Posted on 08/15/2002 7:30:56 PM PDT by Pokey78
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.
Top Republicans are Bush and Cheney. Headline should read "Rinos and Dinos Push Appeasement".
Kissinger recently counselled to not thwart China's ambitions--now he suggests the same for Iraq.
Eagleburger? A two-seater on any remaining airline, but not a heavyweight for current foreign policy strategy.
And as for Hagel's cheap shot--that's all it is.
Armey? Haven't you left for Pensionville yet?
What was in the sixty trucks?
Oh, Scott Ritter said Saddam's collection of Elvis regalia.
As for the world's opinion? It's the same as Mugabe's "war veterans" for the white farmers:
"Get your white asses out of here--and fix the irrigation pump on your way out!"
With acknowledgements to the author of that phrase last night, dighton, I believe, if not clive.
As for the babel about CIA having no evidence:
Haven't we fed Tenet to starving Sudanese children in sealed tins yet?
Oh, and delay while we solve the intractable Israeli-Palestinian situation?
Right, stop and let the glacier pass--then address national security.
It's a time for leadership, and Bush has it, while Schumer's busy banning guns, and his colleague the Butch of Buchenvald is dreaming of smooching Suha again.
Someone brought up Schwarzkopf: he wanted to go on to Baghdad and was publicly humiliated for it. That was the Schwarzkopf I admire.
The fact remains that Atta met with the Iraqi agent in Prague before 911. The Czech prime minister, interior minister and ambassador to the U.S. affirm this.
The Iraqi agent was expelled for surveilling Czech landmarks for terror attacks.
No doubt he met with Atta for drinks at a sidewalk cafe to ogle the local talent.
Clinton with the lens caps on sees no proof.
"China will do a fine job running the Canal. Look how good a job they did on Saddam's air defense fiber optics."
Nope, you have neither the industrial OR the technological base to get there in that time. There is a lot of water to pass under the bridge between now and then. China is in direct competition with other 2nd tier economies and they are developing far faster that yours. India is a prime example. More advanced politically and more entrepreneurial that China. The entire Pacific Rim plus all of Latin America is your competition and you are deluding yourself in thinking you pose a competitive threat to the West and the United States in particular in this century. China is a convenient source of cheap labor and as labor costs rise, which WILL happen, the offshore companies will just move to the next source.
Ha, you are seriously out of tune with reality. China gets the vast bulk of foreign investment of any developing country. China gets 20 times what India gets. In addition, democratic Latin America is experiencing a political and economic crisis as we speak requiring multiple IMF bailouts. In addition, China's growth over the past 20 years has been the fastest in all of human history, even faster than the Asian "tigers" during their heydey. There's a new article today in Japan's leading business newspaper about how China today is reponsible for 54% of all electronics manufacturing.
In a way, Pillsbury and I have a lot in common. We both speak, read, and write Chinese, and have deep appreciation for things really Chinese. At the same time neither of us likes the movement that has gripped China.
Taiwan appreciates its heritage, and so does Lee Teng Hui, but even at that, the communist party can kiss our #sses. Its not "China" that we don't like, its the propagandists, and Communists, and the CCP who are liars to the end.
Vaclav Havel had that exact same insight about ten years ago. Odd that socialism predates and replaces wealth in China and everywhere else. China will become rich in inverse proportion to how much of that Marxist dogma they can manage to shed for themselves.
Why don't you convert some of those renminbi and go buy a copy of the World Bank's "China 2020" report for a more down-to-earth look at what China has to do to leave the Third World....
In your dreams pal.
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.