Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.

These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States.

At the same time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who summoned Mr. Kissinger for a meeting on Tuesday, and his advisers have decided that they should focus international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein — not only in an effort to assure a democracy but as a way to outflank administration hawks and slow the rush to war, which many in the department oppose.

"For those of us who don't see an invasion as an article of faith but as simply a policy option, there is a feeling that you need to give great consideration to what comes after, and that unless you're prepared to follow it through, then you shouldn't begin it," one senior administration official involved in foreign policy said today.

In an opinion article published today in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft, who helped build the broad international coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war, warned that "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken." An attack might provoke Iraq to use chemical or biological weapons in an effort to trigger war between Israel and the Arab world, he said.

His criticism has particular meaning for Mr. Bush because Mr. Scowcroft was virtually a member of the Bush family during the first President Bush's term and has maintained close relations with the former president.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska said that Secretary Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, had recently told President Bush of their concerns about the risks and complexities of a military campaign against Iraq, especially without broad international support. But senior White House and State Department officials said they were unaware of any such meeting.

Also today, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who was briefly secretary of state for Mr. Bush's father, told ABC News that unless Mr. Hussein "has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction, and our intelligence is clear, I don't know why we have to do it now, when all our allies are opposed to it."

Last week, Representative Dick Armey, the House majority leader, raised similar concerns.

The comments by Mr. Scowcroft and others in the Republican foreign policy establishment appeared to be a loosely coordinated effort. Mr. Scowcroft first spoke out publicly 10 days ago on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."

In an opinion article published on Monday in The Washington Post, Mr. Kissinger made a long and complex argument about the international complications of any military campaign, writing that American policy "will be judged by how the aftermath of the military operation is handled politically," a statement that seems to play well with the State Department's strategy.

"Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed," he added. Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.

Through his office in New York, Mr. Kissinger relayed a message that his meeting with Secretary Powell had been scheduled before the publication of his article and was unrelated. But a State Department official said Secretary Powell had wanted Mr. Kissinger's advice on how to influence administration thinking on both Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft wrote that if the United States "were seen to be turning our backs" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute "in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us."

He added: "There is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive."

Richard N. Perle, a former Reagan administration official and one of the leading hawks who has been orchestrating an urgent approach to attacking Iraq, said today that Mr. Scowcroft's arguments were misguided and naïve.

"I think Brent just got it wrong," he said by telephone from France. "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."

Mr. Perle added, "I think it is naïve to believe that we can produce results in the 50-year-old dispute between the Israelis and the Arabs, and therefore this is an excuse for not taking action."

Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.

He said he shared Mr. Kissinger's concern that Mr. Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes at governments armed with weapons of mass destruction could induce India to attack Pakistan and could create the political cover for Israel to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.

"You can take the country into a war pretty fast," Mr. Hagel said, "but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are."

He added, "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."

For months, the State Department's approach has been to focus on how to build a government in Iraq.

After meetings here last week involving Iraqi opposition groups and administration officials, one official said today that there was now consensus in the State Department that if more discussion was focused on the challenge of creating a post-Hussein government, "that would start broaching the question of what kind of assistance you are going to need from the international community to assure this structure endures — read between the lines, how long the occupation will have to be."

Such discussions, the official added, would have a sobering effect on the war-planners.

Thats a good plan and we could have gotten away with it in WWII but now the media and the Euroweenies would whine that we would be starving millions of innocent Iraqis.

If America really wants to protect its national interests it will kick Chinese ass first, then go after the little fish later on.

America needs to focus its antagonism on China.

No kidding. My point was that if Israel hasn't been successful in fighting terrorism, despite all its efforts, what makes you think America will be? Israel's 300% increased death rate and shattered economy are the best proof that America shouldn't follow Israel's path.

So then we should have only veterans decide on all future wars?

American young soldiers' lives are at stake. Of course, you should listen to your own military's opinion about attacking Iraq.

You must have answered somebody else's question because you didn't answer mine.

As a Chinese, I hope America starts a war and gets entangled in Iraq and America's influence in the world continues to decline.

Did Kool-Aid shift production to Guangzhou when I wasn't looking?

Hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, big guy, but the odds of that particular chain of events are about the same as the odds of Saddam summoning a mighty avenging djinn to defeat the US. About the same as the odds of him signing a mutual-defense pact with Santa Claus. About the same as the odds of the Martians descending to paralyze the US Army with their death rays.

IOW, don't wait by the phone for that call...

I don't think we can just roll into China no matter how right you are. We stand a better chance of winning another cold war against China after we take care of the ME situation. Not that we wouldn't prevail against the Chicoms, but what would it take to really win?

The issue of Israel isn't about the growth of its per capita GDP, which has suffered due to suicide bombers, but prior to then was quite satisfactory in moving towards Western European living standards. The issue about Israel is more about universal values, and the avoidance of a repeat of an episode of genocide, diaspora and the use of nukes, and the escape of that genie from the bottle. Keep your eye on the ball.

The President will be held personally accountable if he attacks Iraq and it goes wrong. He is willing to accept that responsibility. For these "top Republicans" to have any credibility what are they willing to put on the line if we do not attack and the next 911 is laid at Saddam's feet? They have all acknowledged that Saddam is, if not a present danger, a clear future danger to the United States and yet they want to wait until that future danger materializes to act. They are not leaders, they are pontificators that, if they have their way, pontificate all of us into a century of terrorist actions and reduced security and freedom here at home.

Kissinger is NOT only even a mere RINO, but a One-World Government/New World Order hack, and always has been.

Hagel too!

Interesting to note that.

It is also interesting to see that veterans like Hagel and now General Schwarzkopf have come out with warning flags that this upcoming campaign is unwise.

And yes, there is one very real and very important parallel to Vietnam: the civilian suits (those with little to no military experience) are ignoring the counsel of vets and top military leaders. They are telling them to wage war, and also HOW to wage it. This is development which creates a whole LOT of risks.

Most people want to have peace because, when there's peace, they have time and are free to do the things they want to do in life, like get economically ahead, provide for their families, etc. Israel may have all the values in the world, but these days they certainly don't enjoy any of the benefits that those values should bring, like peace, prosperity, etc.

China just overtook Japan as the #2 country in the world in terms of the number of people who use the Internet.

Oh really! Does the Peoples Republic of China have a 1st. Amendment? You don't! That's too bad.

Bush needs to, and will do, what's right, and in the interests of the US and the planet, based on the information before him IMO. Of that I am quite confident. In this field of endeavor, I trust Bush. He will not be deflected by side issues, that are distracting and in the end not particularly relevant to the ultimate decision. That decision depends on the evidence that Saddam is developing and with time will have nasty weapons that he would use as an opus.

America's influence in the world is declining as we speak due to its needless abrasiveness. Let's also not forget that America's budget deficit this year will be somewhere like $400-500 bil., so where's the money gonna come from?

Should have had a disclaimer on it sorry but its still the truth and that's the most important thing.

Maybe we should get some more of these Robert McNamara types to run this war so we can get it right this time.

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.