IRAQ WEBLOG

Ayalon: U.S. won't ask

Israel to sit on sidelines in Ira
Ambassador to U.S. Danny Ayalon said Thursday that America has not asked Israel to sit

on the sidelines during any future assault on Iraq and he does not believe that any such request will be made.

"I do

not believe there will be an uneqouvical demand from the U.S. that Israel not participate in the attack. We will not take an

automatic actions - we will cooperate with the Americans," Ayalon said on Army Radio.

Asked if Israel received prior

warning that the U.S. would be moving its Central Command headquarters from Florida to Qatar, Ayalon said that "Israel can

rest assured that the Americans are keeping their promises. They are aware of our security needs."

Chief of Staff

Moshe Ya'alon, meanwhile, believes that the United States would prefer to see Israel not taking part in the planned attack

on Iraq.

"The Americans will be very happy if we are not involved," Ya'alon said Wednesday. "They want to do the

work alone, without anyone getting in the way."

Ya'alon, who was speaking during a memorial ceremony at the

Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya for the September 11 attacks in the United States, added that America was planning a

strike against "a non-conventional leadership that has non-conventional weapons." He described the Baghdad regime as "an

irresponsible regime that supports terror and is trying to achieve nuclear capability."

Ya'alon said that Iran would

be "next in line" on the Americans' list of priorities. However, in the Iranian case, there would not necessarily be a

military attack and Washington would first try to put diplomatic pressure on Tehran to change its policies or its government.



Ya'alon also warned of the possibility that one of the states hostile to Israel would try to equip a terror

organization with non-conventional weapons.

Also at the Herzliya conference, Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer

calmed fears about an impending American attack on Iraq. "There is no need for panic and hysteria in the face of [such] an

attack and an Iraqi attempt to retaliate against Israel," he said. "If the United States attacks and is able to overthrow

Saddam Hussein's regime, this will be a positive development for Israel. One should not overstate the Iraqi threat. True,

Baghdad has certain capabilities in the strategic sphere that could combine surface-to-surface missiles with chemical and

biological capabilities, but as far as can be assessed [with regard to the possibility of their being used against Israel],

the number of transport platforms - planes or missiles - is not big."

Ben-Eliezer said that he truly believed that

Israel "is prepared for the possibility of meeting an attack in the best way possible, better than at any other time... We

have the ability to respond independently, both defensively and offensively, to any scenario."

In a separate event,

Ya'alon said that after the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States now expresses more understanding for Israeli military moves

against the Palestinians. He noted that before daybreak Wednesday, dozens of IDF tanks "operated freely" in a Palestinian

town in Gaza, an incursion that drew no U.S. response, while a similar invasion the previous year had drawn a stiff

protest.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=207641&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassI

D=0

Where Iraq Fits in the

War on Terror
Where Iraq Fits in the War on Terror
By MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT


WASHINGTON ?- The core of

President Bush's forcefully delivered message on Iraq at the United Nations yesterday was irrefutable. Saddam Hussein is a

serial liar, a bully and a threat to peace. He has used chemical weapons, and he yearns to impress an Arab world that

despises him by building a deliverable nuclear bomb.

The president made a strong case for international action that

results either in Iraqi compliance with its obligations or the establishment of a new and, ultimately, democratic government

in Baghdad. There should be bipartisan backing for such a policy here at home, and the president wisely has chosen to solicit

global support instead of attempting to go it alone.

I hope, however, that the president will not be pushed by his

hard-line advisers into an unwise timetable for military action. We should pick this fight at a moment that best suits our

interests. And right now, our primary interest remains the thorough destruction and disruption of Al Qaeda and related

terrorist networks.

Earlier this week, the International Institute of Strategic Studies released a summary of Iraq's

military capabilities that foreshadowed the president's words yesterday. Iraq likely has significant quantities of

biological warfare agents and some chemical munitions. It is striving to acquire or develop nuclear weapons, but there is no

evidence it has succeeded. It may have a dozen missiles that could be used to threaten nearby states.

Saddam Hussein

is the enemy we know. Since the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, each time Mr. Hussein has pushed, we

have pushed back. Today, American and British planes enforce no-flight zones over 40 percent of his country and a maritime

force prevents weapons from reaching Iraq by sea. Saddam Hussein's military is far weaker than it was a decade ago. And he

must surely be aware that if he ever again tries to attack another country he will be obliterated. All that is grounds for

calm, but not complacency.

The president said he is willing to work with the Security Council. I hope that will

include an explicit call for United Nations weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, although I doubt Iraq will accept them. By

promoting that option first, the administration would strengthen the diplomatic case for subsequent action. As the president

pointed out, during the past decade Iraq has failed to comply with a host of Security Council directives. If Baghdad persists

in its defiance, the president has rightly placed the burden on those who oppose the use of force to explain how else

compliance may be assured. One cannot insist on the council's central role in promoting international security and law, then

look the other way when the will of the council is repeatedly defied.

Although the president's speech yesterday was

persuasive in many respects, he was neither specific nor compelling in his effort to link Saddam Hussein to other, more

urgent threats. As evil as Mr. Hussein is, he is not the reason antiaircraft guns ring the capital, civil liberties are being

compromised, a Department of Homeland Defense is being created and the Gettysburg Address again seems directly relevant to

our lives.

In the aftermath of tragedy a year ago, the chief executive told our nation that fighting terrorism would

be "the focus of my presidency." That ?- not Iraq ?- remains the right focus.

During the past four years, Al Qaeda has

attacked Americans here at home, in Africa and in the Middle East. We still do not know where its top operatives are or what

they might be planning. There is evidence that Qaeda members are returning to Afghanistan, where thousands of Taliban

supporters still live and lawlessness prevails. We have not given the government of Hamid Karzai even a fraction of the help

it needs to make Afghanistan a permanent terrorist-free zone. Creation of an effective worldwide antiterror coalition remains

a work in progress. Restructuring our intelligence services, law enforcement agencies and military to defeat the terrorist

threat continues to be in the design stage.

Obviously, we cannot wait until terrorism is entirely eradicated to deal

with Saddam Hussein. But it makes little sense now to focus the world's attention and our own military, intelligence,

diplomatic and financial resources on a plan to invade Iraq instead of on Al Qaeda's ongoing plans to murder innocent

people. We cannot fight a second monumental struggle without detracting from the first one.

The administration should

take the time necessary to broaden support for its Iraq policy, respond to Congressional inquiries, strengthen Iraqi

opposition groups, fine-tune military planning, develop a coherent blueprint for the post-Hussein era, identify the massive

resources that will be required to fund the war and its aftermath, and conduct diplomacy aimed at cooling tensions in the

Middle East. If United Nations inspectors are again rebuffed by Iraq, we should also give notice that we will destroy without

warning any facilities in that country that we suspect are being used to develop prohibited arms. Even if those suspicions

are later proved wrong, the blame should fall on Iraq for denying access, not on the United States for trying to enforce the

Security Council's will. In the same vein, we should make it clear that anyone who assists Iraq's nuclear program will be

considered an enemy of the United States.

At the United Nations yesterday, the president began the job of spelling out

the what and why of our policy toward Baghdad. The wisdom of that policy, however, will ultimately hinge on when he chooses

to act.


Madeleine K. Albright was secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 and United States ambassador to the United

Nations from 1993 to 1997.


http://nytimes.com/2002/09/13/opinion/13ALBR.html

Iraq, Upside Down By

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Recently, I've had the chance to travel around the country and do some call-in radio shows, during

which the question of Iraq has come up often. And here's what I can report from a totally unscientific sample: Don't

believe the polls that a majority of Americans favor a military strike against Iraq. It's just not true.

It's also

not true that the public is solidly against taking on Saddam Hussein. What is true is that most Americans are perplexed. The

most oft-asked question I heard was some variation of: "How come all of a sudden we have to launch a war against Saddam? I

realize that he's thumbed his nose at the U.N., and he has dangerous weapons, but he's never threatened us, and, if he

does, couldn't we just vaporize him? What worries me are Osama and the terrorists still out there."

That's where I

think most Americans are at. Deep down they believe that Saddam is "deterrable." That is, he does not threaten the U.S. and

he never has, because he has been deterred the way Russia, China and North Korea have been. He knows that if he even hints at

threatening us, we will destroy him. Saddam has always been homicidal, not suicidal. Indeed, he has spent a lifetime

perfecting the art of survival ?- because he loves life more than he hates us.

No, what worries Americans are not the

deterrables like Saddam. What worries them are the "undeterrables" ?- the kind of young Arab-Muslim men who hit us on 9/11,

and are still lurking. Americans would pay virtually any price to eliminate the threat from the undeterrables ?- the

terrorists who hate us more than they love their own lives, and therefore cannot be deterred.

I share this view, which

is why I think the Iraq debate is upside down. Most strategists insist that the reason we must go into Iraq ?- and the only

reason ?- is to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, not regime change and democracy building. I disagree.

I

think the chances of Saddam being willing, or able, to use a weapon of mass destruction against us are being exaggerated.

What terrifies me is the prospect of another 9/11 ?- in my mall, in my airport or in my downtown ?- triggered by angry young

Muslims, motivated by some pseudo-religious radicalism cooked up in a mosque in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan. And I

believe that the only way to begin defusing that threat is by changing the context in which these young men grow up ?- namely

all the Arab-Muslim states that are failing at modernity and have become an engine for producing undeterrables.

So I

am for invading Iraq only if we think that doing so can bring about regime change and democratization. Because what the Arab

world desperately needs is a model that works ?- a progressive Arab regime that by its sheer existence would create pressure

and inspiration for gradual democratization and modernization around the region.

I have no illusions about how

difficult it would be to democratize a fractious Iraq. It would be a huge, long, costly task ?- if it is doable at all, and I

am not embarrassed to say that I don't know if it is. All I know is that it's the most important task worth doing and worth

debating. Because only by helping the Arabs gradually change their context ?- a context now dominated by anti-democratic

regimes and anti-modernist religious leaders and educators ?- are we going to break the engine that is producing one

generation after another of undeterrables.

These undeterrables are young men who are full of rage, because they are

raised with a view of Islam as the most perfect form of monotheism, but they look around their home countries and see

widespread poverty, ignorance and repression. And they are humiliated by it, humiliated by the contrast with the West and how

it makes them feel, and it is this humiliation ?- this poverty of dignity ?- that drives them to suicidal revenge. The quest

for dignity is a powerful force in human relations.

Closing that dignity gap is a decades-long project. We can help,

but it can succeed only if people there have the will. But maybe that's what we're starting to see. Look at how Palestinian

legislators just voted no confidence in Arafat; look at how some courageous Arab thinkers produced an Arab Human Development

Report, which declared that the Arab-Muslim world was backward because of its deficits of freedom, modern education and

women's empowerment.

If we don't find some way to help these countries reverse these deficits now ?- while access to

smaller and smaller nuclear weapons is still limited ?- their young, angry undeterrables will blow us up long before Saddam

ever does.

For educational and disscusion purposes.

http://nytimes.com/2002/09/18/opinion/18FRIE.html

Since when can 'guests' post 'ere?