Stratfor and the Associated Press are reporting that former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, supposedly a personal friend of Saddam Hussein, visited Baghdad on Feb. 23. The purpose and results of the meeting remain secret, but a statement from Moscow reveals that the Iraqi president was asked -- and agreed -- to cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Saddam has apparently agreed to destroy Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles, the ones causing such a stink in Washington for exceeding the 93-mile limit by less than 20 miles. Stratfor goes further, saying that Saddam has also agreed to a version of the Franco-German plan to introduce a flood of U.N. troops to back up weapons inspectors within in the next 10 days to show the Security Council that Iraq has been unconditionally disarmed.
Saddam Hussein will "do anything that he reasonably can that is honorable and protective of the sovereignty of his people to prevent war," said former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark after meeting with Hussein on Monday. Clark is active in the anti-war movement.
(In an interview prior to Primakov's visit, Saddam told CBS' Dan Rather that Iraq would not destroy the al-Samoud 2 missiles and instead challenged the U.S. president to a televised debate. Perhaps Primakov reality checked Saddam?)
Still... Stratfor also mentioned a request from Saddam to Russian President Vladimir Putin to deliver a secret communiqué to U.S. and British energy companies, inviting them back to Iraq after 30 years of being kept out. If Washington calls off the dogs of war, the companies will be allowed to immediately return. A Russian envoy is expected to deliver the terms of this deal to Bush in the coming days.
French president Jacques Chirac was reportedly enthusiastic for the deal, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair was said to have reacted favorably. Washington has had no reaction yet, of course, and there's no way to ascertain how genuine this offer from Saddam is. Has Saddam blinked, as he sometimes has in the past? And given that it's likely this proposal will embolden France, Russia and China, all "P-5" members of the UNSCR to throw up more diplomatic roadblocks, will U.S. president George W. Bush accept this proposal as a face-saving plan to avoid an unpopular and costly war?
Initial statements from White House spokesman Ari Fleischer indicate that the White House will reject this idea. (This is probably another exchange between Helen Thomas of Hearst Newspapers and Fleischer, but it's unclear from the Feb. 24 briefing.)
The U.N. weapons inspectors have determined that Iraq has this missile which exceeds limits that it agreed to, or were imposed on it by the U.N. Hans Blix has said it should be destroyed. If Iraq destroys those missiles, why isn't that concrete progress toward disarmament?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, we expect that Saddam Hussein will destroy those missiles. The United Nations Security Council has called on it to do so, and unless he engages in further defiance, we expect that he will. But, number two, as the President said over the weekend, that would just be the tip of the iceberg. And the reason for that is when a criminal holds a gun to your head and takes one bullet out of the chamber, you still have to worry about all the rest of the bullets in the chamber, because they can kill you, too.
And the fact is, with Saddam Hussein, he still has not shown the world that he has disarmed from the VX, the nerve agents, the botulin, the anthrax, all of which the United Nations found that he had in his possession in the late 1990s, which he has yet to account for. That's the fear about what's in the rest of the gun, in the other chamber -- in the chamber in the gun.
So there's no way that Iraq can do anything, really, to avoid war? Because if they begin to dismantle their weapons, the President still believes that they've got other bullets in the chamber and is --
MR. FLEISCHER: Under Security Council Resolution 1441, which was passed in November last year, Iraq had an obligation to immediately and fully disarm from all the weapons that were prohibited -- and I just cited several of them. So if Iraq were to take one missile out of the chamber that they left in the chamber -- VX, sarin, botulin, anthrax -- the world still has a lot to worry about.
I understand. And you won't wait to see whether the French proposal or any other proposal could get them to take those bullets out of the chamber -- you aren't willing to take "yes" for an answer here on the missiles and anything else?
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that the resolution passed in November and called for full and immediate compliance, "yes" has not been a word that anybody has heard out of Iraq.
The White House will likely reject this idea for a number of reasons:
- It doesn't achieve the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Perle plan for the Middle East as a collection of satrapys friendly to United States energy and security needs;
- The world would breathe a sigh of relief not only because war was averted but also because American hegemony was thwarted. Even though Washington could back down gracefully by saying the U.S. military build-up pressured Iraq into complying and accepting peacekeeping troops, other nations ruled megalomaniacal madmen -- yeah, I'm talkin' to you, North Korea -- with nukes would likely see this as a sign of weakness;
- The American domestic political backlash could be fierce.
The last item deserves special mention. And I will get to it.
But first, some will say Saddam is not serious, because if he allows blue-helmets all over the country and fully disarms, he will appear weak to his own people, to other Arab leaders and would not be long for this world. His dream of establishing himself as a modern-day Saladin would be over -- and so, too, would his presidency.
But Saddam is a canny old fox, still, and here I veer into speculation, although of the informed sort. The Iraqi people are dreading war and the destruction it would bring. While they would not be happy to see Saddam stay in power, they likely would be happy not to be blown up by American JDAM bombs. The Iraqis I met while traveling were fairly fatalistic. They've suffered this long, they feel, the next life will be better.
(The INC and other members of the Iraqi opposition will scream bloody murder, of course, but no one takes them that seriously anyway. The Kurds also would not be happy with this and might -- I repeat, might -- declare independence.)
The leaders of the rest of the Arab world already hate Saddam and know that he's effectively defanged by U.N. sanctions. And while they no doubt feel sympathy for the suffering Iraqi people, Arab leaders would consider the plight of suffering Iraqis like they do the suffering of the Palestinians -- very useful for distracting their publics from toppling their own authoritarian governments, assuming the U.N. sanctions regime is continued.
And lastly, if Saddam remains in power after a U.S. military build-up, even if it results in U.N. troops all over Baghdad, it will still be seen as a victory for him and a humiliating loss for George W. Bush. Bush can't allow that to happen. Partly out of conviction and partly out of political necessity, Bush has positioned himself on the side of angels in this looming war with his evangelical rhetoric of good and evil. The Christian Right, neocons and other hawks who have taken a hard-line on Iraq believe they are doing God's work, more or less, and if you've got God on your side, you don't dicker with the devil. Bush, himself, may be willing to cut a deal and get this whole mess over with, but I don't think his right flank will allow him to do that. He's very conscious of the suspicion with which the Christian right viewed his father. And he's likewise aware of how Bush I's "no new taxes" pledge came back and bit him in the ass. If Bush II leaves Saddam in power, he will be facing a double whammy with his base for leaving an evil tyrant in power and for breaking a commitment to "regime change."
This won't cause evangelicals and others on the hard right to vote for a Democrat of course, but if the economy continues to shuffle along, and North Korea continues to thumb its nose at the United States, Bush's numbers likely will continue their gravitationally assisted movement. A primary challenger could emerge from Bush's right, siphoning off his base. And if the current weakness of the Democratic field stays steady (Kucinich? Kerry? Give me a break), red-meat conservatives might not be so afraid to take a chance with another GOP candidate.
And that could be Saddam's game, in effect becoming the Fidel Castro of the Middle East. If he can't liberate Jerusalem, Saddam might be satisfied with humiliating both Bush I and II, especially if his continued survival was a deciding factor in ending both presidencies. Yeah, I think he'd be quite happy with that.
Which is why the White House can't allow him to stick around.
Brilliant analysis. There is one thing I would add. Should Bush back down (and I pray every hour he does), the electorate will never forgive him for terrifying them.
“The Christian Right, neocons and other hawks who have taken a hard-line on Iraq believe they are doing God’s work, more or less, and if you’ve got God on your side, you don’t dicker with the devil. Bush, himself, may be willing to cut a deal and get this whole mess over with, but I don’t think his right flank will allow him to do that. He’s very conscious of the suspicion with which the Christian right viewed his father.”
Uh, yeah, right … you actually believe that foreign policy decisions are made with regard to millennial considerations. Dur.
Excellent analasys!
I heard on TV just this morning - Hans Blix in a live news conference that Saddam has still said no to destroying the missiles. We seem to have some conflicts on time-lines when statements were made?
Analysis? You need to know what you’re talking about before you can analyze. Leading your reader through contortions of rumor and leftist shibboleths to get to a conclusion enunciated for over a year by the administration is a masturbatory practice. It’s the regime change stupid.
[Edited by B2I management to correct spelling of “masterbatory.” And there should be a comma before “stupid.”]
Very astute!
I have been maintaining for quite a while now that the actual fundament of this intended war is religious in nature and that the Wolfowitz strategem of pre-emption is really just Manifest Destiny in drag.
Well, I don’t know that the war is “religious” in nature… And I don’t think Bush’s millennial considerations enter into it. I do think that once Bush set himself on this course, his core supporters signed on to it with a vengeance. And they do have a reglious, millennial stance. So Bush can’t afford to ignore them, even if he may not hold them himself.
And casca, “regime change” isn’t enough. Why regime change? Why does it have to be that and only that? I’ve been writing about what I think are the real reasons for this since Nov. 14… You’re a newcomer.
Christopher,
I didn’t mean “religious in nature” in the sense of pitting Christianity against Islam (though I wouldn’t doubt there are some subconscious undercurrents of that), I meant that the basis for the rationales of the pre-eminence policies in general and the immediate push for war with Iraq are parallel to those which made Manifest Destiny a plausible idea in its day. I see both predicated on the idea of “divine right”.
LCD, Scowcroft & Company thought that kicking Saddam out of Kuwait would be a sufficient lesson ala dropping a 500lb bomb on Khaddafi’s house. The expected noises from Iraq would have been Saddam crawling back in his box. Although he pretended to, it didn’t happen, and with the advent of the Clinton administration, the bad guys of this world concluded that they could do as they wished with impunity, and they were right. Check out Charles Krauthammer’s “Holiday from History”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5709-2003Feb13.html.
Now we are engaged in correcting the consequence of doing nothing for a decade. Why regime change? Because we know we can’t trust Saddam to play by the rules. He is quintessentially a meglomaniac. There is no way to make a deal with him, so it is time for him to exit the stage. Were he rational, he’d move to a mansion on the Med in Libia.
I’m a newcomer eh, LMAO? Well, since I’ve been a student of National Security Policy since the mid-70’s on one level or another, and have actually participated in the governmental decision making process, what can I say?
There are other minor reasons for regime change. In the bad old days, during the draft, when you showed up to bootcamp, the senior drill instructor would single out a big guy, and beat him to his knees. You can believe that everyone else noticed, and drew the appropriate conclusions.
As I’ve said elsewhere on this site, we have delegitimized Arafat, who has single-handedly kept war alive in the hearts of the Palestineans. At some point here, Sharon is going to deal with his murdering ass. The mullahs are ready to fall, and once we are next door, we may be able to facilitate the removal of the main pillar of the axis of evil without military force. It’s worth remembering here, that the jibbering ass that is Jimmy Carter put them in power by knocking the pins out from under the Shah, and they’ve been exporting terrorism around the world ever since. They are Osama’s fellow travelers.
Finally, Iraq sans Saddam no longer needs to be a police state, nor do they require nuclear physicists.
LOL, please feel free to correct my spelling and punctuation. I find it representative of the nitpicking way you reason.
Casca, when Mr. Allbritton said you were a “newcomer,” I think he meant a recent reader of his site. He’s been writing about the Iraqi situation since the summer of 2002.
There is no right-wing crypto-christian plan for ruling the world, or if there is the bastards have left me out of the loop, but I don’t think they would.
Casca - your arguments are all analogies, misrepresentations and misunderstandings. You have provided no reason for Austalian taxpayers to be happy about spending billions in an adventure half a world away.
Great article Chris.
Thanks!
One “right-wing crypto-christian plan for ruling the world” coming up!
I hate to piss in your wheaties Chris, but the market for stupidity is saturated. That’s why there’s no money in it.
Your link to:
“The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” just shows how far out in left field you and your accolytes are.
As for 24601, nice attempt at dismissing my comments without addressing any of them. You should follow Chris’ methodology of pointing to irrelevent examples. As for Aussie participation in the official version of Back2Iraq, I couldn’t possibly care less, and I reserve my maximum antipathy for their state of happiness. Foreign militaries, even our English speaking cousins, only add confusion on the battlefield, and why should we be subsidizing your military training anyway? Now go back to buggering Joeys.
Ah yes. Confusion on the battlefield. Always a nasty problem. I see the US has just awarded Bronze Stars to the four Canadian soldiers they confusedly killed in Afghanistan. Won’t bring them back, but it’s a decent gesture all the same.
So if you don’t need anyone else, can the UK go home too, Casca?
“Because we know we can’t trust Saddam to play by the rules.”
If you mean he will no longer obey US dictates, sure.
“Arafat, who has single-handedly kept war alive in the hearts of the Palestineans.”
With generous assistance in the project from Israeli leaders, who continue waging war on the Palestinians.
“He is quintessentially a meglomaniac.”
megalomaniac: An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions. See Casca, re: “the senior drill instructor would single out a big guy, and beat him to his knees”.
“It’s worth remembering here, that the jibbering ass that is Jimmy Carter put them in power by knocking the pins out from under the Shah”
The Shah’s pins were failing already, his health was in question, and keeping him in power would have required a massive campaign of democide - for which it’s debatable whether he could have kept the military under enough control to do so.
“The mullahs are ready to fall”
Let it be added that this has had little or nothing to do with us, except that if it weren’t for us they never would have taken power in the first place.
Wellington said it best, when asked what he thought his allies might do to the enemy, he replied, “I don’t know WHAT they might do to the enemy…. but they scare the HELL out of me”.
As for AAAAAaaaaart, I’ve dismissed you as a quibbling liar.
”? but they scare the HELL out of me.”
Ah, Casca, you do have a knack for a quotation, don’t you? This one really nails the sensation that most of America’s closest allies are feeling right now.
LOL, some perhaps, but they deserve to shiver in the night if they’re going to piss their pants over something like Saddam. You, on the other hand, seem to have a knack for speaking for the collective. Did you learn that from Jessie Jackson? Actually, you turkeys (the socialist left) are the very vocal minority among the English Speaking Peoples of the world. It’s my impression that when over 60% of the American people agree to do anything, they’re probably right.
Good God, I know you are the “peace at any price” crowd, but don’t take this Donahue thing so hard. Get up off the floor, and fight on.
I just watched W’s comments to the hispanic something or other, and they were moving and inspirational. First, he told them that he wasn’t going to let the radical left block judicial appointments, and that Estrada was his man and W was going to stand behind him to the end. (Standing Ovation from the crowd) Then he moved on to Saddam, and observed that the Iraqi’s were now complying with weapons discovery, you know, the weapons they said they didn’t have, or words to that effect. He got a laugh from the crowd that acknowledged that we haven’t seen obfuscation like this since Hillary lost her billing records, and Bill forgot what “is” means.
Left? Left…? Heck, you Americans don’t know the meaning of the word “left”.
Me, I hail from a city that elected a for-real Communist alderman to the city council for thirty straight years, from 1933 right the way through the whole McCarthyist era. Just one of ‘em. Out of sheer cussedness.
Also, the current mayor is openly gay. And — this will really boggle your mind — it wasn’t an issue when he campaigned for office. He won by convincing people he could manage the city’s finances more responsibly than his profligate Conservative predecessor.
(Call that a knife? This is a knife.)