Double warning against Iraq war

Times Online ^ | August 5, 2002 | Roland Watson in Washington and Melissa Kite

[gcruse]

AMERICA’S National Security Adviser during the Gulf War warned President Bush yesterday that invading Iraq would cause an “explosion” in the Middle East and consign the United States to defeat in its War on Terror.

Brent Scowcroft, who remains close to the Bush family, urged the President to concentrate on trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians while separately pursuing terrorist threats to the United States. But he said that by going to war with Iraq without linking President Saddam Hussein and September 11, Washington was risking a conflagration in the Middle East that would also engulf its efforts to defeat global terror groups.

His warning came as a former British Chief of Defence Staff said that Britain risked being dragged into a “very, very messy” and lengthy war if it supported a US military assault on Iraq. Field Marshal Lord Bramall called on Tony Blair to exercise caution, saying that an invasion to topple Saddam may not be morally or legally justified.

“You don’t have licence to attack someone else’s country just because you don’t like the leadership,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World This Weekend. “We are supposed to be taking a lead on the moral issues of the world.”

Mr Scowcroft, chairman of the President’s foreign intelligence advisory board, said: “It’s a matter of setting your priorities. There’s no question that Saddam is a problem. He has already launched two wars and spent all the resources he can working on his military. But the President has announced that terrorism is our number one focus. Saddam is a problem, but he’s not a problem because of terrorism.”

Mr Scowcroft added that he had no doubt a US military campaign could dislodge Saddam. But he added: “I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a cauldron and destroy the War on Terror.”

Mr Scowcroft pointed to the “almost consensus” around the world against the United States going to war with Iraq. British officials have since September 11 repeatedly warned the US not to use the War on Terror as an excuse to attack Saddam.

Joseph Biden, Democrat chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is hearing expert evidence on Iraq, said yesterday: “I believe there probably will be a war with Iraq. The only question is, is it alone, is it with others and how long and how costly will it be?’ "

[TJFLSTRAT]

Right, we are better to wait till Saddam builds his bomb, and sets it sailing on a suicide freighter for N.Y. harbor.
The article is sheer nonsense.

[gcruse]

The article mostly quotes Scowcroft. I regard him too highly to dismiss what he says as nonsense.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

He may be right, but I don't think GW is listening. GW has backed himself into a corner. If Scowcroft is right, GW only has two options: (1) lose face; or (2) lose the war on terror.

[MJY1288]

Pokey beat you to the punch :-) Already posted HERE

[gcruse]

There are so many scenarios, it is like tossing the middle east up into the air and accepting whatever comes down.

[Mr. Mojo]

Brent Scowcroft... urged the President to concentrate on trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians

Yeah right, Brent. Brokering "peace" between Israel and the Palestinians is the answer to all the world's problems, so it seems. Problems with Saddam and his WMD program? Time to bring Israel and the Palis to the peace table. Problems with the crazy Wahabbis potentially overthrowing the House of Saud? It's the fault of the Israelis. Al Qaeda has plans to destroy us? It's because the Palis don't have a homeland. Kuwait won't let us use their country as a platform to launch an Iraqi invasion? Well, you know the answer.....

Israel - specifically, Jews - have been history's scapegoat for eons now, and it looks like nothing will be changing anytime soon.

[Rudder]

If we do not follow Snowcroft's advice some Arabs will not like us anymore and will cease being our allies and may even try to deceive us.

Hey, wait! This has already happened...they hate us, they try to deceive us and they're not really our allies.

What have we got to lose?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

The Sears towers?

[StockAyatollah]

“You don’t have licence to attack someone else’s country just because you don’t like the leadership,”

Well said, Brent! Sovereignty matters. We don't want other nations assassinating our leaders, do we?

[TheDon]

“You don’t have licence to attack someone else’s country just because you don’t like the leadership,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World This Weekend. “We are supposed to be taking a lead on the moral issues of the world.”

This guy is out of touch with reality if he thinks this is the reason we are going to overthrow the Iraqi gov't. And a few others in the Middle East as well.

[iopscusa]

Good thinking...will taking out Sadam make a difference to the Sears Tower. You really need to get real.

[Hamza01]

I admire Scowcroft, along with all the other great cold warriors assembled in the first Bush Administration. ANd until this afternoon, I had a dim view of diving into war with Iraq while the Israelis and Palestinians are slaughtering each other and while we have unfinished business in Afghanistan

However, this afternoon I was at a Muslim butcher shop run by an Iraqi who turned out to be a former Iraqi Gulf War POW. He told me that the bulk of the Iraqi Army is made up of conscripts who are sent to front under threat of death or prison-- for them and their families. He said the reason why so many surrendered so willingly in the first Gulf War (apart from being thoroughly outclassed), was that no one wanted to die for Saddam Hussein.

He thinks that if there is targeted action against the Iraqi leadership and the senior officer corps, rank and file soldiers and lower level officers up to the level of captain would stand by and cheer.

One caveat... he felt that America stood by while Saddam crushed the Shiite/Kurd rebellion in 1991. He says, the rebels don't trust America, and they don't trust any of the London-based dissident groups. Given that some of his relatives were killed by Saddam in the rebellion, he and others like him want to know for sure that they won't be screwed again.

While the effort to connect Saddam to Osama is certainly suspect, and I don't like the idea of starting a war against a nation that has not attacked us-- I now believe that the doomsayers are wrong. All we have to do is take out his already degraded chem-bio capability early on. Once that's done, there's little that the small coterie of Saddam loyalists are going to be able to do.

Like the guy said " even Saddam's sons will not die for Saddam".

[Texasforever]

Well said, Brent! Sovereignty matters. We don't want other nations assassinating our leaders, do we?

You mean the way Iraq's leader tried to assassinate Bush 1?

[gcruse]

Thanks for the heartening news. I wouldn't blame the Kurds if they sat this out. But I'll bet you're right about the cadres folding. I just hope I have enough popcorn laid away to last the whole show!

[tanknetter]

The article mostly quotes Scowcroft. I regard him too highly to dismiss what he says as nonsense.

I concur ... but I'd like to add another wrinkle to the discussion. Scowcroft is a VERY close Bush family friend and is currently the head of the PFIAB.

ANYONE who thinks he was quoted like this without the express approval of the President should really reconsider their line of thinking.

This smells like disinformation to me. Probably just another thing tossed out to keep the media and the enemy off the trail of what's really in the works, and when it's scheduled to kick off ...

[StockAyatollah]

You seriously believe that if Saddam really wanted Daddy Bush dead he couldn't have pulled it off? If John Hinckley could come that close surely Iraq could have done it. Speaking of George I, remember his unlawful attack on Panama and Manny Noriega in the guise of the inane War on Drugs? It was all an attempt to overcome "The Wimp Factor". We need to respect the sovereignty of other nations or no one will respect ours.

[gcruse]

Well, with all the 'leaked' attack plans over the last few weeks, and the open discussion of what countries will provide what, if this is disinformation, I think it means there will be no attack. Why would we goad Saddam into preparing for us? In the case of the Normandy invasion, we did a feint with Patton that the attack would be in another place entirely. I don't see this misinformation getting Saddam to commit anything anywhere (remember the amphib landing hovercraft films prior to the Gulf invasion?). Heck, maybe this is all for the benefit of Al Queda to overthrow Saudi Arabia, giving us a REAL locus for the WOT.

[Texasforever]

Oh, I see you don't believe Saddam was serious. Drop the "stock" from your name for accuracy's sake.

[tanknetter]

... if this is disinformation, I think it means there will be no attack. Why would we goad Saddam into preparing for us? ...

I see three possibilities (or maybe two and a half ...) at the moment. First, that Saddam isn't the *real* target. Just about everything I've read says that Iran is a more significant threat. And there are stories in the press saying that the dissatisfaction of Iranians with the mullahs is on the rise ... significantly so. What if the intent is to keep the world's eyes trained on Saddam while the US foments a populist revolution in Iran?

Second, assuming that Saddam is the target, there is the possibility that Bush is having his close allies present themselves as naysayers with the intent of having them publically "turn" once the "evidence" against Saddam is revealed. Think "Well, Scowcroft is a big skeptic ... if HE believes the evidence is real, it must be".
Third (or maybe second and a half) is that the tactic in the second possibility is being used to gain credibility and trust with certain, er, reluctant MidEast leaders. Bush is pretty big on using back-door communications through his Dad's old cadre. Once again, by establishing themselves as skeptics, they end up with MORE credibility once the evidence is placed on the table and they announce their belief in it.