- WASHINGTON (AFP) - The
concentration
of US forces around Afghanistan, particularly in the Gulf region, in
response
to the recent terror attacks on American soil, is reviving a debate here
on whether to oust Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
-
- The Iraqi leader, whose forces were booted out of Kuwait
in 1991 by an international coalition led by former president George Bush,
the father of the current US president, continues to hang on to power,
fueling mounting frustration among US leaders who maintain large military
forces around Iraq.
-
- Although Washington admits it had so far no formal proof
of Baghdad's involvement in the September 11 suicide airborne attacks on
New York and Washington, many here stressed that Iraq remains a major
threat.
-
- Some point to possible contacts between one of hijackers,
Mohamed Atta, and Iraqi intelligence or the arrest in Ecuador of seven
Iraqis as part of the probe into terrorist networks.
-
- Republican Senator Jesse Helms and other conservatives
in Congress recently urged President George W. Bush to seize the
opportunity
provided by the global anti-terror campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.
-
- "The first President Bush ought to have gotten rid
of him (Saddam)," Helms said. "I say that with all due respect
to the former president, but that was one of the major mistakes that was
made at that time."
-
- "The biggest difference is not yet evident. It will
be about how to handle Saddam Hussein. There will be some people who would
argue in favor of striking him hard. I think that would be the big
debate,"
said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings
Institution,
a Washington think tank.
-
- "I am not surprised there are different views,"
noted Walter Russell Mead, of the Council on Foreign Relations, pointing
to the strong feelings in Washington over how to handle Iraq.
-
- Divergences on the issue have surfaced between the
Pentagon
and the State Department.
-
- Recent comments by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz,
a "hawk" favoring a tough policy toward Baghdad, on the need
to strike states sponsoring terrorism have rekindled speculation on need
to take action against Iraq.
-
- Secretary of State Colin Powell has repeatedly stated
that the priority objective for Washington was hunting down
Afghanistan-based
Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born militant seen by Washington as the
mastermind
of the September 11 attacks, and his network and not to attack specific
countries.
-
- But while suggesting that Baghdad would not be a target
in the first phase of a US riposte, Powell stressed that there would be
"phase two and phase three" without giving details.
-
- "We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein (.) He's,
of course, trying to develop weapons of mass destruction," Powell
said. "For 10 years we have kept him contained and will continue to
keep him contained. And, as you know, we always have the ability to strike
if that seems to be the appropriate thing to do."
-
- Contradictory signals from Washington have led many Arab
countries to urge the United States to extend their military operations
beyond Afghanistan.
-
- Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, who visited
Washington
this week, left reassured, saying the United States were focusing on bin
Laden and did not plan to extend the confrontation.
-
- Iraq has meanwhile repeated that he was not involved
in the attacks.
-
- Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Aziz said on Thursday
that Iraq had no links whatsoever with Afghanistan's Taliban regime or
bin Laden.
-
-
-
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|