Posted on 08/15/2002 7:17:38 PM PDT by Davea
US adviser warns of Armageddon
Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday August 16, 2002
The Guardian
One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus yesterday appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon in the Middle East". The outspoken remarks from Brent Scowcroft, who advised a string of Republican presidents, including Mr Bush's father, represented an embarrassment for the administration on a day it was attempting to rally British public support for an eventual war.
The US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, yesterday spelled out what she called the "very powerful moral case" for toppling Saddam Hussein. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said the Iraqi leader was "an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbours and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us".
But while Ms Rice was making the case for a pre-emptive strike, the rumble of anxiety in the US was growing louder. A string of leading Republicans have expressed unease at the administration's determination to take on President Saddam, but the most damning critique of Mr Bush's plans to date came yesterday from Mr Scowcroft.
The retired general, who also advised Presidents Nixon and Ford, predicted that an attack on Iraq could lead to catastrophe.
"Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East," Mr Scowcroft wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
The Israeli government has vowed it would not stand by in the face of attacks as it did in 1991, when Iraqi Scud missiles landed on Israeli cities. It claims it has Washington's backing for retaliation.
Mr Scowcroft is the elder statesman of the Republican foreign policy establishment, and his views are widely regarded as reflecting those of the first President Bush. The fierceness of his attack on current administration policy illustrates the gulf between the elder Bush and his son, who has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on domestic and foreign policy.
In yesterday's article, Mr Scowcroft argued that by alienating much of the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would halt much of the cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle against the al-Qaida organisation.
"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr Scowcroft wrote.
Both the American and British governments are expected to time a public relations effort to rebuff the critics and build public support in the immediate run-up to an invasion.
Senior Whitehall figures say that crucial in that effort will be evidence that President Saddam is building up Iraq's chemical biological warfare capability and planning to develop nuclear weapons.
The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed yesterday that the Pentagon was considering a change in the status of a navy pilot shot down over Iraq 11 years ago. He is currently classified as "missing in action".
There have been reports that Lieutenant-Commander Michael Speicher was still being held by Iraq.
If he was reclassified as a prisoner of war, it would represent an additional source of conflict between Washington and Baghdad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,775532,00.html
No wonder Saddam got to this point.
This is just more Euro-weenie whining. And Scowcroft, like so many in 41's administration, is far too concerned with states breaking apart. Remember 41's "Chicken Kiev" speech, which was interpreted by 8/91 Soviet coup plotters as a signal that the US would stand aside? That was Scowcroft's philosophy in action--a vicious totalitarian state that's intact is preferable to the possibility of a fractured formerly totalitarian state.
The decision has been made. The whining you hear in the press is the desperate attempt to reverse that decision.
"This time, using weapons of mass destruction, [Saddam] might succeed..."
So, he has weapons of mass destruction. We should wait, then, until he uses them on somebody? Or uses them on us?
"Mr Scowcroft argued that by alienating much of the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would halt much of the cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle against the al-Qaida organisation."
Halt what cooperation?
"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken,"
Hussein sponsors and trains terrorists who conduct terrorism. How would taking a major source of terrorism out jeopardize, or destroy, our "global counterrorism campaign"?
Scowcroft's argument is so ill-thought that it almost has to be bogus. Could it have been conceived and solicited by the administration -- just one more chunk of disinformation aimed at Saddam, baited to hook the mainstream media?
For one of the few times in it's history this leftist rag is bestowing it's favor on an American Republican. Like anybody on our side of the fence cares?
So we're supposed to wait patiently for the next attack before we do anything?
Exactly. I wonder if they know their whining WILL NOT WORK.
This alone should exclude Scowcroft from being taken seriously.
Must be an editor's mistake here. I believe the term is rational thinkers.
Yep, there's gonna be a big 'ol war a'right.
All the human infrastructure under Saddam knows this, therefore I don't believe he'll be around much longer. I'm convinced there will either be a big war, or Saddam will be removed from the inside and there will be only a small war.
Whatever the eventual circumstances, he and his sons are dead meat.
I find it interesting how those who argue against this war are automatically branded "wussies" and "cowards". I know for a fact that I am neither.
New here: michellcraig signed up 2002-06-20.
Voices of reason. You should be made to watch tapes of 9/11 24 hours a day for the next ten years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.