Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy
The New York Times ^ | 08/16/2002 | TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-325 next last
To: Skwidd
How will it affect our other commitments (Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Europe)?

Someone in another thread said that we must constantly review our policies and reduce our presence if possible. We may eventually find ourselves in the position of having troops all over the world but with none to protect the homeland.

The concerns you raise are valid, and fortunately they are being taken care of by President Bush. For eight years Clinton-Gore neglected and belittled the military. Bush, thankfully, is for a strong national defense, so he will dedicate the proper resources and draw up the right contingency plans.

301 posted on 08/16/2002 12:09:37 AM PDT by green nexus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #302 Removed by Moderator

To: AIG
The first childlabor law in the US was instituted in 1916, after the horrendous Triangle Shirt factory fire in NYC. But it was struck down in Court.

The first Federal child labor law that was upheld by the Supreme Court was passed in 1938.

As to the discussion on Iraq, a lesson needs to be taught. A line was crossed in the attack on the Trade Center. The US did not possess a credible deterrent to such an attack as of 9/11/01. It must create one through its actions in the coming year. Iraq is part of that strategy.

I put much more stock in the Jane's article than in Scowcroft.

303 posted on 08/16/2002 12:29:04 AM PDT by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: jonefab
Thank you for your post jonefab. Wish I could have said it as well.

(post#10) I wish that everyone could read this.
304 posted on 08/16/2002 1:04:18 AM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AIG
This is different from the trumpet call of the Cold War. We are no longer fighting a great enemy, we are asserting a great principle: that the talents and dreams of average people – their warm human hopes and loves – should be rewarded by freedom and protected by peace. We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to God and conscience, not to government.

The challenge comes because two of Eurasia’s greatest powers – China and Russia – are powers in transition. And it is difficult to know their intentions when they do not know their own futures. If they become America’s friends, that friendship will steady the world. But if not, the peace we seek may not be found.

China, in particular, has taken different shapes in different eyes at different times. An empire to be divided. A door to be opened. A model of collective conformity. A diplomatic card to be played. One year, it is said to be run by "the butchers of Beijing." A few years later, the same administration pronounces it a "strategic partner."

We must see China clearly -- not through the filters of posturing and partisanship. China is rising, and that is inevitable. Here, our interests are plain: We welcome a free and prosperous China. We predict no conflict. We intend no threat. And there are areas where we must try to cooperate: preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction… attaining peace on the Korean peninsula.

Yet the conduct of China’s government can be alarming abroad, and appalling at home. Beijing has been investing its growing wealth in strategic nuclear weapons... new ballistic missiles… a blue-water navy and a long-range airforce. It is an espionage threat to our country. Meanwhile, the State Department has reported that "all public dissent against the party and government [has been] effectively silenced" – a tragic achievement in a nation of 1.2 billion people. China’s government is an enemy of religious freedom and a sponsor of forced abortion – policies without reason and without mercy.

All of these facts must be squarely faced. China is a competitor, not a strategic partner. We must deal with China without ill-will – but without illusions.

By the same token, that regime must have no illusions about American power and purpose. As Dean Rusk observed during the Cold War, "It is not healthy for a regime ... to incur, by their lawlessness and aggressive conduct, the implacable opposition of the American people."

We must show American power and purpose in strong support for our Asian friends and allies – for democratic South Korea across the Yellow Sea... for democratic Japan and the Philippines across the China seas ... for democratic Australia and Thailand. This means keeping our pledge to deter aggression against the Republic of Korea, and strengthening security ties with Japan. This means expanding theater missile defenses among our allies.

And this means honoring our promises to the people of Taiwan. We do not deny there is one China. But we deny the right of Beijing to impose their rule on a free people. As I’ve said before, we will help Taiwan to defend itself.

President George W. Bush

Just remember...hands off Taiwan.
305 posted on 08/16/2002 2:19:54 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: dighton; aculeus; general_re
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."

I have a lot of respect for Eagleburger and would very much like to see the entire statement he made. Anyone?

306 posted on 08/16/2002 5:48:46 AM PDT by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WatchOutForSnakes
I prefer the term nancy-boys... but other than that your post is spot on!!!!
307 posted on 08/16/2002 5:51:14 AM PDT by carton253
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Wahabbi's do not live in Iraq. In fact, the Iraqi regime is extremely secular by Middle East standards. Once the U.S. establishes control of Iraq (a dubious proposition at best) what do you suggest it "do" there? Bring democracy? Tell me another one. The likely result is a decades-long occupation, billions spent in nation-building, followed by failure and withdrawal...and yet another tinpot dictator.
308 posted on 08/16/2002 6:50:07 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
How refreshing! You admit to being an advocate of baby killing on a mass scale. How do you sleep at night?
309 posted on 08/16/2002 6:58:33 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Ah a peace nut. So what do you prefer? Sadamn to nuke a city with your relatives, babies or friends in it? Or would you rather we attack Sadamn and get this over with? Or are you one of those "can't we all get along" cowards?

Now move along junior and go hug a tree or whatever it is you commies are up to now. I sleep fine at night. Our military does not ever intend to kill babies. But I guess you don't mind if dictators like Sadamn do.
310 posted on 08/16/2002 7:09:02 AM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Please don't identify yourself with our military which tries to avoid damage to civilians. You, on the other hand, are gleefully endorsing killing babies. Fortunately, the folks who control the military believe in killing enemy soldiers instead.

I am not a peace nut. I believe we should arm to the teeth and strike back against attackers (not babies). I do not believe that he policy of sending troops and American tax dollars to every knook and cranny of the planet for fuzzy goals such as nation buildin and spreading democracy makes every American baby safer. In fact, it only increases the danger to them.

311 posted on 08/16/2002 7:24:19 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Like I said I don' view Iraq as the main enemy I view Saudi Arabia and then Iran as the main enemy( although with Iran just the government not the civilian population with Saudi the entire population has to be considered hostile).
312 posted on 08/16/2002 7:24:23 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: AIG
McCain is a vietnam vet too. Your point is?? Maybe your point is that unless you've been in vietnam you can't be wise enough to know what needs to be done and don't have the balls to do it? Do you think it is easy for moral men and women to send others into battle? Maybe we should amend the Constitution so as to limit candidates for the President of the Unites States and his/her advisors to only people who have served in the military? And if we make that declaration....maybe we should limit that office and advisorship to only those who have served in the peace corps or participated in habitat for humanity....or worked in a soup line...or any other silly thing you can think of that would give them credibility with you on topics that you might otherwise disagree with them on?

Nah. Truth be told, Iraq needs to be addressed, as do every other nation that sponsors terrorism. Terrorism must be punished, not rewarded. Anything else is cowardly and will serve to make your children, and their children suffer. That is if there will be anyone left in the future.

313 posted on 08/16/2002 7:31:13 AM PDT by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
You never answered the question and I doubt you served with me in the desert. Do you want the Iraqis to create and ship a WMD over here or not? You seem to be one of those Eurotypes that is scared to take action when needed. If we don't get him, he'll get us first.
314 posted on 08/16/2002 7:47:36 AM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: AdA$tra
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

complete bull$hit. The only thing these terrorist primitives understand is force. There were many states that fell in line after our success in Afghanistan, some publicly, some less so. I beleive the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians are all secretly 100% US allies. This crap you here in the media is just that, PR cover stories. When the caca starts to hit the fan we'll find out who the allies are.

But these arab islamic jerkoffs have short memories, that's why you find once openly public allied states like Jordan starting to backtrack. That's why we're seing more attacks like the bombings in Pakistan. Therefore, the US must administer another dose of force. If it has to be in Iraq, so be it.

Who in the hell ever said Iraq needed to be an "imminent threat" anyway? The Bush doctrine is one of preemption. Bush has rightly concluded that realigning the backwards arab/muslim world is the only way we will ever combat muslim terrorism. And the world will thank us.

Iraq is merely a convenient example. They are weak, they are unallied. The war will be a simple matter, divide the country into thirds according to the no-fly zones and starve out Bagdad. The kurds and other opposition groups will gladly take possession of Kurdistan in the north, and the oilfield and Persian gulf access in the south.

My only wish is that government would start to explain this reasoning to the American public.

315 posted on 08/16/2002 8:06:15 AM PDT by mikenola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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

What kind of cr@p is this? You damned piece of s#1+ commie. Get off Free Republic! This site is for American patriots. Not America’s enemies.

316 posted on 08/16/2002 8:40:37 AM PDT by Barnacle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: mikenola
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

....Or we can sit on our hands and wait form him to gain more and better WMD and use them. Now is the time. I think the Iraqi's are already an eminent threat.
317 posted on 08/16/2002 9:09:01 AM PDT by AdA$tra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
To answer your question: no. We agree on one thing though I don't share your glee for killing babies.
318 posted on 08/16/2002 9:10:23 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
ROFLOL....what Iraq policy? I'd like to point out to the NY Times that no one really knows what the administration's policy on Iraq will turn out to be. And though I can probably hazard a guess which stands a very good chance of being right...I am not going to be guilty of giving this leftist rag a clue.
319 posted on 08/16/2002 9:24:40 AM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonefab
"I will not forget..."

WOW that was great! Thank you!

BUMP

320 posted on 08/16/2002 9:43:31 AM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-325 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson