 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Welcome to USAGOLD's "Gilded
Opinion" pages.
We invite you to browse our index
of outstanding gold-based commentary.
(Back to Holger Jensen Index)
While we find Mr. Jensen's columns particularly informative with respect to foreign affairs, his opinions do not necessarily represent those of Centennial Precious Metals, USAGOLD, its management and clientele.
INSIDE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Pressure mounting to go after
Saddam
by Holger Jensen, International Editor
With Afghanistan freed from Taliban rule and Osama bin Laden on the run, everyone is wondering where President Bush will take his war on terrorism next.
He recently mentioned the Philippines, whose president politely rejected his offer of American troops to help hunt down the small but troublesome Abu Sayyaf group, a gang of Muslim kidnappers with links to al-Qaida but hardly capable of terrorism on a global scale.
U.S. military officers have also visited Somalia, a failed state like Afghanistan with no functioning government and a collection of warlords that includes a former Marine. The country harbors al-Itihad al-Islamiya, also linked to al-Qaida, but holds bitter memories for Washington.
The last U.S. military intervention there, begun by Bush's father, was ignominiously ended by President Clinton after 18 Army Rangers were killed and jubilant mobs of Somalis dragged some of their corpses through the streets of Mogadishu.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, in London to discuss the makeup of an Afghan peacekeeping force with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said the president "has made no decisions yet on where we will go in phase two or what the nature of phase two will be."
But some members of Congress are pressing for Iraq. Last week, 10 leading lawmakers sent Bush a letter saying: "As we work to clean up Afghanistan, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq. This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
"Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War levels. We believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later."
Among those signing the letter were Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, former Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, former Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Jesse Helms, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
They are backed by a lobby of Pentagon hawks, most notably Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and powerful conservatives such as former CIA chief James Woolsey and William Kristol, founder of the Project for the New American Century and an outspoken critic of Powell's lack of enthusiasm for launching Gulf War II.
Powell, of course, has been warned by every Arab and Islamic government that Bush's coalition against terrorism will collapse if he attacks Iraq. Russia, too, is against such a move and the 15-nation European Union would only approve if Washington produced hard evidence linking Saddam to the suicide hijackings of Sept. 11 or the subsequent spate of anthrax letters.
Helms himself admits that no such evidence exists, while maintaining that there is "a mountain of evidence linking Saddam to international terrorism generally and to bin Laden's terrorist network specifically."
However, Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, believes it would be "a huge mistake" to go after Saddam. Those calling for his head, he said, want to finish what the Gulf War left unfinished, but have no idea of the cost -- an invasion involving thousands of U.S. ground troops that could become "a bloody mess" while alienating much of the world and undermining U.S. efforts to fight terrorism elsewhere.
Scott Ritter, a former Marine and chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years, agrees that Saddam does not pose enough of a threat to justify another war.
Asked on Fox TV how much of a threat, Ritter replied: "In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His military was devastated in 1991 and hasn't had the ability to reconstitute itself. In terms of weapons of mass destruction, we just don't know.
"We know that we achieved a 90-95 percent level of disarmament (before Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998). There's stuff that's unresolved and until we get weapons inspectors back into Iraq that will remain a problematical issue. Diplomatically, politically Saddam is a little bit of a threat. In terms of a real national security threat to the United States, no, none."
December 13, 2001
Send your questions to international editor Holger Jensen, who will answer one each day. E-mail: hjens@aol.com
Copyright © 2001 The E.W. Scripps Co. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted by USAGOLD with permission of Mr. Jensen. No further reproduction without permission.
View INSIDE FOREIGN AFFAIRS Index Page
P.O. Box 460009 Denver, Colorado 80246-0009 |
and purchase information.
1-800-869-5115 (US) |
