Issue No. 591
Region
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
20 - 26 June 2002 Issue No. 591 Region |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Looking for trouble
A war-weary US public may have clipped Bush's wings for the time being with respect to a war against Iraq, but the US president has not lost hope over the prospects for mounting a campaign, writes Michael Jansen
Frustrated by his generals' refusal to mount an early invasion of Iraq, US President George W Bush has taken alternative steps to pursue a "regime change" in Baghdad.
According to White House officials, Bush has instructed his national security aides to formulate a doctrine for preemptive action against states and terrorist groups seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. In what seemed like an intentional series of leaks by US officials to major American newspapers, the authoritative New York Times analyst David Sanger wrote that "Iraq is clearly first on the list for such action."
On Sunday, Bob Woodward reported in The Washington Post that early this year Bush ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to initiate a covert programme to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. This programme involves providing the exiled Iraqi opposition with funding, training, weapons and intelligence; expanding intelligence gathering inside Iraq; and deployment of CIA and Special Forces teams to kill the Iraqi leader.
CIA Director George Tenet reportedly informed Bush that action by his agency alone had only a 10-20 per cent chance of success, and that it must be supported by a broad military campaign.
Such leaks renewed speculation that the Bush administration was preparing for battle. Last month, US officials reiterated that getting rid of the Iraqi leader was a top priority for the US administration, but insisted that Bush had "no plan" on his desk for a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Senior military commanders had reportedly warned that 200,000 to 250,000 troops would be required for such an attack, and that a lengthy mobilisation period would also be necessary. Since the Afghan campaign has consumed a great deal of weaponry, new supplies would have to be manufactured. The airforce is short of warplanes, trained pilots and ammunition, and a third of the aircraft used for refuelling are under repair. Special Forces, already operating in Afghanistan, Yemen and the Philippines, are spread too thin. Military sources said that a large-scale operation would not be feasible until 2003.
In April, Bush was candid about his intentions towards Iraq: "I made up my mind that Hussein needs to go... The policy of my government is that he goes." In this policy, Bush has strong support from both the hawks led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the moderates headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In his article in The Washington Post, Woodward revealed that another important player is General Wayne A Downing, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, a former commander of US Special Operations Forces who has installed a large staff in the White House itself. Downing and the CIA are in the process of trying to "identify individuals or groups that might fill a leadership vacuum if Hussein is toppled", Woodward was told by his sources.
In the short term, Bush could find this effort stymied by the very same problems which mitigate against a full-scale military offensive against Iraq at present. The overextension of US Special Forces is one factor inhibiting a covert campaign as well as a major military operation. The CIA, working in support of Bush's "war on terrorism" in at least 80 countries, is also overextended.
While the Arabs and most of Europe oppose Bush's plans to topple Saddam Hussein, fearing that his removal from power could lead to the fragmentation of Iraq and the destabilisation of the eastern Arab world, US Congressional leaders support what the White House calls a "regime change".
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri dismissed reports on the presidential order allowing the CIA to topple his president. "It's not new... the United States has been conspiring against Iraq over the last 30 years." He accused Washington of trying to impose its will on weaker countries.
Bush's preemptive doctrine is likely to create serious alarm in Third World capitals because the policy is reminiscent of the practices of the imperialist states of the 19th and 20th centuries. It would seem that Bush intends to combine this doctrine with the "war on terrorism" to justify attacking opponents using the pretext that the identified enemy was developing weapons of mass destruction.
Critics say that this policy is the intelligence-military aspect of the Bush administration's tendency towards unilateralism.
Bush's adoption of a preemptive policy might be traced to his close association and identification with the Israeli right, particularly Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who justified his 1982 invasion of Lebanon by claiming that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), then observing a US-brokered cease-fire, was planning to strike Israel.
The "Bush doctrine" is a particularly dangerous development on the international scene because other countries might also take recourse to the notion of preemptive action as a justification to attack their enemies. One need not be very imaginative to come up with scenarios that might occur if Israel, for instance, were to extend its use of preemption from the Palestinians to Syria or Iran. Such a doctrine might also fuel the imaginations of certain quarters in India and Pakistan. The US, too, could ultimately become a victim of such an approach if a group expecting to be targeted by the Americans attempts to strike first.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
