-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! Bush Signals Saddam By Alan Sipress and Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, February 17, 2001; Page A1 The U.S. airstrikes against Iraqi antiaircraft positions yesterday, though billed by American officials as routine self-defense, marked an exceptional step by President Bush that foreign policy analysts said signaled a more confrontational approach to Baghdad. In both scope and location, the raids went beyond the more limited responses by the Clinton administration to Iraqi challenges to U.S. and British aircraft. And while national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said this was the fourth enforcement of the "no-fly" zone since Bush took office, it was the first time the president himself authorized the action. "There's nothing routine about this at all," said Richard N. Perle, a former Pentagon official and foreign policy adviser to Bush. "There's been a lot of talk about how the administration will be tested by Saddam Hussein. Maybe the administration has decided to test Saddam rather than be tested by him." The desire to send a tough signal to Iraq, however, does nothing to resolve the more fundamental conflict within the administration over how far to go in trying to depose Saddam Hussein, an issue that has frustrated U.S. officials since Bush's father launched allied response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a decade ago. At the same time, the administration's apparent willingness to engage in wider military strikes against Iraq may not be cost-free. The moves could escalate differences with some U.S. allies – other than Britain, which joined in yesterday's action – and create resistance to the continuation of United Nation sanctions on the Iraqi regime. Bush officials have spoken repeatedly about the importance of symbolism in foreign policy. Twice in the past two weeks – first in approving funds to Iraqi opposition groups for renewed activity inside Iraq, now with yesterday's military action – the administration has acted to reinvigorate U.S. policy toward Iraq and demonstrate its determination to step up pressure on Saddam Hussein. Taken together, administration officials said, the actions – limited as they may be by themselves – are designed to show the Iraqis and others around the world that Bush and his foreign affairs advisers have made policy toward Iraq a priority in their early calculations. "This policy of pushing Iraq off the front page, which was the Clinton administration policy in 1999 and 2000, is clearly over," said Ivo H. Daalder, a Clinton administration official now at the Brookings Institution. The new administration's policy, he added, is designed to "put Iraq squarely on the front page." American aircraft had struck Iraqi antiaircraft targets nine times this year, but yesterday's attack was larger and more carefully orchestrated. The raids by U.S. and British aircraft, which struck targets outside the no-fly zones for the first time since late 1999, set off air raid sirens in Baghdad that have been mostly quiet in recent years. "This was a very deliberate, planned procedure," said Pentagon spokesman Adm. Craig Quigley. In the last six months, the U.S. Air Force has scaled back the intensity of its patrols over the two no-fly zones, trying to avoid brushes with Iraqi forces, while waiting to see whether the new administration intended a muscular approach toward Saddam Hussein, according to a senior Air Force general. The administration's decision to send an early signal to Iraq underscores in foreign policy what Bush's initial actions on domestic policy also have shown: that what he said during the campaign will have consequence now that he is president. "The strongest impression I have of Bush so far is that what he says before the election is very relevant to what he does after," said Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution. "It seems to me he sent all kinds of signals during the campaign that he considered U.S. policy toward Iraq bankrupt, that the status quo was unacceptable and that his administration would pursue policies to change that." During his debate with then-Vice President Gore last October, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for allowing the coalition assembled against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War to deteriorate and said he wanted to persuade voters he would do a better job. Asked directly if he believed Iraqi policy was a failure of Clinton, Bush replied, "I do." At least once during the campaign, Bush was forced to clarify his policy after a comment left the impression that, as president, he would use evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to try to eliminate Hussein himself. Later he said he was speaking only about taking out the weapons, not the Iraqi leader. Administration officials said yesterday the airstrikes did not represent a new policy, but the president's Thursday decision put teeth into his pledge last month "to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein." While the plan for the attacks originated with officers in the U.S. Central Command involved in patrolling the no-fly zone, their recommendation was passed up the chain of command to the administration's top national security officials. These figures, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Rice, reviewed the recommendation during a meeting Thursday, one of several sessions devoted to shaping a new Iraq policy during the administration's early days. Bush then signed off on the plan, as he was required to do because the action was outside the no-fly zone. The go-ahead for the attacks came while the administration is still wrestling with how best to confront Iraq, an issue freighted with history for many of the key players, given their connections to the first Bush administration a decade ago. Among some of Bush's foreign policy lieutenants there has been sentiment for a tougher approach that goes beyond the practice of retaliating against Iraqi forces only when they open fire on allied aircraft or aim their antiaircraft radar at them. "This strange bombing of Saddam when he wants to be bombed seems silly," said a Bush adviser during the campaign. The adviser, named to a senior post since then, said: "I'd be in favor of an exponential escalation. . .‚. I'd rather dramatically up the pain for Saddam Hussein." While some top officials, including Vice President Cheney and Rumsfeld, have urged a more aggressive policy built on supporting the Iraqi opposition's campaign to overthrow Hussein, Powell has spoken mainly of strengthening the sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Another indication that the administration's Iraq policy is taking shape was a meeting called yesterday by Edward S. Walker Jr., assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, with Ahmed Chalabi, a leader of the opposition Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi said he was given the green light to proceed with the arrangements for spending more than $30 million in American aid previously promised to the opposition, much of it for activities inside Iraq. State Department spokesman Philip T. Reeker said the meeting yesterday "was a continuation of the discussions about the contribution that the INC and the whole Iraqi opposition can make to our overall policy." With that debate over Iraq policy still unresolved and several key policymakers yet to assume their posts, the attack yesterday provides the administration extra time to develop an approach, analysts said. "This is the White House trying to send a message that the administration is going to be tough but they're also trying to buy themselves some breathing room," said Henri Barkey, an Iraq expert formerly of the State Department. Staff writers Mike Allen, Steven Mufson and Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
