Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has convened an emergency parliamentary session to consider the recently approved resolution in the United Nations to inspect Iraqi sites with suspected weapons of mass destruction, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Nov. 8).

“The National Assembly is expected to express support for Iraq’s leadership and mandate it to take the decision it deems to be in the interest of the Iraqi people,” a source close to the Iraqi Parliament said.

The Parliament is expected to criticize the new U.N. resolution, echoing official comments that it is “bad and unfair,” as a source said to the official Iraqi News Agency Saturday.  The source also said that Baghdad is “quietly studying” the resolution, indicating that Hussein might agree to it by the Nov. 15 deadline (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Nov. 11).

Arab League Urges Iraqi Support

Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo yesterday said that Iraq would probably comply with the new U.N. resolution.  After a day-long meeting, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said “no decision has been taken” on Iraq’s acceptance of the new resolution.  Arab League sources, however, said Sabri had told them that Iraq would probably comply.

In a statement, the participants of yesterday’s meeting urged Hussein to accept the new resolution as part of an effort “to solve all standing issues peacefully in preparation for the lifting of sanctions and the end of the (U.N.) embargo as well as the suffering of the Iraqi people.”

Also in the statement, the Arab League foreign ministers asserted their “absolute rejection” of military action against Iraq.  Several Arab states see the U.N. resolution as a means of avoiding war in the region, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“The U.N. resolution provides the opportunity for a peaceful settlement,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said.  “The resolution has pushed the phantom of war into the distance for several weeks or several months.  Our goal is to spare Iraq and the region from a military strike,” he said.

At yesterday’s meeting, Arab leaders indicated to Sabri that they would not support Iraq if it were ignore the resolution, the Times reported.

“We’re telling Iraq the Americans are really serious and this time we’re not with you,” said a senior adviser to one Arab delegation.  “If you reject the resolution, you’re on your own.  You’ve got no choice,” the source said (David Lamb, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11).

Syria Votes Yes

Meanwhile, Syria voted to support the new U.N. resolution on Iraq because of assurances from permanent Security Council members that it would not be used as a pretext for military action, Syrian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad has said.  The resolution also reaffirmed the council’s primary role in dealing with Iraq and preserved Iraq’s sovereignty, he said.

Some experts said that Syria gave its support to the resolution because it feared being on the losing side of the vote.  Syria voted yes because once France, Russia and China — which had each opposed the U.S. draft — gave their support, Syria did not want to be seen as “the odd one out,” said Walid Kazziha, a professor of politics at the American University in Cairo.

“For Syria, the priority is the Israeli-Palestinian issue,” Kazziha said.  “Syria does not want to be in the U.S.’s bad books on this point” (Edith Lederer Associated Press/Jordan Times, Nov. 10).

U.S. View

U.S. officials have begun to urge Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolution, raising the threat of military action if he does not, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“If (Hussein) doesn’t comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on CNN’s Late Edition.  “If the U.N. isn’t willing to do that, the United States, with like-minded nations, will go and disarm him forcefully.”

Under the new resolution, Hussein has until Dec. 8 to declare or surrender all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs and U.N. inspectors have a Feb. 21 deadline to report to the Security Council.  Powell indicated, however, that the United States might not wait until the February report to determine whether Iraq is complying.

“We’re not going to wait until February to see if Iraq is cooperating or not,” Powell said.  U.S. and U.N. officials “will be able to make a judgment as to cooperation very quickly, not sometime in February,” he added.

Hussein “knows if he violates this resolution, military force is coming in to take him and his regime out,” Powell said (Lamb, Los Angeles Times).

U.S. War Plans

Senior U.S. military officials have said that the Bush administration has decided on an invasion plan for Iraq based on capturing most of the country quickly and isolating Baghdad, but the administration is also envisioning that Hussein will be overthrown before U.S. troops attack the city, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Oct. 29).

The Defense Department is preparing for possible protracted urban combat in and around Baghdad, according to the Post.  White House military planners believe there could be bloody skirmishes in Baghdad and in Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit even if he is overthrown, the senior military officials said.

The U.S. war plan, which is still in development, tries to consider regional sensitivities by seeking to inflict the minimum amount of damage needed to achieve U.S. goals, the Post reported.  To do so, the plan involves a relatively small U.S. force quickly launching focused attacks.  Taking into account the possibility that Iraqi resistance will be higher than expected, however, it includes deployment of enough troops — 150,000 U.S. and allied soldiers — to combat the Iraqi Republican Guard.

“The point is that if things don’t go as we hope, there will be enough forces on hand to deal with it,” said a Pentagon official who was briefed on the plan late last month.

The U.S. plan is also designed to cause Iraqis to revolt against Hussein, according to the Post.  The plans seeks to “create the conditions” needed for the Iraqis to do so, a White House official said.

“I think ultimately this is more of a revolution that’s going to happen, rather than something brought about by U.S. military power,” the official said.

To ferment a revolt, a U.S. attack on Iraq would begin with a campaign of simultaneous air strikes, ground attacks and psychological operations meant to destroy the Iraqi security police and other pro-Hussein institutions, the Post reported.

“You have to shake the regime to its core,” one defense expert said.  “You’ve got to pursue the pillars of the regime across the board,” the expert added.

If Hussein were quickly overthrown, then U.S. troops would not have to assault Baghdad, according to military planners.  “The feeling is, they’ll be successful in the first phase, and then the next phase won’t be necessary, because the regime will fall and a new regime will take over,” one planner said.

The current U.S. plan for an attack on Iraq better resembles planning for the 1989 invasion of Panama than the 1991 Gulf War, some experts have said.

“This is looking more and more like a Panama-style takedown, a special operation writ large, but with significant follow-on forces … to pacify any bypassed pockets, prevent too many reprisal killings of the Baathists and reduce any holdouts,” said Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who is co-author of a history of the invasion of Panama (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, Nov. 10).

Iraqi Reconstruction

The Bush administration has also begun planning for a post-Hussein Iraq, envisioning deployment of thousands of U.S. troops within the country and the creation of an international civil authority, possibly headed by a U.S. official, that would control Iraq for at least two years, the Wall Street Journal reported today.

The U.S. military is expected to directly control Iraq for up to four months following the overthrow of Hussein, according to officials.  During that time, the U.S. military would work to deliver humanitarian supplies, secure Iraqi WMD stockpiles and maintain law and order.  Several thousand Iraqi exiles would be trained to serve as police to assist U.S. troops, officials said.

After a few months, military control would be replaced by a civil administration supported by U.S. troops, and possibly by an international force, according to the Journal.  According to the White House plan, Iraqi officials who were not closely attached to the Hussein regime could take an active public role as advisers, the Journal reported.

A full Iraqi-controlled government would not take control for at least two years or longer after the overthrow of Hussein, according to the Journal.  Before an Iraqi government could be created, a new constitution would have to be drafted and elections held, officials said.  Plans are still being made for possibly prosecuting regime members for war crimes, U.S. officials said (see GSN, Oct. 30).

One outstanding question is the role of Iraqi exile groups such as the Iraqi National Congress in a post-Hussein Iraq, the Journal reported.  While INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has supporters among Pentagon officials and aides to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, he is mistrusted by the U.S. State Department.

Some Pentagon officials have said the United States should support an INC-led provisional government.  If the United States were to wait until Iraqi elections to choose new leaders to support, it may have little control over who emerges, they said.

“It would be a very good idea to bring in Iraqis as quickly as possible” once Hussein is removed from power, a Pentagon official said.  “And of all the opposition groups, the only one really interested in establishing a democracy is the INC” (Cloud/Robbins, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 11).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

IAEA Iraq Action Team

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top