Bush planning to topple Hussein WASHINGTON - President Bush has decided to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power and ordered the CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies to devise a combination of military, diplomatic and covert steps to achieve that goal, senior U.S. officials said yesterday. <P> No military strike is imminent, but Bush has concluded that Hussein and his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs are such a threat to U.S. security that the Iraqi dictator must be removed, even if U.S. allies do not help, said the officials, who all spoke on condition of anonymity. <P> "This is not an argument about whether to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That debate is over. This is . . . how you do it," a senior administration official said in an interview with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. <P> The President's decision has launched the United States on a course that will have major ramifications for the U.S. military, the Middle East's future political alignment, international oil flows, and Bush's own war on terrorism. Russia and most of America's European allies have expressed alarm about the administration's escalating rhetoric on Iraq. <P> The course also is fraught with potential military difficulties, with most experts on Iraq warning that a campaign there would not be as swift or virtually free of American casualties as Afghanistan. There, rebels of the Northern Alliance, backed by U.S. commandos and massive U.S. airpower, quickly overthrew the Taliban regime. <P> Nevertheless, one foreign leader who met Bush recently came away "with the feeling that a decision has been made to strike Iraq, and the 'how' and 'when' are still fluid," added a diplomat who asked not to be further identified. <P> The CIA, senior officials said, recently presented Bush with a plan to destabilize Hussein's well-entrenched regime in Baghdad. The plan proposed a massive covert action campaign, sabotage, information warfare, and significantly more aggressive bombing of the "no fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq. U.S. and British forces patrol the zones to prevent Iraqi planes from bombing opposition forces. <P> Bush reportedly was enthusiastic, and although it could not be determined whether he gave final approval for the plan, the CIA has begun assigning officers to the task. <P> Bush also is dispatching Vice President Cheney next month on a tour of 11 Middle East nations, including many of Iraq's neighbors, whose leaders are leery of a U.S. attack on Baghdad. <P> While the mission's purpose has been portrayed publicly as sounding out Middle Eastern leaders on Iraq policy, Cheney in fact will tell them that the United States intends to get rid of Hussein and his regime, several top Bush aides said. <P> "He's not going to beg for support," one senior official said. "He's going to inform them that the President's decision has been made and will be carried out, and if they want some input into how and when it's carried out, now's the time for them to speak up." <P> In the lead-up to Cheney's trip, however, a sharp debate has erupted within the administration over what role Iraqi opposition groups should play, particularly the main group, the Iraqi National Congress. <P> Officials in the Near East Division of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, the clandestine service, warn that the INC, a coalition of Hussein opponents, is divided by internal feuds and almost certainly penetrated by both the Iraqi and Iranian intelligence services. <P> "Where the INC is concerned, no real covert operation is possible," said one U.S. intelligence official with experience in the area. "The INC isn't the Northern Alliance, and the [Iraqi] Republican Guards aren't the Taliban." In fact, one U.S. intelligence official said Iraqi opposition leaders already have been heard talking about the new campaign to oust Hussein.<P> Hawks in the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are pushing for a major role for the INC. Their position was strengthened last month, when Bush called Iraq part of an "axis of evil." These officials believe the brunt of the fighting can be borne by Iraqi opposition forces - primarily ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south - with assistance from U.S. airpower and CIA and special forces advisers on the ground, following the Afghanistan model. <P> Uniformed military officials, however, are skeptical of the opposition groups, doubtful that Hussein's military will crumble the way the Taliban did and worried that large numbers of U.S. troops could be called on to rescue opposition forces if they get bogged down or trapped. <P> The Pentagon's existing contingency plans for an invasion of Iraq call for the use of 200,000 American ground troops, U.S. officials said. A decade after the Persian Gulf war, Iraq is believed to have around 400,000 active-duty troops, one quarter of them in elite units such as the Republican Guard, and some modern weaponry.<P> However, the United States may not have the extensive use of bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere that it enjoyed during the gulf war. While many of Washington's Arab allies may go along in the end, for now they oppose "regime change" in Iraq and worry about its effect on populations already angered by nearly 17 months of Israeli-Palestinian violence.<P> There are other major uncertainties about a U.S. attack on Iraq that, unlike the gulf war, would be intended to remove its leader. One is whether Hussein, with nothing to lose, would lash out at U.S. forces, Israel or Arab states backing the United States with Scud missiles tipped with chemical or biological weapons.<P> Another is the lack of U.S. intelligence assets on the ground to work with opposition forces, assess the strength of Hussein's regime and recruit defectors. The CIA this year began to reconstitute a small presence in northern Iraq, working with the INC, an official said. <P> Finally, an attack could endanger close U.S. allies such as Jordan, which imports all of its oil from Iraq. "Definitely, it's a nightmare scenario for us," an Arab diplomat said yesterday. <P> Bush should keep the focus on fighting international terrorism, where he has broad international backing, Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Fahmy said. "If you mix two issues together, you will lose this focus," he said in an interview last week. <P> -- from the Philadelphia Inquirer
So much for the element of surprise. This one could be messy, if we don't get the same support we did in the Gulf War. By the way, anyone want to join the CIA's Clandestine Service? They're hiring. Who wants to be a secret agent man? http://houston.careerweb.com/jobsearch/joblist.cfm?JobID=1731426&Keyword= Central Intelligence Agency Clandestine Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employer Req.#: CSTD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE ULTIMATE INTERNATIONAL CAREER For the extraordinary individual who wants more than a job, this is a unique career--a way of life that will challenge the deepest resources of your intelligence, self-reliance, and responsibility. It demands an adventurous spirit, a forceful personality, superior intellectual ability, toughness of mind, and a high degree of personal integrity, courage, and love of country. You will need to deal with fast-moving, ambiguous, and unstructured situations that will test your resourcefulness to the utmost. This is the Clandestine Service of the CIA. We are the cutting edge of American intelligence, an elite corps providing the vital information needed by our policy makers to address the national security interests of the American people. We face new challenges every day, in a world filled with increasingly complex issues. Ours is a mission like no other. CAREER OPPORTUNITIES We are currently hiring Intelligence Officers for the Clandestine Service Trainee (CST) and Professional Trainee (PT) Programs. The CST Program is an entry-level training program for competitive applicants interested in joining the Clandestine Service at the CIA. Operations Officers spearhead our intelligence collection efforts internationally and are actively involved in seeking new sources of information. Also serving internationally, Collections Management Officers coordinate our intelligence collection efforts and disseminate the product to the U.S. government and consumers. We are also hiring Staff Operations Officers that provide support from our Headquarters to the activities of the Operations Officers in the field. Competitive applicants require a minimum of a bachelor's degree with an excellent academic record. Graduate degrees with emphasis on physical, chemical, or biological sciences, international business or law, telecommunications, or computer technology are desired. Foreign language skills, international residency, and military experience are pluses. Outstanding interpersonal skills, the ability to write clearly and accurately, and strong interest in foreign affairs are necessities. The maximum age for entry into CST positions is 35. The Professional Trainee (PT) Program is specifically designed for recent college graduates. Upon successful completion of the PT Program, a PT will be considered for the CST Program. U.S. citizenship is required for both programs. All selected applicants must successfully complete a thorough medical and psychological evaluation, a polygraph examination, and an extensive background investigation. ELECTRONIC RESUMES/ CORRESPONDENCE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THIS POSITION. To be considered for employment, please send your resume, day and evening telephone numbers, and a cover letter explaining your qualifications and reasons for applying to: CST Division PO Box 4605, Dept. CareerWeb Reston, VA 20195 FAX: CST Division (703) 613-7871. We will acknowledge receipt of your resume via the mail. Competitive applicants will be contacted via telephone, within 45 days. The CIA is an equal opportunity employer and a drug-free work force. For additional information, please visit our web site at: www.cia.gov. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Location: Washington, DC Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, why am I not surprised? More: February 13, 2002 Powell Says U.S. Is Weighing Ways to Topple Hussein By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that the administration was considering a variety of options to topple Saddam Hussein, amid indications that President Bush and his top advisers are close to settling on a plan. While taking an unusually tough tone toward Iraq, Secretary Powell was careful to draw a distinction between Iraq on one hand and Iran and North Korea on the other, three countries that President Bush had lumped together as an "axis of evil" because of their quest for weapons of mass destruction. "With respect to Iran and with respect to North Korea, there is no plan to start a war with these nations," Secretary Powell said. In contrast, in discussing Iraq, he delivered a stern message. "With respect to Iraq, it has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people," he said. "And we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about." Secretary Powell's comments were made in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee as the administration approached a decision about how to dislodge Mr. Hussein. Senior officials said there was a consensus within the administration that he must be overthrown and that plans to do so are being drawn up. But there no agreement as to how precisely that should be done or how long the United States should be prepared to wait for action. Still, there are indications that the planning is becoming increasingly serious. Next month, Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to visit a number of nations that border Iraq, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey. Mr. Cheney also plans to visit Britain, Egypt, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman, all of which might provide useful support in a campaign against Iraq. At the Pentagon, officials have been drawing up plans for an Iraq campaign. The Iraqi National Congress, as the Iraqi opposition is known, has received a much warmer reception from the administration since the State of the Union speech, though the administration still has not agreed to provide its members with military training. During a recent meeting at the White House, a senior administration official told Iraqi opposition officials that President Bush had decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be replaced. "We were told that the president has made up his mind: Saddam has got to go," one opposition official recalled. At the hearing today, Secretary Powell stressed that Mr. Bush had not made any final decisions and that military action was not imminent. Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of the United States Central Command, which is overseeing the campaign in Afghanistan and which would run any campaign against Iraq, said today that a military plan had not yet been settled. "I do not think I am at a point where a decision has been made about where to go next, leave alone the precision of how we will be going about doing this," General Franks said at the end of a visit to Kuwait. One senior administration official said the Pentagon still needed several months to end the fighting in Afghanistan and prepare for a potential military campaign in Iraq. Among the issues that officials are wrestling with is the possibility that Saddam Hussein would respond to an attack by using weapons of mass destruction against United States forces and possibly Israel; the extent to which American ground forces would be needed, and how a post-Hussein Iraq would be administered. The Bush administration also needs to lay the diplomatic foundation. The British government is still wary of an Iraq campaign, the Turks are fearful that it could lead to an independent Kurdistan, Israel is apprehensive that it may be targeted by Iraq's missiles, and others in the region are skittish about a major American military operation in their backyard. Several senior administration officials have begun to talk privately about a two-track approach to deposing Mr. Hussein that would balance military and diplomatic planning. The first steps, which could take five months or more, involve working through the United Nations to develop tighter but more focused sanctions against Iraq and demand that it allow nuclear inspectors unfettered access to the country. But senior administration officials say they fully expect that such an effort would fail, which would lay the base for a military campaign, one in which the United States would both encourage internal rebellions against the Iraqi leader's rule and use American military power. "If we put smart sanctions in place in May, then it gets harder for Iraq to make the case that it should not allow weapons inspectors," a senior official said. "But we know that it is only matter of time before the weapons inspections get stopped and we have yet another bit of proof that Saddam will never give up." Discussing the diplomatic approach, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, said after a recent meeting with Secretary Powell that he expected that when the United Nations Security Council met in May to renew economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States and Britain could issue an "ultimatum" to Mr. Hussein to let in the weapons inspectors. Mr. Straw said he hoped that Russian pressure would persuade Iraq to cooperate, but unlike hard- liners in the Bush administration, he did not say what action should be taken if Iraq refused to comply. Though some Bush officials consider that a likely scenario, one senior official said the military and diplomatic tracks were still being developed independently. Secretary Powell's appearance today was significant because he has long been considered the most cautious member of the administration when it comes to confronting Iraq. By making his statements in a Congressional hearing and making them in a more strongly worded fashion than in similar testimony he gave last week, the secretary of state demonstrated his loyalty to the president and thus gave himself an opportunity to influence the outcome as deliberations continue within the administration. But his comments also indicated that the deliberations over Iraq have a new sense of urgency. Senior officials said a consensus was emerging that it is important to take on the Iraqi leader, with the help of allies if possible, and without them if necessary. Secretary Powell's comments today marked the first time he drew a sharp distinction between the administration's strategy with Iraq and its strategy with the two other countries Mr. Bush called part of an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address last week. In Iraq, he continued, "we are always examining options for regime change." Mr. Bush, he added, using a curious time element, "does not have a recommendation before him that would involve an armed conflict tomorrow." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/13/international/13IRAQ.html Hottoddie: We lacked the element of surprise in 1991. Yes, we had some tactical surprise with the "Hail Mary" play, but few analysts believe that the Iraqis could have stopped even a frontal assault. They simply got mauled at the point of contact - they were just totally outclassed; the surprise effect was negligible. And we still have an opportunity to obtain tactical surprise even so - no one knows where the assault will come from. As for allies, they were pretty much irrelevant in 1991, too. The Syrians, Egyptians, and French largely just followed behind the US forces (although the French did do some fighting). The British had an armored division that did well, but could easily have been replaced with a US armored division with no difference in outcome. The only support any allies would be able to offer this time around would be moral support, and frankly that is not too important if we're going regardless. Nomar had it right. About damn time.
Attacking Iraq now could turn out to be Bush's Waterloo. Iraq is much more useful to him politically as a wag the dog type distraction from Enron, campaign finance scandals. his budget busting give back to the wealthy and attacks on the environment to please his energy buddies. If he takes out Iraq too soon he will have nothing to talk about come 2004. Hasn't he learned anything from his father? Go to the Bush Library in College Station. 70% is the Gulf War. 20% about being downed in World War II while flying a plane, 10% about having a nice family life. No other accomplishments worth talking about. No wonder he lost his reelection.
Doesnt this violate the executive order that all presidents in recent years have signed? Not that anyone really cares and that it probably has been violated before but just thought I would bring it up. I hope they do get rid of him. He has been developing Chemical, Biological, and Weapons of Mass Distruction for while know I'm sure. A few years back didnt he kick out some UN arms inspectors or something. This is long over due. His dad should have taken him out during the gulf war. oh and btw glynch the reason he lost his reelection was because of good old Dan Quale
glynch: My God, where do you come up with these conspiracy theories? They get more ridiculous by the day. I am stumped. You appear to be one of the only people in the country (aside from our unconditional pacifist friends like Jeff) who sees no reason to remove Saddam. Something like 88% of the nation supports his removal. That's a pretty overwhelming majority (try getting 88% of the populace to agree on anything...) I find it interesting that you no longer attempt to argue over the merits of removing him; now you just throw out ridiculous conspiracy theories. Have you given up? C'mon, let's argue! Johnny Rocket: That does not apply in wartime. We tried to kill him in 1991 - sort of. We'd throw a bomb at a command bunker, and, well, if he just happened to be in there... Congress has already passed legislation mandating Saddam's overthrow, and the Ford order does not apply in wartime. We're on safe ground there. There is one major difference between this and 1991, though: this time the primary goal will be regime change. In 1991 such an outcome was just regarded as a possible pleasant side effect... This time, Saddam is toast.
Treeman, by your own admissions 12% of Americans are against attacking Iraq --even at this time of extreme hatred toward bin Laden and inflated popularity of Bush.. Opposition to this latest war is the majority position in the world except for Israel, surprise, and Kuwait?. So you see, in world opinion your position is actually a minority position. I know you are a red blooded American, we've got the arms and you could give a damn about world opinion, but..... Your attempt to discredit opposition to your longed for war in Iraq as "cosnpiracy theory" or total pacifism falls in the realm of "good try, but no cigar." You love your own intelligence type sources of "secret" info from the CIA web site etc. You think you get 100% pure scoop with no hidden agendas from these sites. You are remarkably uncynical in your outlook toward elected politicians like Bush and the fact that they base most of their actions on trying to be reelected. Last I knew this was considered commonsense and not in the realm of outlandish conspiracy theories. Try a basic political science course on the presidency for instance. Despite your previous admissions of CIA mistakes likes removing democratically elected leaders in Iran you are always 100% trusting and up for each new dangerous adventure. You fail to acknowlege how CIA funding of the Madrassas and Arab volunteers in the war against the Soviets led to the Taliban and bin Laden. Oh well if we just keep killing eventually we will get it right and be able to deal with the "blowback" from the last action. You fail to acknowlege how not doing anything to Iran which provoked us much greater than Sadam by killing Americans and taking embasssy people hostage has led gradually and peacefully to an Iran that is much more to our liking. Unfortuanately it is you who claim to be arguing, but just keep repeating your own assertions. Your faith is touching, but I predict you will actually change your own position as you become more experienced and alas a bit less trusting of even Republican politicians. You might also come to, for you, shocking conclusion that some of the people who go back and forth in the revolving door between the defense industry and the government are mmotivated by the chance to make handsome profits on increased defense contracts. Perhaps if you analyze the economic incentives that played a role in the Enron revolving door with government regulatory agencies and industry you'll gain some insight in the motivation of such types. Eisenhower being an ex military man turned president rather than a defense contractor turned president warned of the 'military- industrial complex". McCarthy got in trouble when he called Eisenhower a communist. You sort of remind me of old Joe McCarthy when you conntually accuse general Powell of being a wimp or some such for not always being in favor of attacking Iraq at all times.
glynch: Thanks for the laugh! Really. I needed that... This war stuff is all so depressing. Kuwait's government is on board. Like it or not. Israel - at least try to present a factual viewpoint there, glynch. You've been trying to inflate the pacifist poll there for a while, and you just can't do it. You are flat out lying here, and I am calling you out on it. Show me stats or shut up. (I can show you some if you'd like?) I will put aside the personal insults, as well as the implication that I'm getting everything off the CIA's public website. I will only remind you that I use many sources, not all of them online. Some of them I am 100% sure that you have no access to. I frankly do not care if you believe that or not. My info is good, and you will read about it in the papers long after I tell you. My info plays itself out. Your has to date yielded zero results... Regarding your post, you were either drunk when you posted it, or you A) know absolutely nothing about Iran, B) Ditto Iraq, C) believe every conspiracy theory ever written, and/or D) probably think that Osama is really behind both Bush's presidency and the Enron debacle. In short, you are an idiot. You know far less than you think that you know, and you expose that shortcoming further with every post you make. Your conspiracy theories are getting old. And you are certainly a Communist - that's not just a conspiracy theory... Social justice, my ass.
Treeman. treeman, treeman, you must be right, after all you say you are! We need to invade Iraq, even if it hasn't been shown that despite a great hunt to do so that Iraq had hardly any contact with the Al Qaeda. At one time only 12% of Americans believed in the emancipation of slaves. etc. At one time only 12% of Americans were against the Vietnam War. There you go calling me a communist again. Will you call General Powell a communist and follow in the footsteps of Joe McCarthy? I believe you live in Houston, but haven't you ever met or at least heard of a leftist who isn't a communist? I asked this before, but do you see any meaningful difference between a liberal democrat, a social democrat, and a communist? I consider myself to be a social democrat ala Sweden. I'm sure in theory you could give some reasons for the US to invade many third world countries; how about Mexico? Don't forget about the Zapatistas, who are against your type of US domination of third world countries. I bet if you searched hard enough you could find a phone contact or even a meeting or two between them and a communist in Cuba. You have never described any meaningful approach to dealing with a country we disagree with aside from military action. As I've pointed out you and Bush don't ever seem to advocate attacking large countries whose policies we disagree with. Explain to me why China which is an undemocratic, still mainly communist country when it comes to politics, can invade Tibet and mistreat the people there, but we do nothing. Bush and others want to give them most favored nation treatment, admission to the WTO etc. They argue that they can most influence them to change by opening them up to contacts with the western world and negotiations. Even something like making them show greater human rights before admission to trading bodies is considered too coercive. Why not try the same approach with Sadam? All you hawks have ever tried is the stick, The poor guy would probably jump all over any real chance to get a real carrot. By the way, don't you believe that we have any political leaders who are motivated by desire to be reelected or a desire to make money later in industry? Haven't you ever asked yourself why the Bush, Cheney, Gramm, Delay etc. offspring never volunteer for the military, are never in combat. They are however, especially as we see with the Bush's, prone to cut deals with oil producers after the fighting. Here is an interesting link opposing your hoped for Iraq war. It is from Pat Buchanan, who I asume you don't believe is a communist. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25924
glynch, Although I'm not particularly in line with treeman's world views, you basically hung yourself with the "give Sadaam a carrot" statement. Which is too bad - the rest of your observations are thought-provoking. But nobody is going to bother with them now.
Zapatistas main concern is self determination, a value supported by the US in MANY instances throughout the world. Tibet, MFN, and the WTO all either happened completely before Bush or were almost complete by the time he took office. Try and come up with something relevant. Maybe the fact that China already HAS nukes makes the equation different? Which makes engagement the logical choice. Also consider that China is not run by a single dictator ala Iraq or North Korea, who could by themselves order the USE of any WMD they have in their arsenal. Seems like keeping those regimes from obtaining that capability is a worthy goal. Finally, when necessary we DO take the stick to China. What else would you call posting the 7th fleet in the Formosa Straits when China rattles their sabers? The carrot approach has been tried and its failed. Even after we crushed his military we stepped back and said 'ok Saddam, we're not gonna try and take you out, just let us make sure you're not developing nukes. When that is confirmed we'll lift sanctions (ala the carrot).' He basically told us to go **** ourselves. He's not interested in your carrot. AND keep in mind that even the 'world opinion' you so galantly flaunt says these inspections are completely reasonable. BTW: Why dont you believe that sources you follow also have the same motivation to gain power and access by converting people to their point of view. Self interest works both ways. President's offspring have served in the military and in combat. which disproves your assertion (Check FDR's son). Check other powerful politicians sons like the Kennedy's. Recently, in our society as a whole, the call to arms is not what it used to be.
