Is Papa Bush Even For War With Iraq?

I posted before that Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser under the first Bush, strong supporter of the Gulf War, was against this latest plan of attacking Iraq. I posted the link, the article, everything. I got ZERO replies. Later I posted that Dick Armey, one of the biggest hawks on Capitol Hill thought it was a bad idea. I got more replies. This article I'm posting here blows my mind. Scowcroft's still talking. Lil George can't stop him, but his dad could. Easy. Apparently he doesn't want to. What's going on here?

What is G.W. thinking? Not only is he ignoring the need for an international coalition for his historic, unprecented, preemptive strike against Iraq, for the purpose only of removing it's recognized leader, but he seems to even be ignoring the need to get his OWN PARTY behind it -- let alone the rest of this country.

If Bush, Sr. had ANY problem at all with the following article, he could place one single call to his own personal soldier Brent Scowcroft and this would be over. Remember, Scowcroft's spoken out on this before. This isn't new. If Dad Bush had any problem with it, Scowcroft would be quiet by now. What's going on here?

Check it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,775532,00.html


US adviser warns of Armageddon

Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday August 16, 2002
The Guardian

One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus yesterday appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon in the Middle East".
The outspoken remarks from Brent Scowcroft, who advised a string of Republican presidents, including Mr Bush's father, represented an embarrassment for the administration on a day it was attempting to rally British public support for an eventual war.

The US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, yesterday spelled out what she called the "very powerful moral case" for toppling Saddam Hussein. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said the Iraqi leader was "an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbours and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us".

But while Ms Rice was making the case for a pre-emptive strike, the rumble of anxiety in the US was growing louder. A string of leading Republicans have expressed unease at the administration's determination to take on President Saddam, but the most damning critique of Mr Bush's plans to date came yesterday from Mr Scowcroft.

The retired general, who also advised Presidents Nixon and Ford, predicted that an attack on Iraq could lead to catastrophe.

"Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East," Mr Scowcroft wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

The Israeli government has vowed it would not stand by in the face of attacks as it did in 1991, when Iraqi Scud missiles landed on Israeli cities. It claims it has Washington's backing for retaliation.

Mr Scowcroft is the elder statesman of the Republican foreign policy establishment, and his views are widely regarded as reflecting those of the first President Bush. The fierceness of his attack on current administration policy illustrates the gulf between the elder Bush and his son, who has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on domestic and foreign policy.

In yesterday's article, Mr Scowcroft argued that by alienating much of the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would halt much of the cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle against the al-Qaida organisation.

"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr Scowcroft wrote.

Both the American and British governments are expected to time a public relations effort to rebuff the critics and build public support in the immediate run-up to an invasion.

Senior Whitehall figures say that crucial in that effort will be evidence that President Saddam is building up Iraq's chemical biological warfare capability and planning to develop nuclear weapons.

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed yesterday that the Pentagon was considering a change in the status of a navy pilot shot down over Iraq 11 years ago. He is currently classified as "missing in action".

There have been reports that Lieutenant-Commander Michael Speicher was still being held by Iraq.

If he was reclassified as a prisoner of war, it would represent an additional source of conflict between Washington and Baghdad.

 

Just remember you read it here. This is not nothing. This is seriously something. If Jr. doesn't have people like Scowcroft and Armey behind him, there will be trouble.

Ref: No matter what's going on behind the scenes (and I agree there's gotta be something), you've got to believe Scowcroft's sincere, right? He IS one of the most respected Republicans on international issues. Does anything he says give you pause?

 

I believe there are thoughtful people in both parties, Refman. The criticism here seems to be that the ones in charge have NOT thought it through.

Mango, you asked about Kissinger? Here's another link. He's got a problem with it too.

From today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/international/middleeast/16IRAQ.html

Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy
By TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER


WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.

These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States.

At the same time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who summoned Mr. Kissinger for a meeting on Tuesday, and his advisers have decided that they should focus international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein — not only in an effort to assure a democracy but as a way to outflank administration hawks and slow the rush to war, which many in the department oppose.

"For those of us who don't see an invasion as an article of faith but as simply a policy option, there is a feeling that you need to give great consideration to what comes after, and that unless you're prepared to follow it through, then you shouldn't begin it," one senior administration official involved in foreign policy said today.

In an opinion article published today in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft, who helped build the broad international coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war, warned that "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken." An attack might provoke Iraq to use chemical or biological weapons in an effort to trigger war between Israel and the Arab world, he said.

His criticism has particular meaning for Mr. Bush because Mr. Scowcroft was virtually a member of the Bush family during the first President Bush's term and has maintained close relations with the former president.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska said that Secretary Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, had recently told President Bush of their concerns about the risks and complexities of a military campaign against Iraq, especially without broad international support. But senior White House and State Department officials said they were unaware of any such meeting.

Also today, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who was briefly secretary of state for Mr. Bush's father, told ABC News that unless Mr. Hussein "has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction, and our intelligence is clear, I don't know why we have to do it now, when all our allies are opposed to it."

Last week, Representative Dick Armey, the House majority leader, raised similar concerns.

The comments by Mr. Scowcroft and others in the Republican foreign policy establishment appeared to be a loosely coordinated effort. Mr. Scowcroft first spoke out publicly 10 days ago on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."

In an opinion article published on Monday in The Washington Post, Mr. Kissinger made a long and complex argument about the international complications of any military campaign, writing that American policy "will be judged by how the aftermath of the military operation is handled politically," a statement that seems to play well with the State Department's strategy.

"Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed," he added. Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.

Through his office in New York, Mr. Kissinger relayed a message that his meeting with Secretary Powell had been scheduled before the publication of his article and was unrelated. But a State Department official said Secretary Powell had wanted Mr. Kissinger's advice on how to influence administration thinking on both Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft wrote that if the United States "were seen to be turning our backs" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute "in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us."

He added: "There is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive."

Richard N. Perle, a former Reagan administration official and one of the leading hawks who has been orchestrating an urgent approach to attacking Iraq, said today that Mr. Scowcroft's arguments were misguided and naïve.

"I think Brent just got it wrong," he said by telephone from France. "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."

Mr. Perle added, "I think it is naïve to believe that we can produce results in the 50-year-old dispute between the Israelis and the Arabs, and therefore this is an excuse for not taking action."

Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.

He said he shared Mr. Kissinger's concern that Mr. Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes at governments armed with weapons of mass destruction could induce India to attack Pakistan and could create the political cover for Israel to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.

"You can take the country into a war pretty fast," Mr. Hagel said, "but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are."

He added, "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."

For months, the State Department's approach has been to focus on how to build a government in Iraq.

After meetings here last week involving Iraqi opposition groups and administration officials, one official said today that there was now consensus in the State Department that if more discussion was focused on the challenge of creating a post-Hussein government, "that would start broaching the question of what kind of assistance you are going to need from the international community to assure this structure endures — read between the lines, how long the occupation will have to be."

Such discussions, the official added, would have a sobering effect on the war-planners.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far, among hawkish Republicans who strongly supported the Gulf War and strongly question this latest proposed action, that's Scowcroft, Kissinger, Eagleburger, Armey and Hagel. And the only serious defense from the Bush team is that we have to do this because Bush said we were going to and it would set back the war on terrorism if he went back on his word. Are these guys even talking to each other?

 

Ref: If the Senate approves the action, it would certainly be more of a mandate. If the world opposes it, we're still looking for hella trouble. But even if everyone gets behind it, I will personally oppose it for the reasons all these Republicans are. If the administration provides proof that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 or is about to lay hands on nukes (not say he wants them, but is actually about to get them), my position would change. My personal position on this is not tied to congressional or international approval. I was strongly opposed to the Gulf War and I still think it was a bad deal. There are other military actions I've been for (WWII, Somalia, Bosnia).

Max: we're not splitting on party lines here because there aren't party lines here. There appear to be as many prominent Republicans against this action as are for it. In fact, there seem to be more. Outside of the administration, there are no strong Republicans calling for war. Inside the administration it's understood that Powell is against it, but will do what he is told as usual. It seems right now that Bush, Cheney and Rice are prepared to take on the world on this, with wavering support from England and the support of one stridently pro-Israel/anti-PLO/anti-Iraq Dem.

Being for military action is no longer the province of the right or the left. It depends on the situation. Each party has their pet military projects, generally opposed by the other party. This particular military action does not have concensus from either party. I am always against military action when the reason to undertake it (right now) and exit strategy are unclear. That is certainly the case here. Not a partisan thing. Bush said he felt the same way during the prez debates. Now he, Cheney and Rice are the only prominent voices in favor of an action whose urgency and exit strategy is unclear.

RocketMan Tex: This idea that the split is about moderate Republicans speaking out is a nice one, but unfortunately untrue. These are mostly conservatives speaking out, who almost always err to the hawkish side. Further, Bush was supposed to BE one of those moderates.