"Don't Leave Hussein with Nothing Left to Lose," Cautions the CIA

0 views
Skip to first unread message

koffka

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 10:57:54 AM2/20/03
to
This is worth repeating over and over again...

http://www.iraqpolicy.com/swarticles/26326996.html

"Don't Leave Hussein with Nothing Left to Lose," Cautions the CIA

Iraq is more likely to use chemical or biological weapons if the US backs
Saddam Hussein into a corner -- exactly the outcome the Bush Administration
is trying to forestall. This is the conclusion of US intelligence agencies
and other military experts. It undercuts President Bush's insistence on US
war with Iraq, exposing a primary cause of the growing rift between the
White House and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the one side, and the
intelligence community and much of the expert foreign and military community
on the other.

A recent, classified National Intelligence Estimate, which includes the
views of all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that in the
absence of US military action, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to
initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.
However, the report concluded, "should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack
could no longer be deterred," he might launch a chemical-biological
counterattack. Hussein might "decide that the extreme step of assisting
Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack
against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by
taking a large number of victims with him."

The Senate intelligence committee received a declassified "white paper"
drawn from the report, along with an October 7 letter from CIA Director
George J. Tenet that declassified further parts of the study and a dialogue
between Senator Levin and an unidentified senior intelligence official that
took place during a closed hearing.

The letter revealed the following exchange. In response to Sen. Levin's
question about the likelihood of Saddam using chemical or biological
weapons, the intelligence official replied, "in the foreseeable future,
given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be
low." Levin then asked: "If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in
extremis . . . what's the likelihood in response to our attack that he would
use chemical or biological weapons?" The answer came: "Pretty high."

Military officials echo warning

Tenet's assessment confirms the concerns of experienced military
professionals. General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 23rd: "We
do know that if we attack him, and leave him with no alternative, that he
will use weapons of mass destruction, because he has nothing to lose."

During the first Gulf War, many analysts believe that Saddam did not use
chemical weapons because US officials provided assurances that his personal
survival was not at risk. Today that situation is reversed. General Clark
emphasized that the Bush plan risks pushing Saddam into a self-destructive
mode: "The man has a very strong survival instinct, and it is his survival
that we now propose to attack."

Preemptive Strike from Saddam Hussein?

Just as President Bush is considering a "preemptive" (or actually
preventive) strike against Iraq, Saddam could perceive that war is
inevitable and adopt a similar strategy. General Clark cautioned the U. S.
senators they should not discount the possibility Saddam already has in
place the means to kill Americans on U. S. soil:

"In this connection I think we need to contemplate as one possible cost of
war with Iraq the very strong possibility that as stupid and independent as
Saddam is, he has noticed that we are coming to get him, since we've been
saying that for years, and threatening vociferously over the past year, and
has taken appropriate steps to pre-position retaliatory means in the United
States."

Former U. S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, in a recent speech,
warned that the U. S. could expect an eye-for-an-eye response: "One lesson
of September 11th that we need to recall more than any other is that if we
attack someone else's homeland in this day and age, we can expect that our
own homeland will be attacked. We know that if we attack Saddam he will use
weapons of mass destruction in whatever way he can. We don't know, however,
what preparations he's made."

Homeland Insecurities

In the past year, federal and municipal authorities have been struggling to
address the myriad vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the country's ability
to respond to terrorist attacks. Now that an attack on Iraq is a distinct
possibility, the government is planning additional measures in response to a
heightened risk, including a crash effort to create a national stockpile of
vaccine for use in a smallpox emergency, at a cost of about $1 billion. The
Pentagon already has plans to vaccinate up to 500,000 troops and debates
continue over which Americans to vaccinate at home - perhaps thousands of
health care workers perhaps, or perhaps many tens of thousands of health,
emergency and law-enforcement workers.

In another indication of worrisome predictions, the Pentagon has plans to
call up large numbers of reservists, far in excess of those needed for
combat duty. That is because many units, especially those in the National
Guard, would be expected to play an important role in protecting an array of
potential terrorist targets in the United States, including power plants,
transportation hubs, medical centers and factories.

An Iraq-Al Qaeda alliance as Hussein's "last resort"

Intelligence experts believe Saddam has long kept Islamic terrorists at arm'
s length because of their underlying hostility to his secular regime,
fearing that he might someday become their target. However, faced with
death or ignominious exile, he might make an alliance with terrorists. As
Amb. Freeman noted: " If Saddam's survival is at stake he will have a large
incentive to overcome his antipathy to religious nuts and make common cause
with them."

Contact:
Trevor FitzGibbon, Fenton Communications, 202-822-5200


Captain Compassion

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 8:22:10 PM2/20/03
to
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:57:54 GMT, "koffka" <kof...@home.se> wrote:

>This is worth repeating over and over again...
>
>http://www.iraqpolicy.com/swarticles/26326996.html
>
>"Don't Leave Hussein with Nothing Left to Lose," Cautions the CIA
>
>Iraq is more likely to use chemical or biological weapons if the US backs
>Saddam Hussein into a corner -- exactly the outcome the Bush Administration
>is trying to forestall. This is the conclusion of US intelligence agencies
>and other military experts. It undercuts President Bush's insistence on US
>war with Iraq, exposing a primary cause of the growing rift between the
>White House and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the one side, and the
>intelligence community and much of the expert foreign and military community
>on the other.
>

I thought that Iraq didn't have chemical or biological weapons?

If you know a Tyrant is evil but yet perfer inaction over action then
you yourself are evil.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"After an hour of paceing the Doctor says 'Emo your Grandmother is on
an artifical life support system but although her brain is dead her
heart is still beating'. I said Oh my God, we never had a Democrat in
our family before." -- Emo Phillips.

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

"...observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists amidst all
their appeals to nature and pleas for 'harmony with nature' there is
no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival.
Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot
survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision
i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears..." - AYN RAND
"The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left, 136.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky

Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net

koffka

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 11:52:07 PM2/20/03
to

"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3e557e5b...@news.verizon.net...

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:57:54 GMT, "koffka" <kof...@home.se> wrote:
>
> >This is worth repeating over and over again...
> >
> >http://www.iraqpolicy.com/swarticles/26326996.html
> >
> >"Don't Leave Hussein with Nothing Left to Lose," Cautions the CIA
> >
> >Iraq is more likely to use chemical or biological weapons if the US backs
> >Saddam Hussein into a corner -- exactly the outcome the Bush
Administration
> >is trying to forestall. This is the conclusion of US intelligence
agencies
> >and other military experts. It undercuts President Bush's insistence on
US
> >war with Iraq, exposing a primary cause of the growing rift between the
> >White House and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the one side, and
the
> >intelligence community and much of the expert foreign and military
community
> >on the other.
> >
> I thought that Iraq didn't have chemical or biological weapons?

He might or he might not, that's what the inspectors are trying to find out.
If he has them and it comes to war he'll use them and a lot more than the
estimated (by the UN) 500.000 might be killed or injured.

And not befriend them as the US (and others to a lesser extent) has done
over and over again in the past to defend its own interests. If bombing and
killing innocents is the right kind of action is another question.

Which countries run by Tyrants will the US go after next? Your old friend
Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Your new friends in Eurasia? North Korea is bound to
be on the list. And Iran of course. China? Libya? Syria? Vietnam again
perhaps? Burma? Laos? All the african dictatorships? The list goes on and
you have to bomb them all if anything but bombing is inaction and inaction
is evil.

Captain Compassion

unread,
Feb 21, 2003, 1:34:24 AM2/21/03
to

The Japaneese planes amd ships that Bombed Pearl harbor were built in
part with scrap Iron provided by the US. Should our decision to fight
back have taken that into consideration? You know that things do
change don't you? In 1945 the Soviet Union and the US were allies. 5
years later they were locked in the cold war that would last for over
40 years.

>Which countries run by Tyrants will the US go after next? Your old friend
>Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Your new friends in Eurasia? North Korea is bound to
>be on the list. And Iran of course. China? Libya? Syria? Vietnam again
>perhaps? Burma? Laos? All the african dictatorships? The list goes on and
>you have to bomb them all if anything but bombing is inaction and inaction
>is evil.
>

There seems to be an abundance of evil out there. It's best to go
after the evil that is the most threatning.

koffka

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 1:37:38 AM2/25/03
to
> >> If you know a Tyrant is evil but yet perfer inaction over action then
> >> you yourself are evil.
> >
> >And not befriend them as the US (and others to a lesser extent) has done
> >over and over again in the past to defend its own interests. If bombing
and
> >killing innocents is the right kind of action is another question.
> >
> The Japaneese planes amd ships that Bombed Pearl harbor were built in
> part with scrap Iron provided by the US. Should our decision to fight
> back have taken that into consideration? You know that things do
> change don't you? In 1945 the Soviet Union and the US were allies. 5
> years later they were locked in the cold war that would last for over
> 40 years.

Yep, things change, in those days the US would never have considered
launching a preemtive war, the japanese however did just that when bombing
Pearl Harbour ("a date which will live in infamy", FDR). Now the Bush regime
want to do just that, risking thousands of innocent lives, before all
alternatives have been depleted, and without the support of the UN. The
combination preemtive and without the UN is like opening Pandoras box, bye
bye international law.

> >Which countries run by Tyrants will the US go after next? Your old friend
> >Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Your new friends in Eurasia? North Korea is bound
> to
> >be on the list. And Iran of course. China? Libya? Syria? Vietnam again
> >perhaps? Burma? Laos? All the african dictatorships? The list goes on and
> >you have to bomb them all if anything but bombing is inaction and
inaction
> >is evil.
> >
> There seems to be an abundance of evil out there. It's best to go
> after the evil that is the most threatning.

North Korea then.

Captain Compassion

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 1:55:52 AM2/25/03
to
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:37:38 GMT, "koffka" <kof...@home.se> wrote:

>> >> If you know a Tyrant is evil but yet perfer inaction over action then
>> >> you yourself are evil.
>> >
>> >And not befriend them as the US (and others to a lesser extent) has done
>> >over and over again in the past to defend its own interests. If bombing
>and
>> >killing innocents is the right kind of action is another question.
>> >
>> The Japaneese planes amd ships that Bombed Pearl harbor were built in
>> part with scrap Iron provided by the US. Should our decision to fight
>> back have taken that into consideration? You know that things do
>> change don't you? In 1945 the Soviet Union and the US were allies. 5
>> years later they were locked in the cold war that would last for over
>> 40 years.
>
>Yep, things change, in those days the US would never have considered
>launching a preemtive war, the japanese however did just that when bombing
>Pearl Harbour ("a date which will live in infamy", FDR). Now the Bush regime
>want to do just that, risking thousands of innocent lives, before all
>alternatives have been depleted, and without the support of the UN. The
>combination preemtive and without the UN is like opening Pandoras box, bye
>bye international law.
>

Whats preemptive about this. In 1991 Iraq was defeated over their
preemptive attack their neighbor. They lost to a military force lead
by the US. As part ot Iraqi surrender the agreed to destroy their
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq didn't. It's now time to finish it.

>> >Which countries run by Tyrants will the US go after next? Your old friend
>> >Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Your new friends in Eurasia? North Korea is bound
>> to
>> >be on the list. And Iran of course. China? Libya? Syria? Vietnam again
>> >perhaps? Burma? Laos? All the african dictatorships? The list goes on and
>> >you have to bomb them all if anything but bombing is inaction and
>inaction
>> >is evil.
>> >
>> There seems to be an abundance of evil out there. It's best to go
>> after the evil that is the most threatning.
>
>North Korea then.
>

They may well be in the Queue.

Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net

George

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 2:53:07 AM2/25/03
to

"koffka" <kof...@home.se> wrote in message
news:6W65a.11491$FF4.6...@newsb.telia.net...

> This is worth repeating over and over again...
>
> http://www.iraqpolicy.com/swarticles/26326996.html
>
> "Don't Leave Hussein with Nothing Left to Lose," Cautions the CIA

He certainly has nothing to gain by doing what this article suggests. For
him, its a lose-lose situation all around.

Achan Back

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 6:39:37 AM2/25/03
to
"koffka" <kof...@home.se> wrote in message news:<6W65a.11491$FF4.6...@newsb.telia.net>...
> This is worth repeating over and over again...
>
> http://www.iraqpolicy.com/swarticles/26326996.html
>
> "Don't Leave Hussein with Nothing Left to Lose," Cautions the CIA
>
> Iraq is more likely to use chemical or biological weapons if the US backs
> Saddam Hussein into a corner -- exactly the outcome the Bush Administration
> is trying to forestall. This is the conclusion of US intelligence agencies
> and other military experts. It undercuts President Bush's insistence on US
> war with Iraq, exposing a primary cause of the growing rift between the
> White House and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the one side, and the
> intelligence community and much of the expert foreign and military community
> on the other.
>

Where is the Net Gain?
Remember, also, the first casualty of an attack upon Iraq will be
international cooperation against al-Qaeda, especially threats
directed at the US. International police and Intelligence
cooperation is critical for protecting the US against al-Qaeda.

AG

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages