Posted on 02/19/2003 2:36:06 PM PST by blam
Northern Thrust of Iraq Invasion Plan in Doubt
By Adam Entous and Ralph Boulton
WASHINGTON/ANKARA, Turkey (Reuters) - The northern thrust of a planned two-pronged U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was thrown in doubt on Wednesday after Turkey put off any decision on whether to allow American forces onto its soil.
With Western forces building up in the Gulf region, the United States and Britain were working to draw up a U.N. resolution authorizing force that they hope will placate global opposition to a war assumed to be only weeks away.
But the government of Turkey, Iraq's northern neighbor, deferred a decision on allowing U.S. invasion troops to be deployed on its territory, as the two states wrangled over the size of a multibillion-dollar aid package for Ankara.
"A framework for the agreement we are looking for has not been established," a spokesman said after a meeting of Turkey's Cabinet. "No decision regarding the request (to parliament on admitting troops) has been made."
The United States warned its apparently reluctant ally to act fast. "Time is a critical issue for us," U.S. Ambassador Robert Pearson told reporters in Ankara.
Washington has shown growing frustration as the clock ticks toward military action and has made clear it is close to the point where it could abandon plans for a Turkish front.
"Turkey, of course, is desirable from a strategic point of view for any military staging, but the military of the United States is sufficiently flexible that whatever decision is made the United States will still be successful in carrying out any military operations," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Wednesday he believed Turkey would cooperate with the United States if there was a war with Iraq.
Officials in Washington said the U.S. offer of $6 billion in grants and up to $20 billion in loan guarantees was final. Turkey has demanded more than $30 billion, U.S. sources say.
NATO DEPLOYMENT TO TURKEY
A NATO committee, meeting without France, approved on Wednesday the deployment of defense equipment to Turkey, which fears possible counterattacks from Iraq in the event of war.
Washington has ordered 28,000 troops to the Gulf region, where it has already massed more than 180,000. The U.S. force is expected eventually to total well over 200,000. Britain has mobilized some 40,000 troops.
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair insist no deadline for war has been set, but military experts say the huge military buildup has been designed for an offensive in March, before temperatures in the region soar.
Britain on Wednesday advised its nationals in Iraq to leave immediately, reminding them that Britons were held hostage before the 1991 Gulf War . The Foreign Office also asked Britons to leave Kuwait due to "increasing regional tension and the risk of terrorist activity."
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein maintained a defiant public stance. "The Iraqi people don't want war, but not at any cost. We don't compromise on our independence, dignity and right to live as free men acting freely," he was quoted as saying in a meeting with Russian Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov.
Kurds running a breakaway enclave in northern Iraq said they had arrested agents of Baghdad who threatened the safety of Iraqi opposition leaders gathering there to plan for a future after Saddam.
IRAN WARNS U.S.
The defense minister of Iran, Iraq's eastern neighbor, said its forces would "confront" U.S. aircraft over its territory. "We will defend our airspace and will not let America violate our airspace while attacking Iraq," Ali Shamkhani said.
The strength of the anti-war mood was clear in a debate at the United Nations where country after country spoke out against war and said inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should continue their work.
Anti-war protests over the weekend showed massive turnouts around the world, with at least 750,000 people protesting in London, 1.3 million in Barcelona and 1 million in Rome.
U.N. Security Council endorsement of the use of force against Iraq in a new resolution would help Washington's key allies overcome opposition to war among their voters.
Resolution 1441, approved last November, threatens "serious consequences" if Iraq refuses to disarm, diplomatic code for war, but many U.S. allies want further U.N. endorsement of any use of force. Iraq denies it has weapons of mass destruction.
A White House spokesman said the United States might propose a new resolution as early as this week but possibly next week. "I think it's going to be a relatively simple resolution, not very lengthy," he added.
Diplomats at the United Nations said the new resolution might not be pushed to a vote until March, after another report by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Blix is to give a written update to the Security Council at the end of the month or early in March on the inspectors' progress and Iraq's cooperation. The next report from his colleague, Mohammed ElBaradei, in charge of nuclear arms inspectors, is not due until April 11.
MORE TIME FOR INSPECTIONS
Currently, most Security Council members support France, which says weapons inspectors must be given more time. The United States and Britain face a struggle getting even the minimum nine votes out of 15 needed to adopt a resolution.
Diplomats said they expected any new resolution to follow the language of 1441. London and Washington are also considering putting a set of conditions to Iraq with a tight deadline to disclose any banned weapons programs.
European Union president Greece said on Wednesday the United Nations should formally demand that Iraq answer questions raised by inspectors on such issues as what has happened to its stocks of anthrax, VX gas and long-range missiles.
U.S., British and German intelligence services failed to confirm on Wednesday the existence of three mystery ships suspected of carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, reported by a British newspaper.
One suggested option -- that Saddam be given an ultimatum to relinquish power -- is considered unlikely. That would be tantamount to a call for "regime change" which most of the 15 council members would reject as illegal, diplomats said.
Among the five permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, only Britain clearly backs the United States, while France, Russia and China appear to oppose it. Chinese President Jiang Zemin told Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday that weapons inspections should go on.
"Evidently some in the world don't view Saddam as a risk to peace. I respectfully disagree," Bush said on Tuesday.
I am - it's extortion, plain and simple. Just like their old days haggling at the bazaar.
Only if we can lock out selected DemocRATS. :-)
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.