bizarre, and it is bound to raise a suspicion.
Does the Bush administration already have a bought-and-paid-for
client, presumably a military man since coups are what the US does
best? And if so, what has he been promised? And what will he promise
in return?
The principal interest of the international community concerns the
concealed weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein either
has acquired or is acquiring, and which he might either use himself or
lend to "deniable" non-state terrorist forces. There are serious United
Nations resolutions which cover this topic.
But there has also been a great deal of official talk about the use of
chemical weapons on Iraqis and Kurds, and about the tyranny inflicted
on the inhabitants of the country itself. In other words, the aim of a
military operation is not merely to neutralise Saddam Hussein's arsenal,
but also to emancipate his people, who are paying their own price for
his rule by suffering under economic sanctions.
Would it not be decent to demand that some sort of manifesto be
issued, as it was to the civilians of the Axis nations, telling them what
alternatives are in their future?
It is more than high time that Mr Blair and Mr Straw, who have been
involved in the most intricate levels of the planning now under way, give
Parliament some answers to these questions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:55 MDT