A rchive Date
[ 16-02-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[ http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/goldstein_feb4.html
Forget the al-Qaida connection
Bush doesn't need to link Saddam with terrorist group to attack Iraq
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN -- Toronto Sun
February 4, 2003
Of all the arguments U.S. President George Bush has made in favour of going to war against Iraq, Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network seem the most suspect.
Obviously, Bush wants to keep linking Saddam to al-Qaida in order to convince Americans the reasons for invading Iraq are directly tied to 9/11.
In his state of the union address last week, Bush stressed that "evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveals Saddam aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida." Bush asked Americans to imagine the "day of horror like none we have ever known" al-Qaida could have inflicted on the U.S. had its 19 hijackers on 9/11 been armed with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Yesterday, writing in The Wall Street Journal about the case he will make against Iraq at the UN Security Council tomorrow, Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated this theme.
Referring to Bush's speech, Powell wrote: "Perhaps most critically, the president confirmed that Iraq has open channels and ties to terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida." He said while there will be "no smoking gun" in his speech, "we will, in sum, offer a straightforward, sober and compelling demonstration that Saddam is concealing the evidence of his weapons of mass destruction, while preserving the weapons themselves." (Interestingly, neither Powell nor Bush once mentioned Osama bin Laden.)
The problem with linking al-Qaida to Saddam is that years before 9/11, before most Americans had ever heard of al-Qaida and before Bush came to power, many key officials now in his administration were advocating war with Iraq.
On Jan. 12, reporter Glenn Kessler writing in The Washington Post (cited by the Sun's Eric Margolis on Sunday) described how a group of what are now powerful Bush officials were advocating war against Iraq as far back as 1998.
In an open letter to Bill Clinton on Jan. 26 of that year, 18 prominent conservatives - 10 of whom are now senior staffers or advisers to Bush - called for a policy toward Iraq that mirrors what has become the Bush doctrine of 2003.
Among the signatories were Donald Rumsfeld, now Bush's defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy defence secretary, Zalmay Khalilzad, now special White House envoy to the Iraqi opposition and Richard Perle, who, while not a member of the Bush administration, is the influential chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board.
Their letter both predates and predicts Bush's current policy toward Iraq. To wit: "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action, as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long-term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy ... We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." All of this, remember, was written 31/2 years before 9/11, with no mention of al-Qaida.
Kessler concludes Bush's decision to confront Saddam came through a process that "often ... circumvented traditional policy making channels as longtime advocates of ousting Hussein pushed Iraq to the top of the agenda by connecting their cause to the war on terrorism." This doesn't preclude the possibility that Bush now has convincing evidence of links between Saddam and al-Qaida. Perhaps we'll learn what it is tomorrow. Or perhaps not.
The point is, it shouldn't be necessary to make the case for going to war against Iraq and Bush now risks losing credibility if he can't show a clear Saddam/al-Qaida connection.
There are many valid reasons for the U.S., preferably under the UN but failing that, by leading a coalition of the willing that ought to include Canada, to remove Saddam. He's a tyrant with a proven capacity for waging war, both against his own people and his neighbours, such as Kuwait.
If he has, or acquires, weapons of mass destruction, he might use them one day against Israel, setting off Armageddon.
Even if Saddam doesn't have links to al-Qaida, he's a known supporter of terrorism. He pays $25,000 apiece to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, to cite just one example.
Removing Saddam would also send a powerful warning to other rogue states and/or facilitators of terrorism in the Mideast and Africa, such as Iran, Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Finally, while getting rid of Saddam is not "all about oil" it is certainly partly about oil. Who wants this maniac controlling any significant portion of the world's oil supply?
In his first state of the union address following 9/11, Bush said the war on terror would be long, difficult and fought on many fronts, with no easy victories. All true. It's also true that to fight it effectively we must abandon the myth that military action can only be justified if it is linked directly to al-Qaida. There are far more Mideast terrorists than that.
Lorrie can be reached at (416) 947-2212, by fax at (416) 947-3228 or by e-mail at lorrie.goldstein@tor.sunpub.com. Or visit his home page. Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|