Will the U.S. attack Iraq as part of its global war against terrorism? That possibility is said to be under debate within the Bush Administration. War with Iraq has both supporters and critics in Washington.
Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency James Woolsey is one who believes that removing Saddam Hussein from power is urgent. He is in favor of an attack even if a link between Baghdad and the terrorist network al-Qaida can not be established.
Mr. Woolsey said, "If you ask the question, 'Could you prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that Iraq was behind and directed the attack of September 11," then the answer is likely to be 'no.' If you ask a different question, 'Is it clearly demonstrable to any reasonable person that Iraq has been substantially engaged in terrorism against the West and the United States over the course of the last decade?' And that 'there is a reasonable chance they were involved in September 11, and that they are developing weapon of mass destruction, particularly biological and nuclear weapons, to terrorize their neighbors,' I would submit that the answer is a clear 'yes.' Is delay in our interest? I would submit that their work on ballistic missiles, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons suggests a certain urgency. A quick offensive, arming the Iraqi opposition, and utilizing devastating American air power against Iraq would, I suggest to you, be quite likely to achieve substantial and relatively early gain in the northern and southern parts of the country. At that point, we can figure out how to move to complete the war."
But not all analysts agree with the former CIA chief. Veteran foreign correspondent and foreign poilcy analyst Arnaud de Borchgrave shared some of his impressions about such a conflict in a conversation with VOA's Ed Warner.
Mr. de Borchgrave said, "My reading is what you hear traveling around the world, which is that we have a brilliant leader in the White House who has reached 80 or 90 percent popularity ratings, and we are now looking for the next war. And the obvious next war is Iraq. You do hear this increasingly around the world. I don't think anyone is thinking this through. They're just saying, 'It's about time we took on Saddam Hussein.' There's a little bit of nostalgia from people who failed to knock off Saddam Hussein eleven years ago and others who feel that Saddam is somehow tied in with al-Qaida and global terrorism. Any intelligent person who has looked into this carefully knows very well that there is no connection between Iraq and al-Qaida."
"After we go to war with Iraq, are they considering what the consequences are for Iraq?"
"You know Iraq could splinter between the Kurdish north and the "marsh Arabs" in the South. It could be an unholy mess. As for the resistance movement, I do not see anything comparable to what was going on in Western Europe in World War II in terms of the resistance to the Nazis. You need that kind of a movement to be effective. And I think anyone who knows anything about the Iraqi National Congress, the INC, realizes that it's a 'non-starter.' I'm just listening to what various people are saying about Iraq, 'It's in the bag; it's the next target. Just wait for Vice President Cheney to come back from his tour of the Middle East in mid-March, and it is "all systems go."' This is the way they're talking. And I think that's motivated far more by domestic politics than it is by the realities on the ground."
"When you say 'they,' is this a special group of people? Or do you find it widespread? Does it include our military leaders as well as the conservative intellectuals?"
"No, the military leaders whom I know are far more cautious. They don't like the idea of an ill-thought-through campaign. This is not Afghanistan, and they know it. It's a far more complex situation. And while the Iraqis are far weaker than they were when they invaded Kuwait, it's still an entirely different ball game, which will require a lot of troops on the ground. It can't be done by using the Iraqi National Congress to overthrow the Saddam regime."
"That being the case, why do Mr. Wolfowitz and his followers have so much influence with the President?"