8/20 Winds of Change.NET Iraq Round-Up (Current war news roundup)

Winds of Change ^ | 8.20.02 | Joe Katzman

[mhking]

August 20: Winds of Change.NET Iraq Round-Up

Winds of Change.NET has started covering Iraqi-related developments on a more intensive basis as the situation heats up. Publication is now regular on Tuesdays and Thursdays, a shift from our original schedule. If you've got relevant stuff too, email me - joe {at} windsofchange {dot} net! The next installment of the Winds of Change.NET Iraq Round-Up will be Thursday, August 22.

• The Asia Times also has a great 5-part series called "Getting Saddam" that takes you through all aspects of the looming conflict, step by step. Damn, but these guys are good! Highly recommended.
  

• Remember those pieces in the August 12 Iraq Round-Up about the Kurds asking for support in a coming attack? Looks like they didn't get it. CNN reports that "U.S. officials Monday told CNN the Bush administration in recent weeks considered a covert CIA and military attack on a suspected al Qaeda chemical weapons test facility in northern Iraq... But the officials said no mission is imminent, and another senior U.S. official said any possible attack had been called off." I'm sorry, this makes absolutely no sense. Especially in light of comments elsewhere in the report. I'll keep my eyes peeled for any clarifying developments.
  

• Russia is embarking on a major economic agreement with Iraq. It's being touted as a setback for Bush et. al., but I don't see it. Russia has a substantial commercial stake in Iraq, which they'll want to protect under all eventualities. If Saddam remains, this agreement does that. If he goes, continued adherence to the terms of said agreements the price of their help or non-interference. Get in, negotiate while Iraq is desperate, then ensure that this is the new price for your support against Iraq. Hey, that's pretty good!
  

• Here's one from the "who else does this?" department: "The US has launched a public bidding process for humanitarian relief organizations to work in Iraq and surrounding areas in the run-up to a possible military campaign against the regime of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. "The office of northern Gulf Affairs [a department within the state department] announces an open competition for proposals for humanitarian assistance projects in Iraq (south, central or northern) and for Iraqi refugees in neighbouring countries." Funny, didn't see out morally superior European friends doing this in Bosnia. Guess they were too busy turning their backs on the massacre of those under their supposed protection.
  
  
• Israel is planning for a 3-front fight if the U.S. attacks Iraq. Defense officials say the plans for the coming year cover the possibility of simultaneous warfare against Hezbollah in the north, Palestinians in the territories and Iraq to the east. It assumes Hezbollah might attack before a U.S. move against Baghdad, to draw world attention to the Israeli-Arab arena and induce Washington to postpone its campaign.
  

• More on Israel and biowarfare issues around an Iraqi conflict. Israeli blogger Not a Fish thinks they're going a bit overboard, but some Israelis obviously don't agree. Some useful links there to help you get a sense of the planning and scenarios under discussion.
  
  
• Charles Krauthammer opens a very large can of whup-ass on the NY Times crusade against the war. Partisan journalism is one thing, but misrepresentations that can be easily checked are quite another.
  

• Speaking of whup-ass, a few people have emailed me about Brent Scowcroft's opposition to the war. Smart Gene has a blog post, and Occam's Toothbrush has a better one. Randall Parker pointed me at a good Lowry blog post on a guy whose record of being wrong is impressively consistent. But the Grand Prize goes to Michael Marcus, who directs me to this NY Sun Op-Ed that aks: "why is Scowcroft really opposed to this war" in light of some verrry interesting facts.
  

• Contrast with Victor Davis Hanson, who had all this nailed back in February - and still does.
  

• David Warren says patience is paying off for the U.S., and gives 7 Good Reasons for the waiting to date. (Thanks to Middle East Realities for the pointer.)
  

• Meanwhile, a word from our British friends, courtesy of England's Sword. John Sullivan advises: "Say Thanks, George." I think he's right. And to show you mean it, declare the IRA a terrorist movement with international reach.
  

• Speaking of British friends, Andrew Sullivan Outdoes Himself. He writes: "America, in contrast, has no option but to tackle this threat... The longer America takes to tackle it, the greater the costs will be. The threat is primarily to America, as the world hegemon, but Europe is not immune either. The question for European leaders is therefore not whether they want to back America or not. The question is whether they want to be adult players in a new and dangerous world. Grow up and join in - or pipe down and let us do it. That's the message America is now sending to Europe. And it's a message long, long overdue."

[Marysecretary]

Good post. Oliver North was on Fox recently and said that the reason European nations don't want us to go to Iraq is that we will find out how European businesses have supported Saddam with his weapons accumulation, etc. I thought that was rather interestink.

[katman]

Thanks for the link! Note that the round-up has been updated since the FR post, and there are many other items from that day including:

- An Intelligence Analysis of Desert Storm
- Why Arab Armies Lose Wars
- Could Saddam be Closer Than We Think to The Bomb?
- Recent War Games: Axis of Evil 1, USA 0
- Israel planning for a 3-front war

Come on down to windsofchange.net and see.