Roundup: Iraq Policy Triggers Heated Debate in US

Home>>World

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Sunday, September 01, 2002

Roundup: Iraq Policy Triggers Heated Debate in US

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

The Bush administration's stated policy of seeking a regime change in Iraq and threatening to use force if necessary has not only caused widespread concern in the international community but also triggered a heated debate within the United States.

As a fresh war with Iraq would have a far-reaching impact on US politics, economy and diplomacy as well as on the world as a whole, the recent unity has given way to an open and frank debate on the issue that largely reflects partisan sentiments from various circles in the US.

However, handicapped by an intentional official policy of demonizing Baghdad, few US politicians are willing to take the risk of appearing to defend a hostile country like Iraq. They fear jeopardizing their own political futures, especially when political correctness prevailed nationwide in the aftermath of the September 11 incident.

But this did not prevent House Majority (Republican) leader Dick Armey, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel from coming out to voice their opposition to a preemptive strike against Iraq.

Armey stressed that using force without clearer provocation is unjustified, while Albright believed that Iraq does not pose a "direct threat" to the United States and has been well contained by the UN sanctions imposed 12 years ago.

Echoing Armey and Albright, Senator Hagel has pointed out that an unprovoked military strike against Iraq would go against two centuries of US foreign policy and could tempt other nations to follow a US example. "A lot of uncontrollable and unintended consequences could well flow from this," he was quoted as saying recently.

In an different approach to the opposition voices, those favoring an eventual regime change in Iraq, but advocating a more prudent approach, are gaining increasing attention in the ongoing debate in the United States. In part this can be explained by some of the voices coming from such experienced Republican politicians as former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and one time presidential national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

Questions raised range from whether the administration has made a convincing case against Iraq, the timing of military action, the cost of the war, post-war arrangements, and diplomatic support and consequences.

According to Kissinger, a preemptive approach would challenge the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which laid down the principal of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states.

More immediately, it would run counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force only in self-defense and not against potential threats, he said in recent newspaper articles and interviews.

He advised the Bush administration to work out a comprehensive strategy based on long-term US interests when formulating a first-strike plan against Iraq and to take the opportunity to build a new international order.

Scowcroft, together with another former Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, and other members of the Republican establishment, have also expressed concerns about the foreign policy price that the United States would pay if it goes it alone in carrying out military strikes against Iraq.

"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken," Scowcroft, an advisor to the sitting president's father during the 1991 Gulf War, wrote recently in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, a Democrat, also favored a go-slow approach and pressed for an open debate to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a war with Iraq, especially on issues like post-Saddam arrangements in Iraq.

To the Bush administration's satisfaction, some other prominent figures, including House Minority (Democrat) leader Dick Gephardt, House Majority (Republican) Whip Tom DeLay, and Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman, a former vice presidential candidate, are rallying behind the administration and calling for a military campaign to topple the Iraqi government led by President Saddam.

Speaking on the record, Gephardt and Lieberman recently issued statements strongly advocating an earlier US military attack on Iraq.

Responding to the domestic debate, the Bush administration insists that it has not yet made up its mind. It also said it is patient and will consult with Congress and US allies before making a final decision.

Questions?Comments? Click here

Iraq Seeks Lebanon's Support against US Military Strike

Germany to Withdraw Anti-terror Troops if US Attacks Iraq: Defense Minister

France Reaffirms Opposition to Unilateral Action on Iraq

>> Full Coverage

Highly Concerning China, US Plans to Deploy New Fighters in Guam ( 5 Messages)

Japanese Court Dismisses Germ Warfare Victims' Damages Claim ( 3 Messages)

China Plans to Stop the Overeas Flight of Corrupt Officials ( 14 Messages)

China's Exports Hit Record of US$56.2 Billion in July ( 96 Messages)

Old Chinese Beaten by NY Police, Triggers off Big Clash ( 47 Messages)