Millions join anti-war protests worldwide

Millions of people worldwide are joining in demonstrations against a possible US-led war against Iraq. Hundreds of rallies and marches are taking place in up to 60 countries this weekend.

Crowds have been gathering in London, where a rally culminating in Hyde Park is expected to draw more than half a million protesters.

Massive demonstrations - a day after UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix issued a largely positive assessment of the UN's disarmament process in Iraq - are also being organised in Rome, Berlin and New York.

Tens of thousands of people braved bitter weather to converge on the German capital from the east and west of the city.

Along with France, Germany has been one of the most vociferous opponents of war with Iraq.

The BBC's Ray Furlong in Berlin says a real cross-section of people are taking part in the demonstration - young students, families with children, as well as pensioners - reflecting the strong anti-war feeling that runs right through German society.

And demonstrators in Paris are preparing to march on the city's traditional rallying point - the Place de la Bastille.

Some of the first protests on Saturday were seen in New Zealand, as environmental pressure group Greenpeace flew a plane over Auckland harbour trailing a banner reading "No War, Peace Now".

About 5,000 marched through Auckland and a similar number in the capital Wellington.

Rallies are being held in several cities in Australia, where a protest in Melbourne on Friday drew a crowd estimated by organisers at 150,000 - the largest there since anti-Vietnam War marches 30 years ago.

In Seoul - capital of South Korea, one of the staunchest US allies in Asia - hundreds of demonstrators rallied, shouting chants such as "Bush, Terrorist!" and carrying banners urging "Drop Bush, not bombs".

In London, organisers are confidently predicting the country's largest anti-war protest.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has suffered a fall in popularity following his staunch support of US plans to launch military action against Saddam Hussein.

"We believe that the London demonstration will be one of the biggest and the most pivotal because the British Government is actively involved in the build up to war and the British people definitely do not want war," said Stop The War UK leader Andrew Murray.

Speakers at the rally in Hyde Park include Charles Kennedy, leader of Britain's second-biggest opposition party and US activist Jesse Jackson.

In New York a protest is scheduled to start at 1200 local time (1700GMT) near UN headquarters - the currently scene of intense diplomatic discussions following Friday's report by Hans Blix.

Celebrities and activists such as Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and black activist Angela Davis will be attending the demonstration.

And they be joined by some families of the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center, marching as "9/11 Families for Peace."

Anti-war activists in Turkey are calling on fellow citizens to simultaneously turn off all lights at 2000 local time (2200 GMT) as a novel sign of support for anti-war sentiment.

In Malaysia - a predominantly Muslim state - hundreds demonstrated outside the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur bearing banners and placards with slogans such as: "No war. Stop US aggression" and "No more blood for oil".

And in Thailand about 2,000 people - mostly Muslims - rallied in front of the US and UK embassies in the capital on Saturday.

Protests of varying sizes were also reported in: Japan, Nepal, India, South Africa, Cyprus, Spain, Syria, Egypt and Iraq.

The tiny South Pacific island nation of Fiji also saw its share of anti-war sentiment, with an anti-war group sending floral messages to foreign embassies urging them to put pressure on the US and its allies to avoid war.

Many books and serious articles have been written claiming that Bill Clinton was our greatest President. Like your stuff, it is propaganda designed to influence and twist people's attitudes and then have then support fabrications and half truths. Saddan had nothing to do with WTC and I seriously doubt if he ever tried to get rid of Bush Sr.

This is pure ad hominem. You disagree with conclusions so attak the source. In fact, you havent even read it or you wouldnt even have made that last comment. IT IS NOT EVEN ARGUABLE that Saddam was behind the assassination attempt! Jeez. Go ahead, debate the FACTS, not superficially but for real. You "doubt" something that happened? hmmm, facts are stubborn things, you know. ... The review of the book concerning the WTC 1993 attack and Iraq's involvement in it. ...

The groundbreaking new book by Laurie Mylroie, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, is a "must read" for the U.S. national security community and especially for the new George W. Bush foreign policy and defense team. Over the last eight years, Clinton Administration national security officials argued that loose networks of "non-state actors" (e.g. Muslim groups and extremists, such as Islamic Jihad and Osama bin Laden) were responsible for violent attacks on Americans. Mylroie, an expert in Middle East politics, societies, and culture, and publisher of the online newsletter Iraq News, explodes this argument. She argues that recent horrific acts of terrorism committed against American citizens and interests are more likely to have been ordered by Saddam Hussein and organized by Iraqi intelligence officials. Mylroie acknowledges that some Muslim extremists, particularly bin Laden, may cooperate with Iraq on particular missions. However, the capabilities and resources of a state, which range from diplomatic privileges to the organizational ability to coordinate diverse activities, are much greater than those that may be built and commanded by non-state actors.

Mylroie performs the type of analysis of the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted bombing of the New York City United Nations building that one would have hoped the U.S. government had done. She meticulously examines telephone, passport, and airline records to demonstrate that the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) prosecution of the cases was flawed conceptually. The DoJ prematurely (that is, before evidence was gathered and analyzed) decided that the World Trade Center bombing was a criminal act of individuals. Little DoJ effort was made to examine the evidence in the context of whether there was a state sponsor, nor did the DoJ seek to apply the resources of national security agencies to determine who organized the attack. Hence, the way the prosecution conceived and "bureaucratically compartmented" the case prevented achieving an understanding of who masterminded the terrorist acts. It is ironic that James Steinberg, deputy national security adviser from December 1996 to August 2000, recently lamented the lack of interagency coordination for dealing with problems such as terrorism. He concluded that, "Organization cannot replace strategic thinking. But bad organization can make it difficult to respond imaginatively and effectively to the needs of today."¹ Applied to the Clinton Administration's Iraq policy, Mylroie would agree: policy has been plagued by an abundance of bad strategic thinking and bad organization.

This reviewer believes that Mylroie has correctly pinpointed Saddam Hussein as the source of terrorist attacks on Americans, including the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted assassination of former president George H. W. Bush. The Clinton administration, wittingly or unwittingly, has chosen the path of self-delusion: to not investigate the matter seriously. In this way, unpleasant policy options have not been articulated and discussed. Yet, the failure of U.S. officials to address the question of state sponsorship of terrorism will have significant future costs. It encourages future terrorist attacks by eliminating the costs of retribution from the calculations of leaders such as Saddam Hussein.

The decision by President George H. W. Bush and his aides in February 1991 to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in office and not to fully destroy his military forces has bedeviled the foreign policy of President Bill Clinton. Americans may have thought the war was over, but Saddam Hussein does not agree: economic sanctions remain and American and British aircraft attack selected sites. Indeed, Saddam continues his programs to acquire and stockpile nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (and the means to deliver them), just as he threatens the U.S., its interests, and its allies. A Foreign Broadcast Information Service translation of a 25 November 2000 speech has Saddam Hussein saying: "Had not Iraq stood fast and made sacrifices for eight years during Al-Qadisiyah [the Iran-Iraq War], and for eleven years during the Mother of Battles [Persian Gulf War and its aftermath], it would have been destroyed and we would have been turned into refugees. . . . The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests." Saddam is telling his listeners, clearly and directly, his intentions.

Mylroie's analysis points to very difficult policy debates for President George W. Bush's aides. How is an American administration to respond to surreptitious acts of war? Do nothing? Issue threats (and do nothing)? Complain to world leaders at the United Nations? Seek to impose new or harsher economic and trade sanctions? Attack selected Iraqi sites with cruise missiles or precision-guided munitions (at night to reduce the likelihood of collateral damage and casualties)? Seek to build another international coalition to permit a naval, ground, and air campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime and military forces? Could the U.S. persuade the regimes of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf States to offer bases for offensive military action? Would the U.S. occupy Iraq and assume the task of creating a democratic state from the ruins of an authoritarian dictatorship? The policy and military options will not be easy to implement.

In the penultimate paragraph Mylroie concludes: "Given how decisive America's defeat of Iraq seemed in 1991, Saddam has accomplished a significant part of his program. He has secured the critical goal of ending UN weapons inspections, and he is now free to rebuild an arsenal of unconventional armaments. he has also succeeded in thoroughly confusing America as to the nature of the terrorist threat it has faced since the World Trade Center bombing. He is free, it would appear, to carry out more terrorist attacksãpossibly even unconventional terrorism, as long as he can make it appear to be the work of a loose network of Muslim extremists." And thus Laurie Mylroie predicts Saddam Hussein will continue to attack American citizens and interests. At a minimum, we should expect attempted bombings and other attacks in the year 2001 and beyond. And so, the question about Saddam Hussein remains, what is to be done?

The dust jacket of Study of Revenge lists laudatory comments from former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard N. Perle, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, former CIA chief of counterterrorism Vincent Cannistraro, and the former director of the New York FBI Office James M. Fox. And these comments are well-earned. Study of Revenge reads well and it sets a new high standard for investigative literature; it is the product of thorough and painstaking research, and its conclusions are sobering.

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.