----------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN WILL BUSH BOMB IRAQ?
By Jack A. Smith
Confusing signals continue to emanate from Washington as to which country will be the next target after Afghanistan in the Bush administration’s declared several-year “war on terrorism.”
A strong faction within the administration and the far right in general favors an immediate attack on Iraq to destroy the government of Saddam Hussein, even without evidence the country was associated with the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. or with the distribution of anthrax to several postal addresses.
But an equally strong faction, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, opposes launching a war against Iraq at this time because it will unravel the “Partnership of Nations” coalition Washington has organized to support its terrorism wars. Most European and nearly all Muslim countries in the coalition oppose such a war. Powell is not against violently unseating President Hussein; in fact he reiterated last month that such a goal was Bush administration policy. But now, he says, is not the time.
“Attack-Iraq” politicians led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) were shouting all the louder this week for an adventure against Baghdad after returning from a brief visit to Afghanistan. Stopping off on the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt Jan. 9, McCain clowned at the top of his lungs from the flight bridge, “Next stop Baghdad!”
But he may not get his wish, as least right away. The same day in Berlin, German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping declared in answer to a press conference question, “There is no indication at all that there is any kind of military planning in connection with Iraq -- completely to the contrary. I understand why there is strong interest in such a question, because [some people] would like to develop a war scenario against Iraq that does not exist at all.”
At the same time, in perhaps the most important indication of all, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- the highest government official to publicly demand an immediate war against Iraq -- now appears to be more circumspect. The New York Times reported Nov. 7 on the basis of an interview with Wolfowitz that “his statements suggested the Pentagon could opt to put off the bigger and politically more difficult targets in the war on terrorism, like Iraq, and therefore avoid conflict with some of its most important Arab and European allies, which have been leery about taking in Baghdad.”
Wolfowitz was then quoted as saying the U.S. might next work with countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia in helping them dispatch terrorist organizations situated in their territories. He also mentioned possible interventions in Somalia and Yemen in the near future.
Wolfowitz, of course, was speaking for his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who also supports a war to overturn Hussein but remains publicly silent in the debate. One conclusion to be drawn from the deputy secretary’s remarks is that bombing Iraq remains on the agenda but has been postponed until the political dispute can be resolved or until it is determined that the U.S. no longer requires the backing of the entire coalition.
A surprising new element was introduced into the debate a week earlier when the London Daily Telegraph reported from Washington Dec. 30 that, “A shortage of cruise missiles has thrown plans for a full-scale strike on Iraq into disarray.” It appears that only the air-launched version of the million-dollar-each cruise missile will do the trick. The sea-launched version does not possess a long enough range to knock out all Iraq’s air defenses. The air-launched missiles are in short supply because the U.S. launched so many of them in 1998 (Afghanistan and Sudan), and 1999 (Yugoslavia), and 2001 (Afghanistan).
Reporter Sean Rayment wrote that the Pentagon is “pressing Boeing, the manufacturer, to speed up their production. Even so, the first of the new batch of missiles ordered last year is not expected for months.” Unless Iraq’s air defenses are destroyed first, Washington’s bombers may get shot down in such number that U.S. public opinion could turn against the “war on terrorism” and Bush’s popularity may plummet. A Pentagon spokesperson told Rayment, “The military chiefs are aware of the situation and measures are in place to fix it.” If this information is correct, implementation of the Iraq option may have to wait until Boeing replenishes Pentagon stocks.
At this point there is no telling when the U.S. will launch its adventure in Iraq or whether the cruise missile “shortage” is a factor. A full-scale war seems probable, though perhaps somewhat later than sooner.