Source: U.S. To Declare Iraq in Violation

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will formally declare Iraq has violated a U.N. resolution on disarmament, setting the United States on a course toward possible war with Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) early next year, senior officials said Thursday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said President Bush (news - web sites)'s decision is not an immediate trigger for war but the beginning of an intense diplomatic campaign to convince allies that Saddam has violated a U.N. resolution requiring him to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction or face possible military action.

Bush is not likely to decide whether to go to war until late January or early February, the officials said, and will use the time until then to bolster his case against Saddam.

Still, the president's decision, which was to be announced by Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), represents a crucial turning point in the standoff with Iraq. One senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision signals that Bush is "ramping up" toward war.

Indeed, as many as 50,000 U.S. troops may be deployed in early January for duty in the Persian Gulf area. The officials said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had not yet signed the deployment order. More than 50,000 U.S. troops are already in the Gulf region.

At issue is Saddam's 12,000-page declaration required under a tough new U.N. resolution. Iraq asserts in the document that it has no weapons of mass destruction, a claim the United States says it is prepared to rebut.

Under the terms of Resolution 1441, passed Nov. 8, false statements or omissions in the declaration — coupled with a failure to comply with inspections — would be a "material breach" of Iraq's obligations to disarm.

Although Saddam has thus far complied with inspections, many Bush advisers wanted him to liberally interpret the resolution's language. They argue that Saddam is taking advantage of a two-step test for "material breach" and should be found in violation if he violates either the inspections or the declaration provisions.

"It will become increasingly clear that the world community, including the United Nations (news - web sites), sees omissions in the Iraqi document," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said. "At a time when the United Nations Security Council and United States and all member states of the Security Council were looking to Iraq to provide a full, complete and accurate description of their weapons programs, there is a wide recognition that Iraq has not done that. There are omissions and there are problems."

After days of intense internal debate, Bush directed Powell to make the U.S. case again Saddam's 12,000-page declaration Thursday afternoon. The documents assert that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.

Even with the finding that Iraq has violated the resolution, Bush plans this week to launch a deliberative diplomatic process that would push the prospects for military action into late January or February.

"You say, `Why wait?' and the question could be why rush?" Fleischer said Thursday.

The administration has said repeatedly that it prefers a diplomatic solution. Yet, with a potential war looming, officials said Wednesday that as many as 50,000 U.S. troops may be deployed in early January for duty in the Persian Gulf area. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had not yet signed the deployment order. More than 50,000 U.S. troops are already in the Gulf region.

The two U.N. inspection chiefs, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, were to deliver a report Thursday to the Security Council on Iraq's 12,000-page declaration about its weapons programs. Powell's response was to come several hours later at the State Department.

Powell said Bush has made clear the United States intends to stay within the U.N. process. He also has noted that Blix and ElBaradei have until Jan. 27 to complete their analysis of the declaration and to report formally to the council.

"That will be another date (when) the world will be able to make additional judgments about Iraq and Iraq's intentions," Fleischer said.

Administration officials said that date falls well within the optimal window for a winter attack on Iraq, and will likely be the point at which Bush decides whether to go to war. The administration plans to use the time until then to build a stronger case against Saddam, courting allies along the way.

Under terms of the Security Council resolution passed last month, false statements or omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and a failure to comply with inspections would constitute a "material breach " of Iraq's obligations and be reported to the council for assessment.

The White House suggested Bush had problems with the declaration beyond previously disclosed omissions concerning chemical and biological weapons last noted in Iraq four years ago.

Bush, who plans to address the matter Friday, wants to soothe anxious allies and keep his pledge to have "zero tolerance" for Iraqi defiance — a balance aides concede won't be easy to strike.

_U.S. intelligence officials said Iraq was preparing to destroy its own oil fields, food supplies and power plants and blame the destruction on U.S. bombs during a war. The officials, briefing reporters at the Pentagon (news - web sites), said they have evidence Saddam has plans to wreck his own infrastructure to foster a humanitarian crisis and turn international opinion against any U.S. and British advance into Iraqi territory.

_Rumsfeld said Iraq's chemical and biological arsenals are more formidable than during the 1991 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites). "In weapons of mass destruction, one has to believe they are much stronger," he said.

Bush will press the United Nations to demand interviews outside Iraq with Saddam's weapons scientists, forcing a showdown that Bush believes would bolster his case for war or reveal secrets of Saddam's arsenal, officials said.

The Bush administration has been far less restrained than the four other permanent members of the council — China, Britain, France and Russia — about commenting on the Iraqi report, which was made available to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7.

All four have said they preferred to await the reports by Blix and ElBaradei before commenting.

We will need to be alert WORLDWIDE when this thing starts.

This will be no fun.

And I mean alert for any funny business along the DMZ in Korea, as well as the Taiwan Straits between PRC and Taiwan, not to mention in our own back yard with Arab Islamist Terrorists. We should not launch into a war until our borders are sealed and we have detained all questionable aliens within the US borders. How stupid of us to launch a war abroad if we have lethal terrorist cells with WMD roaming around right inside our country waiting for a chance to take severe retribution, and a politically correct attitude at airports that disallows profiling of the most suspect individuals. I suggest that during the War with Iraq, Homeland Security raise the color code to it's maximum level, and that every village, hamlet, etc. across America be on maximum alert, 100% check, with the citizens stocked up with supplies and weapons for national defense. Nothing short of this will be extremely irresponsible, and President Bush should be preparing the way for such a national plan of domestic mobilization just as Central Command is preparing for the Invasion of Babylon.

"if we have lethal terrorist cells with WMD roaming around right inside our country waiting for a chance"

They wouldn't wait. They have no reason to. They haven't attacked us this way yet not out of any forbearance or calculation, but simply because they aren't here. They haven't succeeded. Not for want of trying - there was the gas attempt foiled in the UK, and possible germ attempts foiled in France, not to mention the botched anthrax attempts here right after 9-11.

Our enemies are as evil as you please, but they are not omnipotent. On the contrary, they are in the grand scheme of things quite weak. We are not being attacked more forcefully because they simply don't have the assets. There is no reason whatever to expect dramatically increased effectiveness on their part during or after an attack on Saddam. They aren't pulling their punches now.

It would be crazy to be "deterred" by a wholly imaginary capability on their part. The reality is the great danger from terrorists here at home is what they may manage to accomplish if given indefinite time, foreign sanctuary, and long term support by hostile governments. All things we can improve by taking away terrorist support states like Iraq.

The threat is how hard their hardest "punch" might be over the next decade, not of how many they might manage to throw or to land in 3-6 months "if they really tried". They are "really trying", already. They hit hundreds with some frequency, and occasionally thousands. If we refuse to give them a decade of support by hostile foreign governments, they may be kept to that level or lower.

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.