Iraq

The new UN resolution doesn't even try to bring the Iraqi occupation into line with international law.

The logic of US plans to redistribute its military forces around and beyond the Gulf region is reinforced by the Riyadh bombs. But this brutal indication of al-Qaida’s regroupment also reveals the deeper problems attending Washington’s regional strategy after its occupation of Iraq. Is the US gaining control, or losing it?

The American administrators’ “shoot on sight” policy toward looters is a prime example of why we need United Nations help in the Middle East.

Several weeks have elapsed since the end of hostilities and people continue to dig in search of their loved ones. The horror of the past is beginning to surface in the form of mass graves which continue to be uncovered throughout the country. In the latest discovery in the town of al-Mahawil, near al-Hilla, Iraqis have dug up some 3,000 bodies from a site that is said to contain up to 15,000 "disappeared" people. All are believed to have been arrested and summarily executed in the aftermath of the 1991 uprising.

In its victory over Iraq, the United States can imagine it is instilling democratic principles in the Arab world, but it is also undermining principles designed to protect the world's nations from an even worse fate than autocracy: the ravages of war and the humiliation of conquest.

So whose books were more cooked -- Enron's accounts of its financial doings or the administration's prewar reports on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

With Washington fixated on the looming war between the departments of State and Defense, almost no one has noticed an even stranger development within the Bush administration – its sudden, and apparently wholehearted, embrace of socialism.

The pro-war progressives want to claim the tradition of the anti-Stalinist left of Cold War lore, but that analogy is faulty.

Iraqi Power Void Results in 'Chaos'

Juan Cole, "Shias Extend Control," Iraq Crisis Report May 6, 2003

Religious groups are exploiting the power vacuum, raising the risk that Shia radicals could set the agenda in southern Iraq.

When Saddam's statue fell in the centre of Baghdad, one might have been forgiven for feeling a little of the "liberators'" triumphalism in a free Iraq. However, as Iraq rejoins the "international community", it has become clear that Saddam will be with Iraq for some time yet - not least, in the form of some $380 billion Iraq owes in debt and reparations claims.

Gal Luft, How Much Oil Does Iraq Have? (Brookings Institute Sabin Center) Iraq Memo #16, May 12, 2003

There is no doubt that Iraq has a huge oil potential that still needs to be developed. But the reserve estimates that have been accepted uncritically by the public have yet to be substantiated.

The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms,

Several appointees in the reconstruction operation will be replaced in a bid to surmount debilitating internal problems.

Reds under the ruins. They've no need for guns, they want to give democracy a go, and some perceive them as too pro-U.S.. Hardly the stuff of good communists, but that doesn't deter the leader of the Iraqi Communist Party, who reckons he can paint the new Iraq red.

The consequences of the Iraq war will linger for a long time to come as the use of controversial weapons by the United States is expected not only to leave the Bush Administration with a hefty bill, but also to cause a number of environmental and health implications.

Islamicists, Arab nationalists, and the BBC are all lobbying for a new, Saddam-lite 'strongman' to rule Iraq.

Premature U.S. departure would be the biggest catastrophe the Iraqis and all other Arab countries have faced.

Instead of publishing lists of names and issuing playing cards of "wanted men," the US must fix the principles under which Baathist officials will be dealt with. Some are liable to charges of murder, in some cases mass murder.

On my part, I'm willing to bet that the failure of the US occupiers to locate and capture even one of the alleged Saddam doubles strongly suggests the Iraqi leader never had any. I reckon the story about body doubles is a classic psy-op, a theory probably floated by the Pentagon's erstwhile Office of Strategic Influence in order to demoralise and disorient the enemy. I don't know who or how this bit of information warfare was first foisted on the media but once it was out there, there was no shortage of journalists and editors gullible enough to retail an obviously suspect, nonfalsifiable theory.

Despite more than three decades of oppression, ordinary Iraqis have been surprisingly tolerant of the presence of members of the Baath party, which ruled the county with an iron grip.

Lieutenant Colonel Paul Schreiber, U.S. Marine Corps; Commander Brian Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard; Lieutenant Colonel Gary Holland, U.S. Air Force; and Commander Stephen Davis, U.S. Navy "Iraq after Saddam," Naval Institute Proceedings

Reestablishing local authority quickly may make the difference between success and failure. A U.S. occupation force, though credible in the short term and a relatively easy default position, will not provide the structure or indigenous involvement necessary for future stability.

The postconflict period in Iraq is not going to be easy or short-lived. Coalition partners should be prepared for a three- to five-year presence on the ground with sufficient forces to guarantee internal and border security.

Lorelei Kelly and Ian Davis, "Training peacekeepers (only non-Americans need apply)"

As the US military grapples with the most ambitious peacekeeping and nation-building operation in 50 years, you might think that planners in the Pentagon are looking at ways to increase resources that support peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Well, you would be mistaken. The Department of Defense has just decided to eliminate its only institute devoted to such operations: the Peacekeeping Institute at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania. The Institute will close in October.

Paul Rogers, "Permanent occupation?" Open Democracy April 24, 2003

Longer-term US aims for Iraq are becoming apparent. Four major military bases in the country are part of a plan for comprehensive control of Central and South West Asia. This is part of a strategy to ensure that the US and Israel have more reliable access to an area where the great majority of the world’s oil reserves are located. But the policy could lead to a severe backlash.

Plans for the political reconstruction of Iraq are bound to fail if they do not take into consideration that Iraq is not a political blank slate to be transformed at American will into a democratic, secular, pluralist, and federal state. It is a difficult country with multiple social groups and power centers with conflicting agendas. The United States must not try to impose a system of its own devising on these groups. Loose talk about bringing democracy to Iraq confuses what external actors can do and what Iraqis alone can accomplish.

The United States should also not underestimate the extent to which broader U.S. policies toward the Middle East and its handling of Iraq's oil will affect the willingness of parties within and outside Iraq to cooperate in its peaceful reconstruction. Washington's next steps in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in relations with Iran, and in shaping a new regional security system will determine whether the Iraq war is the beginning or the end of regional crisis and bloodshed.

A January Brookings Institution report explains, "President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the country remains more vulnerable than it should be today." A Council on Foreign Relations task force chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman concurs: "America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil," it warns.

The obvious question is, where are the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly prompted the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz quartet to invade Iraq?

The less obvious one is, where's the massive search-and-secure operation that should be scouring Iraq to locate and control those stocks of chemical and biological weapons and WMD-related materials, technology and records?

The Bush team has big plans for the 21st century. Can the rest of the world stop them?

outlines 10 key actions that the United States and the United Nations must take before the conflict starts in order to strengthen Iraq's security, governance, justice system and economy.

An appeal to the Iraqi opposition leader to address long-standing accusations of financial misdealing.

Former Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark's baffling choices in causes and allies, including ties to Saddam Hussein, leave him reviled, shunned.

GEORGE GALLOWAY, the Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin and a ferocious opponent of the war against Iraq, has been accused by the Daily Telegraph of being in the pay of Saddam Hussein.

The Telegraph made this allegation after one of its journalists apparently discovered a file marked “Britain” in the wrecked and looted offices of the Iraqi foreign ministry in Baghdad.

...Mr. Galloway strenuously denies them and is suing the Telegraph over its central claim that he received some £375,000 a year having entered into a partnership with an Iraqi oil broker ...

David Aaronovitch, "Lies and the Left, The Observer April 27, 2003

Galloway and his supporters are foolish to believe that an enemy of America is necessarily their friend

Martin Bright and Jason Burke Saddam 'held talks on alliance with al-Qaeda' The Observer April 27, 2003

Negotiations about about a possible alliance between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda took place in 1998, according to documents found in Baghdad by a British newspaper...

The talks are thought to have ended disastrously for the Iraqis, as bin Laden rejected any kind of alliance, preferring to pursue his own policy of global jihad , or holy war.

Stanley Aronowitz comment, "the time has come to focus on post-war Iraq. The recently posted statement by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions should be taken as a strategy guide for the US peace and justice movement in the post-Iraq war period. The statement focuses, not on the war on Iraq itself, because except for analysis it has become moot, at least for the present. It addresses the post-war situation and urges the UN take the lead in reconstruction--of course the US should pay for it--and favors multilateralism in administering the transition to democracy."

"The task now is to agitate for the near term withdrawal of US troops from the region, replacing them with UN responsibility for peace-keeping and reconstruction. Workers and political rights should be protected by the UN, as well. These policies should not benefit the US corporations such as Bechtel, but the Iraqi people.

"Of course this proposal would require that the peace and justice forces think beyond its current posture and intervene in the actual situation. This is difficult for a movement that has define itself in terms of protest and resistance and, tacitly, refuses engage in the policy debate. Yet the ICFTU statement goes to relevance. It challenges us to be imaginative, rather than ritualistic. For the best guarantee against further military incursions by the Bush administration into the region and elsewhere is to fight now to abrogate its determination to maintain unilateral sovereignty."

What we need to build out of the anti-war movement--A movement in solidarity with the working people of Iraq

The Arabic media is rife with speculation that the Saudi regime brokered a secret deal between the White House and Iraq's ruling party.

James K. Galbraith, "Healthy Skepticism" The American Prospect April 17, 2003.

Happily, the war was shorter than many predicted. But that doesn't mean all is well.

Iraq perfected a corrupted version of Arab nationalism, but it was Arab intellectuals who created and then abetted it. Can they ever change their spots?

Julie Flint, " His Own Man," Institute for War and Peace Reporting Iraq Crisis Report April 14, 2003

Ahmad Chalabi: self-seeking agent of American imperialism or genuine champion of freedom?

Ghanem Jawad, "Death of a Leader." Institute for War and Peace Reporting Iraq Crisis Report April 11, 2003

The killing of Abdul Majid in Najaf is a devastating blow to the hopes of Shias, and all Iraqis, to build a new and moderate society.

American forces have bombed the bases of the main armed Iranian opposition group in Iraq, a guerrilla organization that maintained thousands of fighters with tanks and artillery along Iraq's border with Iran for more than a decade.

The attacks could well anger the more than 150 members of Congress from both parties who have described the Iranian opposition group as an effective source of pressure against Iran's government. In a statement last November, the group urged the Bush administration to remove the organization from its terrorist list.

"We made it very clear that these folks are pro-democracy, antifundamentalism, antiterrorism, helpful to the U.S. in providing information about the activities of the Iranian regime, and advocates of a secular government in Iran," said Yleem Poblete, staff director for the House International Relations Committee's subcommittee on the Middle East and Asia.

Economists say Bush administration officials are wrong to assume that petroleum revenue will pay for postwar reconstruction.

But honest criticism from those outside the chain of command is another form of loyalty. It is the role of the retired officers whom Secretary Rumsfeld publicly despises to speak for those in uniform when they cannot speak for themselves. And to insist that our troops be given all the support they need.

Jonathan Steele "Protesters pour from the mosques to reclaim the streets for Islam in Baghdad," Guardian April 19, 2003

On April 6, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz spelled it out: There will be no role for the United Nations in setting up an interim government in Iraq. The US-run regime will last at least six months, "probably...longer than that."

And by the time the Iraqi people have a say in choosing a government, the key economic decisions about their country's future will have been made by their occupiers. "There has got to be an effective administration from day one," Wolfowitz said. "People need water and food and medicine, and the sewers have to work, the electricity has to work. And that's a coalition responsibility."

The process of getting all this infrastructure to work is usually called "reconstruction." But American plans for Iraq's future economy go well beyond that. Rather, the country is being treated as a blank slate on which the most ideological Washington neoliberals can design their dream economy: fully privatized, foreign-owned and open for business.

Mary Riddell A morally hollow victory The Observer April 6, 2003

No amount of PR will disguise the fact that this war is an outrage against humanity

How to think about this war if you're against it SALON
I hope for a U.S. victory with minimum bloodshed and maximum freedom for the Iraqi people. But I also want the cakewalk conservatives to pay for their hubris politically.

MARCH 21--The British Broadcasting Corporation has apologized to the White House for its broadcast Wednesday night of a live Oval Office feed showing President George W. Bush preparing for his speech announcing the start of the Iraqi war. Administration officials are apparently steamed because Bush was seen having his hair primped and readied by a female stylist armed with a comb and hairspray. Below you'll find a screen grab from the BBC feed as well as a 10-second snippet from the unauthorized TV transmission.

Seymour Hersh, "Offense and Defense" New Yorker March 31, 2003 [Issue of April 7, 2003]

The planning, timetabling and execution of the war have revealed severe flaws in US and British strategy. Iraqi armed resistance and civilian suspicion have been far higher than expected. Anti-war sentiment continues to rise in the region. How will the US respond?

the idea that Iraq's oil earnings will provide a "free ride" for the United States - and/or the rest of the world - is simply mistaken.

Husain Haqqani, "The American Mongols," Foreign Policy May-June 2003

An invading army is marching toward Baghdad—again. The last time infidels conquered the City of Peace was in 1258, when the Mongol horde defeated the caliphate that had ruled for more than five centuries. And if the ripple effects of that episode through Islam’s history are any guide, the latest invasion of Iraq will unleash a new cycle of hatred—unless the United States can find ways to bolster the credibility of moderate Islamic thinkers.

the Pentagon has insisted that it oversee the delivery of all aid to Iraq. The U.N. and international aid organizations aren't into that--nor is Secretary of State Powell, who complained about it last week in a letter to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Meanwhile, the docks are still idle at Umm Qasr, a week after the key port was declared secure.

The conservative Heritage Foundation recently commissioned a study by Ariel Cohen and Gerald O'Driscoll that calls for the "massive, orderly and transparent privatization of state-owned enterprises [in Iraq], especially the restructuring and privatization of the oil sector." (Chalabi is said to support such plans.)

Lt. Gen. Paul Funk, commander of an armored division in the 1991 Gulf War, says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Director Paul Wolfowitz badly misjudged Iraq and what's needed to remove Saddam Hussein.

Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, retired former chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force... the military's rapid progress toward Baghdad has done little to ease his deep reservations about U.S. policy in the region.

"We're prepared to pay a very high price because we are not going to do anything other than ensure that this regime goes away," the official told reporters, adding that U.S. casualties in the 12-day-old war had so far been "fairly" light.

"If that means there will be a lot of casualties, then there will be a lot of casualties," said the official, who spoke on condition that he not be named.

Eric Boehlert,"Knife fight in a phone booth" Salon March 28, 2003
Coalition forces can win the battle of Baghdad, but grisly images of death and destruction could cost them the war for Arab hearts and minds.

Largely due to the controversy and uncertainty that preceded the war, planning and preparations for relief efforts have been plagued by secrecy, inadequate coordination and lack of resources. If fighting drags on, new humanitarian tragedies will compound the problems of a country suffering effects not only of this war, but also of two earlier wars, years of sanctions and decades of authoritarian government. The U.S. should forego temptation to control post-conflict humanitarian efforts and hand coordination over to the UN. An all-dominant U.S. role would likely become a source of resentment in post-war Iraq and throughout the region and an impediment to funding by other donors. European governments and NGOs need to work with the U.S. and put their plans and their funding on the table. Involvement of Iraqis is also crucial.

Donald Rumsfeld seems furious about attacks on the war plan in Iraq. But he never hesitated to criticize the Clinton administration's war in Kosovo

The war in Iraq, and America's response to 9/11, have undermined human rights activists throughout the Middle East.

Is the antiwar movement in danger of becoming marginalized by its own over-the-top rhetoric? It's time for activists to speak with the audience, not to each other.

The war in Iraq serves the interests of a US power elite rather than democracy and global justice. In the midst of conflict, it is urgent to retrieve an international humanitarian perspective, one that can bind popular support to the ideal of genuinely humane intervention.

The reality of war challenges peace movements to rethink their strategy. One lesson of earlier campaigns is that activists need to move beyond mere ‘anti-war’ onto the territory of justice, solidarity, and human rights.

Do the tactics and appearance of some radical anti-war protesters hurt the very cause they claim to champion?

Antiwar activists debate: Should they take over the streets or work to defeat Bush in 2004?

Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan.

At the outset of the Iraq war, five different projections of its character and timescale were available. After eight days of fighting, which now seems most convincing? And does the unthinkable – US defeat – remain so?

Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war."

The U.S. is trying to beat the clock of politics, knowing that the longer war lasts, the more complicated its effects at home and abroad.

the nature of the occupation -- short and smooth, or long and bumpy -- could have even greater economic and political impact than the war itself.

"There were people in the White House who hoped that this [war] would be a panacea, that it would cure the economy and make the president unbeatable," a Republican insider said. "It's not quite working that way. And that makes this period a very delicate one for Bush -- a very delicate stage."

Ferry Biedermann Iraq's X factor: The tribes SALON March 26
More than three-quarters of Iraqis belong to tribes. Some of them have been paid off or threatened into backing Saddam -- but their real allegiance is to themselves.

The roots of al Qaeda are not in poverty or in anti- Americanism but in Sayyid Qutb's ideas about how Christianity went wrong and how martyrdom could change the world.

The war is creating a major realignment within the Islamic world, with even moderate Moslems calling for jihad against the US.

The Iraq and Palestine conflicts are converging, and the Arab street is stirring.

A key reason Iraqis have not risen up against Saddam Hussein is that hundreds of thousands were "disappeared" the last time they did.

In the newspaper industry's preeminent trade journal, Mitchell chastises his colleagues for shoddy work in the opening days of this war. Over the first week, Mitchell declares, media outlets have "gotten at least 15 stories wrong or misreported a sliver of fact into a major event."

Michael Tomasky, "No Contradiction" The American Prospect March 19, 2003
How to support our troops but rue Bush's new global Darwinism

the battle lines over America's proper role in the world have been drawn. On one side are the neo-imperialists, who have relearned the lesson of 1914 that to deploy -- for the hegemon in a unipolar world -- is to go to war. On the other side are the fledgling neo-anti-imperialists, who should look back to their forebears of 1898 to learn how to assemble a broad movement -- and must do them one better if we are to curtail an administration determined to turn the world into a sullen American imperium.

We must encourage those few precious voices that are emerging and tell the Democratic Party that we want profiles in courage, not compromise.

We must encourage those few precious voices that are emerging among the candidates, for their message can reach millions. But building this movement, like building peace, is too important to be left to politicians.

This movement has already forced George Bush to go to the United Nations; this movement has delayed the march to war; this movement has made it possible for leaders around the world to stand up against American pressure. This movement has burst onto the stage of history. If we continue building this movement, a politics of peace will follow.

The White House says that a war with Iraq has nothing to do with Islam, but imams all over the world are calling for a holy war.

The first war of the 21st century has generated in response an enormous, worldwide public opposition – much of it mobilising via the net. It represents a profoundly democratic challenge to the way the US seeks to conduct world affairs.

The Iraq war is imminent. US strategists confidently plan for swift regime collapse. But the experience of 1991 offers sober lessons. Prepare for surprise – and a dangerous aftermath.

The US-led war on Iraq is more than a failure of American strategy, diplomacy and thinking; in its heedless rejection of international institutions and their norms of co-operation, it represents a dangerous retreat to the law of the jungle.

Michelle Goldberg, "Casualties of war," Salon March 20, 2003
If the U.S. kills 10,000 Iraqi civilians, will this be a just war? 1,000? 100,000? On the eve of destruction, a deadly moral calculus awaits.

Farhad Manjoo. "We're not prepared" Salon March 20, 2003
International aid workers fear a humanitarian crisis as the bombs start falling on Iraqi cities.

Here's what America's UN Representative John Negroponte said at the UN on the day the resolution passed ...

In a resignation speech to the British Parliament, Robin Cook said that "history will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations" over Iraq -- and earned an unprecedented standing ovation. The leader of the House of Commons until Monday, Cook is also a former British foreign minister.

When the regime finally changes in Baghdad, and Saddam is dead, in custody or in exile, 70 years of Iraqi independence will end, political authority will pass into the hands of George W. Bush and Western rule will be planted on Arab soil for the first time since the French and British left the region in the middle of the last century. What then happens to Iraq's 23 million people, its oil and its relations with its neighbors will remain the personal responsibility of Mr. Bush and his successors in the White House until one of them chooses to surrender it. This dramatic expansion of Bush's job description, little discussed during the long months of argument at the United Nations over Iraqi weapons, will be the immediate practical result of an American military victory and the occupation of Iraq by the Army's Central Command. As the military commander in chief, the president will have virtually unlimited power to change and rebuild Iraq as he sees fit.

Unlike the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the American and British militaries are not looking to pummel its adversary into submission. This time, allied forces have a complicated, two-edged task. They are trying to defeat the Iraqi army without utterly destroying it. They are also trying to win over the Iraqi people.

The political rationale for this strategy is clear. The Saddam Hussein regime and the Republican Guard forces and security organization that protect it are the targets, not the weakened, demoralized regular army units that the Iraqi leader distrusts so much that he does not allow them near Baghdad.

To win a war in Iraq, the US has to win the peace. Its military forces as well as one of its leading independent humanitarian agencies, the International Rescue Committee, will have a crucial role. But can the military work with the United Nations and non-governmental organisations in ways that save lives, secure post-war order, and preserve the latter’s independence?

Improvised and ill-coordinated efforts to respond to refugee flows after they have already reached crisis proportions are the norm. Will things be different if the US attacks Iraq?

How will the change of regime in Iraq impact on the rest of the Middle East? An experienced Jordanian adviser and scholar takes a cool, country-by-country tour of the region.

"President Bush Should 'Stay the Course' in Post-War Iraq to Ensure Battlefield Victory is not Lost," Council on Foreign Relations March 12, 2003 PDF

Stabilization and Reconstruction Could Cost up to $20 Billion per Year for Several Years

"None of the other U.S. objectives in rebuilding Iraq would be realized in the absence of public security," the report stresses. This means the U.S. military should deploy forces to prevent acts of reprisal and other lawlessness, and to provide humanitarian aid. In the early phases especially, the stability and public security mission could require between 75,000 and 200,000 or more troops, the report notes. The administration should sustain this public security mission throughout the transition by actively recruiting international civilian police (civpol) and constabulary forces to assist U.S. forces and train Iraqis."

Mingjie Chen and Franz Schurmann, "The Dawn of a New Cold War in Europe" Pacific News Service

George Soros, "The Bubble of American Supremacy," Korea Herald

Sojourners, "An Alternative to War for Defeating Saddam Hussein,"

PDF Format Church Bulletin Insert

Paul Krugman, "George W. Queeg," New York Times March 14, 2003

Dana Milbank, "Bush's Political Future Hinges on Quick War ," Washington Post. March 15, 2003

Ian Williams, "Bush vs. the World: Why Washington can’t go it alone" In These Times, March 14, 2003

Robert Dreyfuss Just the Beginning American Prospect April 1, 2003
Is Iraq the opening salvo in a war to remake the world?

Mark LeVine, "'Bush Wins': The Left's Nightmare Scenario." AlterNet March 13, 2003

the antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: "Bush Wins."

In this third scenario, the war is over quickly with relatively low U.S. casualties, some sort of mechanism for transitional rule is put in place, and President Bush and his policies gain unprecedented power and prestige. From my recent conversations with organizers and their latest pronouncements, it is clear that this possibility has yet to be addressed. Waiting much longer could spell disaster for the antiwar movement.

If the movement doesn't move with full effort to lay the groundwork for a Bush Wins scenario the massive organizing and consciousness raising of the last year could well prove fleeting, forcing the movement to start from scratch in mobilizing public opinion a year or two down the road when the chickens of an over-extended empire come home to roost.

John B. Judis, "A Case for Hell." American Prospect April, 2003

Much of the furious debate at the United Nations has been over whether inspectors are capable of disarming Iraq, but what really divides the United States from its chief critics on the Security Council are two diametrically opposed scenarios of a post-war Iraq. The American scenario, dubbed "new dawn," sees a transformed Iraq leading a democratic revolution in the Middle East that would sweep away monarchs and dictators, end the isolation of Ariel Sharon's Israel, boost oil production and bring in high-tech industry. The French and Russian scenario, dubbed the "gates of hell," foresees a rise in Islamic radicalism and terrorism and in global economic and military instability. No one can really know what this war would bring -- the repercussions from the Gulf War are still being felt -- but here are some reasons why, even if the United States quickly ousts Saddam Hussein, the Mideast might more closely resemble the gates of hell than the new dawn.

David Corn, "Bush's Irrelevant Case for War," The Nation March 14, 2003

Paul Rogers, "The myth of a clean war – and its real motive," Open Democracy

The immediate US purpose is to destroy the Saddam regime. This, no less than the weapons used to fight it, guarantees that the Iraq war will have a heavy human cost in the short term. Behind the war, the search for military and oil security is impelling a broader US agenda for regional control. This ensures further violence in the long term. A different strategy is urgently needed.

Joe Galloway "Politicians underestimate Iraq force," Knight-ridder Newspapers March 10, 2003

In 1995, we had an international force of 60,000 to control the 4 million inhabitants of unhappy Bosnia. At that ratio, we would need 360,000 soldiers to occupy and control Iraq. In Kosovo, 50,000 soldiers now keep the peace among 2 million. Apply that formula to Iraq and you need an occupation force of 600,000.

... unless a sizeable force of allies join us in Iraq, the peacekeeping effort there could employ virtually the entire deployable Army and Marine Corps.

Which, given the state of the world in which we live and the vagaries of North Korea's dear leader Kim Jong Il, not to mention Iraq's neighbors in Iran, is a truly scary scenario.

Julie Flint, "Iraqi Exiles Oppose US Plans" Institute for War and Peace Reporting March 12, 2003

Non-aligned Iraqi exiles opposed to American plans to occupy their country are stepping up their efforts to gather support for a UN-supervised interim administration that would pave the way for a new, Iraqi democracy free of American control.

Adam McConnel, "U.S. To Stay in Iraq '20-25 Years' -- U.S. Envoy Says" GVNews.Net Crisis Capsule March 13, 2003

The U.S. ambassador to Turkey tells wary parliamentarians that after toppling Saddam Hussein -- with our without U.N. approval -- the U.S. will have to reorganize the region and remain in Iraq for 20 to 25 years, according to Turkish media.

Sean Boyne, "What Will Happen If It All Goes Wrong?The Herald (Glasgow) Feb 26, 2003

Allies consider worst-case scenarios in Iraq conflict

Iraq: People come first - protect human rights Amnesty International

Resource Page

"Iraq: Security Council needs to deploy human rights monitors now" Amnesty International

Amnesty International argues that UN human rights monitors can make a crucial contribution to addressing human rights concerns in Iraq regardless of whether there will be a major military action in Iraq

Greg Miller, "Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible' Los Angeles Times March 14, 2003

A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say.

John Nichols, Harkin Stumps for Peace The Nation March 14, 2003

Ehud Ya'ari 'Harmagadun' Now Jerusalem Report

In the quiet, internal dialogue the Arab world holds with itself, usually away from the newspaper headlines and the TV screens, a new and interesting phenomenon has come to the fore in recent weeks: A revival of the belief that the messiah -- or the Mahdi, in the Islamic version -- is waiting right around the corner. Just a little bit longer, and he will sally forth from his heavenly hiding place to set in motion the stages of redemption, as promised in the writings of the medieval sages, and usher in a new Islamic golden era.

Anthony Dworkin, "In America’s Sights: Targeting Decisions in a War With Iraq." Crimes of War Project March 6, 2003

America’s new military model... is based on overwhelming technical superiority and designed for use against a dictator who can’t count on the support of his own people. But it is also highly controversial. The charge made by some human rights groups and international lawyers is that it represents a violation of international humanitarian law, and in particular the principle of distinguishing between military and civilian targets.

"Would War Be Lawful Without Another UN Resolution?" Crimes of War Project

Anthony Dworkin interviews Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International Law at Oxford University.

Bill Onasch, "God Bless the Dixie Chicks!" Labor Advocate Online March 14, 2003

And All the Other Artists With the Courage To Speak Out

William Greider, "Washington Post Warriors," The Nation March

The shortage of critical challenges from the press is assisting the manipulation of public opinion.

Bill Keller, "Is It Good for the Jews," New York Times, March 8, 2003

Maybe we're all a little too desperate these days for a simple formula to explain how our safe world came unhinged. That, as much as anything, may explain one of the more enduring conspiracy theories of the moment, the notion that we are about to send a quarter of a million American soldiers to war for the sake of Israel.

AFL-CIO Executive Council Resolution Against Unilateral War

We call upon the world community to speak with one voice to demand that disarmament take place in Iraq without delay, and that the inspectors be accorded full cooperation. We call upon the administration to pursue a broad global consensus to apply the maximum pressure on Iraq, ensuring that war, if it comes, will truly be a last resort, supported by both our allies and nations united. And we call on Iraq to comply with the demands of the United Nations, the only course to avoiding the war no one desires.

Joby Warrick, "Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake: U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged," Washington Post , March 8, 2003

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

Wayne Washington, "US lets N. Korea get nuclear data," Boston Globe March 7, 2003

Paul Rogers, "On the nuclear slope," Open Democracy Feb 27, 2003

The US war on Iraq might include the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945. Our international security correspondent sets out the rational, historical context of a terrible possibility.

Paul Rogers, "The Mother of all Bombs – how the US plans to pulverise Iraq," Open Democracy March 7, 2003

A devastating new weapon will be part of the US’s massive assault on Iraq; its use is likely to destroy civilian lives in their thousands.

Human Shields in Iraq Put Obligations on U.S. Human Rights Watch

The use of human shields in Iraq would dramatically increase the danger to civilians and the level of care the United States and its allies must take to protect them in the event of any attack

Iraqi Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Displaced Persons: Current Conditions
and Concerns in the Event of War A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, February 13, 2003

Michael Walzer, "What a Little War in Iraq Could Do," New York Times March 7, 2003

The United States is marching to war as if there were no alternative. Judging from President Bush's press conference last night, the administration seems to have no exit strategy, no contingency plans to stop the march. Our leaders have created a situation where any failure to fight would count as a victory for Saddam Hussein and Jacques Chirac...

So here is an exit strategy for the Bush administration. They haven't asked for it, but they need it.

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "Iraq: An Unnecessary War" Foreign Policy

The belief that Saddam's past behavior shows he cannot be contained rests on distorted history and faulty logic. In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively-even if Saddam has nuclear weapons-just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Regardless of whether Iraq complies with U.N. inspections or what the inspectors find, the campaign to wage war against Iraq rests on a flimsy foundation.

Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war London Observer

Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members

John Hendren, "A Huge Postwar Force Seen," Los Angeles Times Feb. 26, 2003

Peacekeeping and humanitarian operations after a war with Iraq would probably require "several hundred thousand soldiers," the Army's chief of staff said Tuesday — a force approaching the number of U.S. troops massing for a possible war in the Persian Gulf.

Joseph Cirincione and Dipali Mukhopadhyay, "Why Pollack is Wrong: We Have Contained Saddam" Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Feb. 21, 2003

Ken Pollack is a gifted analyst. But in his lengthy February 21 New York Times op-ed, he assembles a house of cards to prove that (1) Saddam Hussein may soon get a nuclear bomb, and (2) if he does, we cannot deter him from using it. For Pollack to be correct, all of Saddam's efforts to build a bomb must work perfectly and all of our efforts to thwart him short of war must fail miserably.

Stephen Zunes, Iraq, Israel, and the Jews Tikkun

Fred Kaplan, " How Many Dead Iraqis?" SLATE Feb. 25, 2003

Widely circulated estimates by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and others may be over-estimates.

Sarah Anderson, Phyllis Bennis, and John Cavanagh, "COALITION OF THE WILLING OR COALITION OF THE COERCED? How the Bush Administration Influences Allies in its War on Iraq" Institute for Policy Studies, Feb. 26, 2003 (PDF

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation New York Times February 27, 2003

The text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Robert Parry, "Missing US-Iraq History," Consortium News Feb. 27, 2003

Daniel L. Byman, Terrorism and the War with Iraq Iraq Memo #12, March 3, 2003 Saban Center for Middle East Policy (Brookings Institute)

The impending war with Iraq greatly raises the risk of a terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland, American interests overseas, or U.S. allies.

Philip H. Gordon, "The Crisis in the Alliance" Iraq Memo #11 February 24, 2003, Saban Center for Middle East Policy (Brookings Institute)

Ian Williams, The New Age of Disarmament Wars, Foreign Policy in Focus

David Corn, "Bush's Presidential Malpractice," The Nation

A plan for postwar Iraq? Who says we need a plan for postwar Iraq?

David Cortright and Alistair Millar, "Did Powell Mislead Public About Iraq Terrorist Connections?" Fourth Freedom Forum

"Response to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Allegations of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda Terrorist Connection" Fourth Freedom Forum (PDF)

Michael Tomasky "A Little Reminder" MSNBC February 19, 2003

I’m still astonished by the number of smart people I run into who don’t know any of this history, which makes it clear that the real reason we’re doing this war in this way at this time is basically to prove to the world that we can.

This history does not start with September 11. It starts in the spring of 1992, when Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, a job that, at that point, he fully expected to hold for another four years. That March, a document called the Defense Planning Guidance (read about it here and here, among other places) was leaked.

Margot Patterson, "Beyond Baghdad," National Catholic Reporter

Leonard Doyle, "Children of Iraq Threatened" Independent (UK) February 12, 2003

It is not Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, but Iraq's 12 million children who will be most vulnerable to the massive use of force that the US plans to unleash against their country in the coming months. With or without UN Security Council backing, the looming war on Iraq will have immediate and devastating consequences for the country's children, more vulnerable now than before the 1991 Gulf War.

Joe Conason's Journal
One of the foremost experts on Islamic movements dismisses Colin Powell's allegations of connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. AAhmed Rashid interviewed on NPR Audio File

Ian Williams, "Iraqis -- Caught Between Rhetoric and Reality" Global Vision Crisis

Though the anti-war side has a long way to go to match the White House's divorce from reality, there are some questions they need to answer

Laura Sandys, "A game of shadow boxing: Iraq between past and future" Open Democracy Feb 13, 2003

Bush's war is for oil not freedom Alliance for Worker's Liberty
A reply to Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovitch

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, "Powell Fails to Make Case" The Nation, February 6, 2003

Judy Dempsey, "NATO Remains Deadlocked Over War in Iraq" Financial Times Feb. 10, 2003

13 Myths

A web collaboration to develop a flyer detailing 13 myths about the US/British evidence for war

Michael White and Brian Whitaker, "UK War Dossier a Sham, Say Experts" Guardian UK Feb. 7, 2003

Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, "Corporations, War, You"

Phyllis Bennis, "Powell's Dubious Case," Foreign Policy in Focus Feb 5, 2003

The "even if" rule applies, writes Bennis: "Even if" everything Powell said was true, there is simply not enough evidence for war.

Paul Rogers, "Could the war go nuclear?" Open Democracy
If the Saddam regime reacts to hostilities with its own form of ‘pre-emption’, do US war planners expect to use nuclear weapons to ensure its termination? Our international security correspondent sifts the recent evidence that points, among many other present dangers, to a breakdown of the barriers against nuclear escalation.

77,000 body bags

FEARS that Iraq will inflict heavy casualties on British and American troops intensified yesterday when it emerged the Pentagon had ordered almost five times the number of body bags it requested before the last Gulf War.

Within weeks it will have more than 77,000 bags at the ready, compared with 16,000 in 1991.

Stephen Zunes, "An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy in Focus January 29. 2003

Brendan O'Neill, "Powell doesn't wow" Spiked February 6, 2003

Michael Lerner, "Pre-emptive Democracy for Iraq" Tikkun Magazine

David Usborne and Andrew Grice, "Inspectors discover Iraqi warheads. Will this be the trigger for war?" Independent (UK) Jan 17, 2003.

CDI's Inspections Update #4 ~ Jan. 17, 2003

Washington's response to the revelation has thus far been cautious, reflecting the ambiguous nature of the find. Indeed, this is the kind of evidence that is likely to reinforce existing opinions, regardless of what those might be. American officials will surely point to these warheads as evidence that Iraq cannot be trusted to disarm itself. Others will surely argue that a few empty warheads testify to the meager state of Iraq's WMD capabilities and hardly justify a military showdown.

Center for Defense Information, "US Forces in the Middle East-Update"

Colum Lynch, " U.S. Defers Allegation of Iraqi Breach ," Washington Post January 18, 2003

Ann Marchand, "Protesters Gather To Oppose War ," Washington Post, January 18, 2003

Jonathan Steele and Ewen MacAskill, "Arab nations tell Saddam: go now and we avoid war," Guardian (UK) January 18, 2003

Saudi plan for Iraq leader to go into exile

Phyllis Bennis, UNDERSTANDING THE U.S.-IRAQ CRISIS: A Primer

A pamphlet of the Institute for Policy Studies, January 2003

PDF version

Would you like the bound, printed version of this pamphlet? $2 for one copy, $1.50 each for 2-5, $1 each for 6-49, $.75 each for 50-249, and $.50 each for 250 or more. Contact Dorian Lipscombe at 202-234-9382 or dorian@ips-dc.org

The crisis over Iraq: the non-military solution Open Democracy

What would a non-military strategy for dealing with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq involve? A seminar convened by London’s Royal United Services Institute and the Oxford Research Group, and involving government and NGO representatives from around the world, recently addressed this vital issue. The ORG’s director presents her own interpretation of the proceedings.

David Cortright, "Into the Breach: What's Really Going on at the UN," Alternet January 8, 2003

Baghdad's failure to provide a satisfactory weapons report will not prevent the UN from achieving the effective disarmament of Iraq, and it is not a legal justification for war.

David Cortright, George A. Lopez, and Alistair Millar, "Winning Without War:Sensible Security Options for Dealing with Iraq" Fourth Freedom Forum

Advocates of military action against Iraq contend that war is the only certain option for preventing Saddam Hussein from developing or using nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. . . . This report shows that peaceful and diplomatic options are available and can be successfully implemented to achieve U.S. objectives.

Humanitarian Emergency in Event of War on Iraq

A "strictly confidential" UN document, written to assist with UN contingency planning in the event of war with Iraq, predicts high civilian injuries, an extension of the existing nutritional crisis, and "the outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions." The existence of the draft document, entitled "Likely Humanitarian Scenarios" and dated 10th December 2002, was first reported in the Times (London) on 23rd December 2002, but this is the first time it has been made publicly accessible. It is available at http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210.pdf.

INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ: A PRIMER Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, The Economic Costs of a War in Iraq: The Negative Scenario Center for Economic and Policy Research

Bob Edgar, "Why I Went to Baghdad" Belief.net
The General Secretary of the National Council of Churches explains why war with Iraq is "immoral and illegal.

Arms Control Association, "Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections And an Assessment of Their Accomplishments," Arms Control Today

Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay, "Where Are the Hawks on North Korea?" American Prospect January 9. 2003

Faced with a real crisis, Bush does nothing.

Paul Rogers, "The US’s dual challenge: Iraq war, Korean crisis," Open Democracy

Michael Dobbs, "Allies Slow U.S. War Plans ," Washington Post January 11, 2003

British and French Urge Time for Inspectors; Turkey Delays on Troops

Colum Lynch, " No 'Smoking Gun' So Far, U.N. Is Told , " Washington Post January 10, 2003

Blix Says Iraq Failed to Provide Enough Data

Michael R. Gordon, "Turkey's Reluctance on Use of Bases Worries U.S.," New York Times, January 9, 2003

Senior American officials said today that they were increasingly concerned that they were running out of time to persuade Turkey to permit the deployment of American ground troops in case of a war with Iraq.

Roland Watson, "US Weapons Dossier May Remain a Secret" London Times

DONALD RUMSFELD, the US Defence Secretary, has suggested that Washington may present little or no evidence of Iraq’s quest for banned weapons even if President Bush decides to go to war. Mr Rumsfeld said that disclosing such details to the world or even to the United Nations Security Council could jeopardise any military mission by revealing to Baghdad what the United States knows.

Anthony Dworkin, "Trying Saddam: The Options," Crimes of War Project

There is no shortage of evidence that Hussein is responsible for acts that are crimes under international law. Indeed, there are few people in the world against whom a stronger set of charges could be lodged. Human rights activists have been campaigning for him to be indicted for some time. But there are several different forms that such a trial might take – and there is a real danger that, in the aftermath of a US-led invasion of Iraq, a poorly conceived trial could be counter-productive for the cause of international justice.

Paul Rogers, "The Oil Reckoning" Open Democracy December 26, 2002

There is, therefore, a deep and pervading recognition at the heart of the Bush administration that the most significant future vulnerability for the United States is its steadily growing dependence on Gulf oil. ..

The Persian Gulf is where the oil is, and what has to be done is to make absolutely sure that the Gulf is securely controlled for many years to come. It is an unusual example of strategic thinking, not a common phenomenon in political circles, and permeates the Bush administration to an extent that is rarely acknowledged.

The crisis with Iraq which now seems to be coming to a head is part of a much larger game-plan concerning long-term influence over oil supplies. Recognising this enables us to see just how important it is, in the view of the Bush administration, that the Saddam Hussein regime must be terminated and replaced, to ensure a more acceptable overall framework of power in the region.

Paul Rogers, "Shift of focus, not change of plan ," Open Democracy Dec. 19, 2002

The complications of the United Nations (UN) arms inspection process have not deflected the US drive to war on Iraq. But recent indicators suggest a shift towards a more intensive air campaign. If this unfolds without UN authorisation, which way will Britain go?

"UN Sees Huge Aid Needs in Case of War on Iraq" Reuters Dec. 23, 2002

Ahwaz Qom and J Sananda, "Iraq and Iran: Neighbors from Hell," The Economist Dec. 12, 2002

Peter Slevin and Vernon Loeb, "Bush Urged to Limit Weapons in Iraq," Washington Post Dec. 28, 2002

Human Rights Groups Warn of Harm to Civilians From Land Mines, Cluster Bombs

Human Rights Watch Policy on Iraq

The sole exception that Human Rights Watch has made to its neutrality on the decision whether to go to war is in the case of humanitarian intervention - the military invasion of a country to protect its people. We have advocated military intervention in limited circumstances when the people of a country are facing genocide or comparable mass slaughter. Horrific as Saddam Hussein's human rights record is, it does not today appear to meet this high threshold - in contrast, for example, with his behavior during the 1988 Anfal genocide against the Iraqi Kurds.

We also recognize that the threatened war in Iraq is not one of humanitarian intervention, but one designed, according to the public statements of the U.S. government, to deprive the Iraqi government of its alleged chemical and biological weapons, to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, and to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Although in making a case for war George Bush has referred to the Iraqi government's severe repression, this is clearly a subsidiary argument to his call to address Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and to force "regime change." There can be little doubt that if Saddam Hussein were overthrown and any weapons of mass destruction reliably surrendered, there would be no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive.

Justice For Iraq: A Human Rights Watch Policy Paper December 2002

The paper concludes that:

there is a clear need for justice for the people of Iraq achieved through an effective tribunal;
any form of justice must be impartial, fair, independent, and capable of being established in a timely fashion; and
the creation of an international tribunal for Iraq is the mechanism most likely to advance those principles.

An international tribunal for Iraq, however, need not necessarily replicate the models of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia

Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung, " U.S. Sets Late January Decision on Iraq War ,"Washington Post December 19, 2002

The Bush administration has set the last week in January as the make-or-break point in the long standoff with Iraq, and is increasingly confident that by then it will have marshaled the evidence to convince the U.N. Security Council that Iraq is in violation of a U.N. resolution passed last month and to call for the use of force, officials said yesterday.

Vernon Loeb, "Military Forces Ordered to Gulf" Washington Post December 28

"Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction," National Security Archives

A collection of documents pertaining to Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and the United Nations inspection and monitoring regime put in place in 1991 to insure that Iraq dismantled its WMD programs and did not take actions to reconstitute them.

The documents presented in this electronic briefing book include the major unclassified U.S. and British assessments of Iraqi WMD programs, the reports of the IAEA and UNSCOM covering the final period prior to the 1998 expulsions, the transcript of a key speech by President George W. Bush, a recently released statement on U.S. policy towards combating WMD, and documents from the 1980s and 1990s concerning various aspects of Iraqi WMD activities.

Matthew Rothschild, "The Case Against the Iraq War,"
A speech by the editor of The Progressive magazine

Mohamad Bazzi, "Source: U.S. Firms on List Aided Iraq Arms Development" Newsday Dec 13, 2002

James Cusick and Felicity Arbuthnot, "America tore out 8000 pages of Iraq dossier" Sunday Herald, Dec. 22, 2002

Michael Evans, "Why any war with Iraq will be over in a flash," London Times Dec. 24, 2002

Thomas E. Ricks, "Projection on Fall Of Hussein Disputed," Washington Post, Dec. 18, 2002

With war possible soon in Iraq, the chiefs of the two U.S. ground forces are challenging the belief of some senior Pentagon civilians that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will fall almost immediately upon being attacked and are calling for more attention to planning for worst-case scenarios

The newest, most outspoken critics of the war on terrorism and Iraq are conservatives

Toby Dodge, "Iraqi army is tougher than US believes," The Guardian Nov. 16, 2002

The US claims a war against Saddam would be quick. Wrong, says analyst Toby, the conflict could be long and bloody

Jonathan Raban, :"Here we go again," Guardian Dec. 11, 2002

The family dictatorships that dominate the Middle East are the legacy of fantasy borders drawn by colonial administrators. Now with the Bush administration pressing to topple Saddam, says J we may be about to repeat our mistakes - and do just what Bin Laden wants

The argument over what action to take against Saddam Hussein is driven by the rhetoric of war. But can peaceful, legal action against Iraq’s ruthless dictator be effective? The long campaign to bring Augusto Pinochet of Chile to justice offers an encouraging precedent.

There are other serious threats to peace and stability in the world, some of them involving nuclear weapons, and the unity of the governments in the United Nations is needed to deal with them as well. The problem of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, real as it is, should not monopolize attention or be blown out of proportion. To have become the obsession of so much of the world is an achievement that this squalid tyrant would not, even in his wildest dreams, have dared to hope for.

Bush is waiting until the 2004 elections are nearer to attack Iraq

American Academy of Arts and Sciences, "War with Iraq: Costs, Consequences, and Alterntives"Monograph (PDF) News Release (PDF)

A December 2002 report, published under the auspices of the Academy’s Committee on International Security Studies (CISS), finds that the political, military, and economic consequences of war with Iraq could be extremely costly to the United States. William D. Nordhaus (Yale University) estimates the economic costs of war with Iraq in scenarios that are both favorable and unfavorable to the United States. Steven E. Miller (Harvard University) considers a number of potentially disastrous military and strategic outcomes of war for the United States that have received scant public attention. Carl Kaysen (MIT), John D. Steinbruner (University of Maryland),and Martin B. Malin (American Academy) examine the broader national security strategy behind the move toward a preventive war against Iraq.

The US debate on war with Iraq is spreading. The key issues - interests of Iraq's people, justice and morality of war, US power and UN role - were discussed at a major New York University event on 22 November. Two observers summarise and critique the panelists' views.

The deadly attacks on Israeli targets in Kenya are part of a rising trend of operations by al-Qaida and its affiliates. Their clear lesson is that the group is thinking for the long term. Does the United States understand its enemy?

Kissinger is the perfect chair for the 9-11 commission -- if what you want is damage control rather than the truth

For a historical background on the U.S./Iraqi standoff, as well as breaking news, this "Times" site is an excellent resource. All in one place, you can find archived articles from the end of the Gulf War in 1991 to the most recent U.S. patrols over the Iraqi no-fly zone. Don't miss interactive pop-ups with information and graphics explaining the U.N. inspectors' methods, where Iraq's weapons sites might be, and the country's vast oil supplies. A detailed timeline of the past decade's developments further illustrates how we got to where we are today. There's even video from correspondents in Iraq and the Persian Gulf area. Under the Related Documents heading, you'll find complete texts for everything from the U.N. call to disarm, Congress' resolution authorizing military force, and the Iraqi letter allowing inspectors to return. While most articles play it straight, trust the "Times" to offer an unusual angle, as a feature on an Iraqi painter who specializes in portraits of Saddam illustrates. It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

In fact, the West's primary concern in the Persian Gulf is not economic, it's strategic

Paul Rogers, "After war, humanitarian disaster?" Open Democracy

Even as the weapons inspection process unfolds, the timetable for US war with Iraq by January is on course. Three recent reports predict that military conflict could entail devastating humanitarian consequences. Are the proponents of war listening? It is still possible that war might be avoided, but it is frankly unlikely. What is becoming apparent is that there is a very high risk of a humanitarian disaster as a consequence of military action, an aspect that does not seem to be factored into any of the current political discussions in Washington.

In a war that does not involve use of CBW, it considers it likely that there would be perhaps 10,000 Iraqi military killed and a similar number of Iraqi civilians also killed. Any use of CBW could increase this substantially.

Medact is the UK affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

The MEDACT assessment covers a much wider range of up to 50,000 casualties but its real contribution is to point to the longer-term effects of a war on the provision of health services to the population as a whole, as well as for the more immediate and frequently forgotten issue of refugees.

... the third recent assessment, produced by one of the foreign charities that has operated in Iraq for many years, the European organisation Caritas ... points out that there are currently 14 million Iraqis dependent on food aid, about two-thirds of the total population. Any breakdown of this distribution system, itself highly likely in the event of war, would lead to immediate major problems of malnutrition as well as many long-term effects.

Before taking potentially destabilising action in Iraq, the United States is writing a new chapter in the law of nations, by recognising the need for evidence. But the factual cornerstone for Bush’s policy remains contested. What can policy-makers learn about the giving of evidence from the sociology of science?

The lengthy negotiations leading to Security Council Resolution 1441 were a success for French diplomacy. France’s ‘two-step’ approach may not avert war on Iraq; but in deflecting the United States’ unilateral drive to war she has served the world’s interest.

The Bush administration is savouring Republican electoral victory, Security Council unity, and a successful military operation in Yemen. More significant than all these is the newly-unified US Strategic Command backed by a globally-ambitious National Security Strategy. There is one problem: the scale of US military objectives will over time ensure the opposite of what is intended.