Kuwait, Jordan fear preemptive strike by Iraq

World Tribune ^ | Wednesday, September 25, 2002 | Editorial Staff

[Robert_Paulson2]

Kuwait, Jordan fear preemptive strike by Iraq

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Wednesday, September 25, 2002 ABU DHABI — Kuwait and Jordan exchanged intelligence reports in secret talks Sunday night about Iraq's missile capability.

In a meeting with Kuwaiti Interior Minister Mohammed Al Khaled Al Sabah, Jordan's intelligence chief discussed the prospect of security coordination and the threat of a preemptive strike by Iraq.

The two countries are said to be concerned that Iraq plans to launch a sabotage campaign against Western interests within Jordan and Kuwait to foil any U.S. military campaign, Middle East Newsline reported.

Both Jordan and Kuwait have been cited as leading participants in the U.S.-led war against terrorism as well as efforts to topple the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

About 10,000 U.S. troops are in Kuwait and earlier this month Jordan completed a major special operations forces exercise with the United States. Jordan has ruled out the use of its military bases for a U.S. attack on Baghdad.

Iraq is said to have between 20 and 80 Al Hussein medium-range ballistic missiles, with a range of 650 kilometers. Baghdad has also launched an effort to convert its short-range missiles to that of medium- and intermediate-range.

The Kuwaiti Al Rai Al Aam daily reported on Wednesday that Jordanian intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Saad Khair held talks for three hours with his Kuwaiti counterparts.

The newspaper, regarded as one of the most authoritative in the Persian Gulf, reported that the two sides discussed Iraq's military capability and the prospect of an Iraqi missile attack on Kuwait or Jordan.

"The two countries share the same apprehension regarding the outbreak of war and the prospect of an Iraqi missile attack, which has led to the exchange of information in this regard between Kuwaiti officials and their guests," a senior Kuwaiti source told the newspaper.

The newspaper said the Jordanian-Kuwaiti meeting was to have included intelligence officials from other Gulf Cooperation Council states. But the arrival of the GCC envoys was delayed.

At the same time, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz held a meeting of military chiefs on Tuesday to discuss regional and security issues. The meeting was said to have focused on Saudi readiness to defend against any Iraqi attack.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Will congress allow us to defend Jordan and Kuwait or Israel if Iraq attacks them? Or, will Daschle the obstructionist, accuse Iraq of politicising our elections?

[freeasinbeer]

He will allow for the protection of Jordan, Kuwait and Israel as long as all of the troops join a union and President Bush has no ability to order them to fight.

[ex-Texan]

A good reason to bomb the %#@@^% of Iraq.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Will Daschle support America in War, if the Iraqis attack our allies? Or will he faithfully represent the "soft on terror" constituency of his party?

Our allies around the world are watching tiny tom frustrate the legitimate defensive requirements of our nation and our allies.

What to do about tommy d?

[anniegetyourgun]

But wait....according to some folks on FR, there is no need to remove Saddam. Heck, not even a need for coordinated efforts between agencies fighting terror at home. They'll want more evidence that he is a threat.....

[freeasinbeer]

I'd say that we should send Tom Thumb over to Iraq on a 'fact-finding' mission just as the conflaguration is about to start. Of course, I don't think even the US has technology or smart bombs that are advanced enough to hit such a small, insignificant target as Tiny Tom.

[Robert_Paulson2]

I am in suspeded disbelief over daschle's behavior... and feel we can do little about it.

winning carnahan, torricelli and harkin's seats in Senate would help... but we got more than a "minority status" problem in just the Senate. We have a "traitor majority" problem.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

I have thought for much of the summer that perhaps we have played our hand with the thought of getting Sadaam to do just this.

One knows that Sadaam will not leave anything in his quiver this time, with his life on the line. So he's got to be with trigger on the hair's edge.

And of course, if he let's fly there's no debate left in the U.N. or in Congress. Even if his attack is a failure (and on that the odds are pretty high, the Iraqis have never been able to do anything that wasn't just a lucky shot) the debate ends everywhere at that moment.

I know this is a tad tinfoil and conspiracy-like, but I just can't shake the thought that this is the easiest way to get over-ripe Democracies to do what must be done, before doing so will get so bad that they won't.

[EternalHope]

We tend to think anything major will be initiated by us. Not necessarily.

The bad guys have a lot more options than just blowing up another car somewhere. They can wait passively for the hammer to fall, or they can try to take the initiative.

If you were Saddam, would you just dig in and wait?

If not...

Would you prepare a massive WMD counter-attack timed to happen right AFTER the U.S. makes its move?

Or would you strike first?

Which option is most likely to bring other Muslim nations running to your side?

Which option is most likely to preserve your own worthless hide?

[anniegetyourgun]

I agree....much of this is taunting....

[anniegetyourgun]

Alas, it is sad to see so many of them in the highest elected offices in the country.

[blam]

They ought to be concerned. What would you do if you knew your days were numbered and wanted to go down fighting? Use what you have before it is for certain to be destroyed. I think those are legitimate concerns.

Now, I think Saddam has something even more sinister, that even I haven't thought of, up his sleeve. What does he care, he'll be dead!

[RightWhale]

If Iraq attacks, then it is straight to the endgame.

[Robert_Paulson2]

God I hope you are right!
A voice of sanity... after a day of national daschleitess!

[martian_22]

Wasn't there something in the Constitution about democraps not giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

They've ignored it for 40 years or more....

[Robert_Paulson2]

What are the ods of sadamned insane launching preemptively?
Wouldn't the "end game" threat we pose hold him back?

DO you think that daschle's reticent attitude toward the war effort, encourage sadaam to think he could actually "get away with it" as far as world opinion goes?

I think bush would act unilaterally to defend our allies... bringing about worldwide condemnation. I don't care about world condemnation, but the administration seems to more than I like. And the demotraitors, would condemn us for killing the west nile virus... if the president asked for their support.

[Robert_Paulson2]

yeah I know... we cannot even try the american talibanics as traitors... it's appalling to watch the "soft on terror" party do their thing.

[El Gato]

Of course, I don't think even the US has technology or smart bombs that are advanced enough to hit such a small, insignificant target as Tiny Tom.

Oh I don't know, during the Monica wars, Clinton was able to hit a camel in the ass with a cruise missle. If we could do that then, by now we should be able to hit another, albeit smaller, 'ashole, don't you think?

[steveegg]

If he's doing a field inspection, you don't need advanced.

[steveegg]

yeah I know... we cannot even try the american talibanics as traitors... it's appalling to watch the "soft on terror" party do their thing.

Drop the "soft on" and you've got it.