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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-325 next last
To: Pokey78
"Senior Republicans"....

Translation:

The old farts who are scared because they didn't buy any puts or have great positions in oil futures yet. Once they get their positions corrected, they'll jump on board. God, how pathetic.
41 posted on 08/15/2002 8:23:07 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
In words of Robert Strange McNamara and other nation builders, American casualities be damned!
42 posted on 08/15/2002 8:25:12 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dighton; Pokey78; aculeus; Orual
Bump for the NY Times, which is always good for hitting a fresh bottom.

And if you feel like diving even deeper, there's always the Guardian's take on this...

43 posted on 08/15/2002 8:25:45 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Interesting screen name. Do you also want babies to "glow?"
44 posted on 08/15/2002 8:25:54 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: weikel
The hubris of empire.
45 posted on 08/15/2002 8:26:34 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
who have NO access to the latest intelligence

I always have a problem with that sort of reasoning, that we just don't know everything the Pres. knows and therefore we need to just trust him.

That is similar to the story of LBJ, who mismanaged Viet Nam.....he just had more information.

46 posted on 08/15/2002 8:27:00 PM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jonefab
Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.

What is that all saw about those that forget history? Anyway, if we don't act, the media will have to report and show more scenes of wholesale distruction. What is it. don't they think it can ( and will) happen again?

47 posted on 08/15/2002 8:28:20 PM PDT by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SEGUET
Seguet: Go away.
48 posted on 08/15/2002 8:28:21 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Its the only method short of total genocide that will keep these Wahabbi fanatics from coming after us. Im not normally into nation building either.
49 posted on 08/15/2002 8:29:30 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
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.

I hope we don't wait until we decide that they will be operational a week from Sunday. I doubt our intelligence is that good. If there is substantive evidence that Saddam is really pursuing developing operational nukes, then we should go in now. If not, we shouldn't. It is really quite simple.

50 posted on 08/15/2002 8:30:02 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf came out against attacking Iraq today. The whole US military top brass is, in fact, against attacking Iraq and letting it be known publicly. Sen. Hagel's line about letting Mr. Perle be on the first attack wave into Baghdad was precious. What is Mr. Perle doing now in France, of all places, anyway instead of on the front lines? Luckily for America, some Americans (Kissinger, Scowcroft, the US Joint Chiefs, etc.) can still distinguish what are America's own interests and keep America's interests first. American young soldiers' lives are at stake, after all, and there's no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. If Saddam ever did develop nukes, he couldn't use them anyway without getting himself nuked himself. Warren Buffett also warned about America's increasingly self-defeating Mideast policy. As an insurance man, he knows the probability of America's being attacked with nukes increases as America continues to needlessly antagonize the whole Arab world. Do war hawks really want New York or Washington, D.C. to be eventually nuked? America needs a lower probability of another 9-11, not a higher probability. America is not making itself very popular or liked these days, which is a shame because the best thing about America -- its good image -- is being thoughtlessly destroyed overnight by certain irresponsible Americans themselves.
51 posted on 08/15/2002 8:30:07 PM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Kissinger and Scowcroft work for the Chinese communists

bump to truth and the enemy within
52 posted on 08/15/2002 8:31:22 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AIG
If Saddam ever did develop nukes, he couldn't use them anyway without getting himself nuked himself.

IC. Let Saddam have nukes because he would be too rational to use them. Whatever.

53 posted on 08/15/2002 8:31:35 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
"those pushing for war have the same world saving engineering hubris as the whiz kids who got us in the Vietnam War. An attempt to bring democracy to the hell hole of Iraq.."

Those pushing for action against Iraq are not the same whiz kids that got us into Vietnam. I don't think the US has any priority about democracy and Iraq, I do think the US has an agenda about blowing up any nasty weapons Saddam may have or acquire before he uses them on us or Israel.

54 posted on 08/15/2002 8:31:45 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Iraqi babies, yes. Ours no. You make the choice. I'll be interested to see it.
55 posted on 08/15/2002 8:32:20 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
WAY past time to cut Powell loose. Get rid of him. "Either your with us or against us". PERIOD.

I've had it with all these UN boot licking one worlders trying to force us to bow down to an international authoirty that will give us permission to defend ourselves.

Go BUSH, GO!

56 posted on 08/15/2002 8:32:31 PM PDT by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weikel
But the government has to be deposed and the inhabitants particulary the ruling class and clergy have to be purged( no upper class and we can MTVize the remaining Arab mob in a generation).

The real problem of terrorism in S.A. is not the ruling class. The problem in S.A. is the "Arab Mob" -- the numerous fanatic Wahabi.

BTW, we maintain the no-fly zone in Iraq from a base in S.A. So how could S.A. be more of a problem than Iraq if we use S.A. bases to quell Iraq?

57 posted on 08/15/2002 8:32:32 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AIG
Stick to your specialty, which is China.
58 posted on 08/15/2002 8:36:07 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jonefab
Great post - - Thanks...
59 posted on 08/15/2002 8:36:16 PM PDT by Dale 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"That is similar to the story of LBJ, who mismanaged Viet Nam.."

This situation is NOT at all like LBJ and Vietnam.

LBJ wouldn't make a pimple on GW's....

60 posted on 08/15/2002 8:36:38 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-325 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