Posted on 06/24/2002 7:12:28 PM PDT by Pokey78
PRESIDENT Bush is being warned by his allies in Washington and London that their support for military action against Saddam Hussein cannot be taken for granted. Republican and Democrat leaders have cautioned him against launching a hasty attack on Iraq. They have also questioned whether the potential scale of a full invasion, involving up to 250,000 US troops, makes it worthwhile. Britain, while sharing deep concern at the dangers Saddam poses to the international community, is also far from offering open-ended support for military operations. As Mr Bush tries to step up the case against rogue states and press home a US policy of pre-emptive strikes, British officals emphasise the need for support among other governments, particularly Arab states, for attacking Saddam. One British official, referring to Saddam, said: “We want to deal with it but we want to deal with it in the international community. We’re convinced he is developing weapons which are a threat to the region and to stability more widely. But it’s very important to work as far as possible with international opinion.” London was not setting conditions for British support, the official said, but added: “We want to make sure there’s an international consensus that action needs to be taken”. Other British sources said the key for London would be whether there was sufficient support among Arab states in the Gulf and the Middle East, or at least an absence of opposition, to taking on Saddam. As Washington’s closest ally in the war on terror, and the only European country to have tried to make the case for confronting Saddam, losing Britain’s support would be a blow to Mr Bush. It also shows he has further to go in convincing Britain and the rest of Europe of the credibility of American pre-emptive strikes. However, administration officials in Washington say the lack of British military involvement against Iraq would not deter Mr Bush. The Pentagon is drawing up options for possible attacks, none of which is conditional on British support. “This is going ahead regardless of what the Brits might say,” said one official. But Mr Bush does face hurdles closer to home. Members of Congress have expressed scepticism about the wisdom of an attack, particularly while the Middle East is in turmoil. Dennis Hastert, the House Speaker, has said Israel should be the focus of Washington’s foreign policy. Trent Lott, the Senate minority leader, said he feared that US forces were stretched to the limit. Henry Hyde, Republican chairman of the House international relations committee, said: “An attack on Iraq would involve untold consequences”. Bob Graham, Democrat chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, was concerned that a premature attack could fracture the coalition of nations co-operating in the US war on terror. Their comments warned Mr Bush that he should not forget Congress in planning against Saddam, a sign that he may be forced, like his father, to seek a congressional resolution before committing US troops in the Gulf. Mr Bush was also facing renewed pressure yesterday about other foreign policy priorities when two Democratic presidential hopefuls criticised his failure to lay out his Middle East peace plan. John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said the administration was guilty of a catastrophic mismanagement of the crisis by engaging only fitfully. He said: “There is no continuity, there is no fundamental plan. They sent mixed signals to every side, if any signals at all. And in the end, I think they have contributed significantly to their own dilemma and to the dilemma of the Middle East today as a result of that.”
In which real debate, I am all for not being hasty about it - in order to make it huge, so there isn't the slightest chance it can fail. These weenies however would like the delay it so they can buff their nails, and for it to be small because, well, well... because saving the lives of soldiers by using overwhelming force is so completely unnecessary. Why, that is what they are for, to charge in at 1-10 odds the better to get blown away. For pete's sake don't do it now, and for pete's sake don't do it right, and oh my lord don't actually succeed.
Who needs enemies when we've got these ninnies?
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.