War Without End

Guest

Senators Warn Attack on Iraq Could Trigger Arab-Israeli War
By REUTERS

Filed at 3:45 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prominent members of the U.S. Congress warned on Sunday that a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq could draw in Israel and lead to a wider Middle East war.

Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said if the Israelis became involved ``it becomes an Arab-Israeli war.''

Biden and others appearing on Sunday television talk shows responded to a report in The New York Times that said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had told the Bush administration he would retaliate if Iraq attacks Israel.

On CNN's ``Late Edition,'' Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres would not say what Israel would do in the event of an Iraqi attack, but made it clear his country would coordinate its response with the United States.

``We are not the ones to tell the United States what to do,'' Peres said. ``We understand there is not going to be two wars and there are not going to be two supreme commands. So whatever will be, if it will be, should be coordinated.''

Biden, appearing on CBS's ``Face the Nation,'' said if Israel responded to an attack no Muslim nation, including such critical allies as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could support the U.S. effort against Iraq, even behind the scenes.

``And you would find probably every embassy in the Middle East burned to the ground before it went too far,'' Biden warned.

Sen. Richard Shelby, ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said any retaliation by the Israelis could mean ``a widespread war in the Middle East.''

``And also we'd be perceived, we'd be fighting side-by-side with the Israelis against all the Arab interests, and the war could spread,'' the Alabama senator said on ``Face the Nation.''

GULF WAR EXPERIENCE

The New York Times said Sharon had told senior American officials privately of Israel's intention to act, unlike in the 1991 Gulf War, when dozens of Iraqi Scud missiles struck without an Israeli response.

Biden urged President Bush to make his case for U.S. action based on his stated goal of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

``That should be our international rationale for moving, if we move, not this new doctrine of pre-emption and this doctrine of ``regime change,'' because then what do you tell the Israelis?'' he asked.

``Regime change'' is the term Bush has used in calling for Saddam's ouster. The administration last week announced a new U.S. security doctrine of pursuing pre-emptive action against potential enemies.

``If we make that the premise for our action, then in fact what ... pressure can we put on Israel not to do something that could make this an overall Middle East war?'' Biden asked.

Both lawmakers predicted, however, that the United States would move against Iraq in the new year.

Biden also said Bush should make his case on Iraq before the American public.

WAR RESOLUTION

Shelby said he expected both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate to overwhelmingly pass a resolution giving Bush broad authority to attack Iraq though other lawmakers, mostly Democrats, have questioned the scope of the version proposed by the president last week.

``It's much too broad,'' said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

``I think you will find a number of Republicans as well as Democrats who will be working on some language with some limits on it,'' Levin told ``Fox News Sunday.''

Several lawmakers objected mainly to the White House wording authorizing use of force to ``restore international peace and security in the region'' around Iraq, which many said was a blank check for the administration to strike any country in the volatile area.

Biden said he believed the American people would back the president but should be aware that any operation will cost billions of dollars and require thousands of U.S. troops.

``The president should ... go on air and say, 'This is why I believe we will have to act, if we do, and the rationale for it and what we're in for.' ... There can be no foreign policy that succeeds without the informed consent of the American people.''

Guest

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/international/middleeast/22ISRA.html

September 22, 2002
Israel Tells U.S. It Will Retaliate if Iraqis Attack
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

ERUSALEM, Sept. 21 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has informed the Bush administration that he plans to strike back if Iraq attacks Israel, according to Israeli and Western officials.

Mr. Sharon's statements, made privately to senior American officials in recent weeks, represent a major shift in Israeli thinking since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when 39 Iraqi Scud missiles struck without any Israeli response.

The prime minister's position reflects a widespread belief among Israeli politicians and generals that Arab leaders perceived Israel's restraint in 1991 as weakness. Throughout his military and political career, Mr. Sharon has always held that any attack on Israel must be promptly and powerfully punished.

"I don't think there is a scenario in which Israel will get hit and not strike back," a senior Western official said. "I think the evolving strategy will be commensurate response."

Mr. Sharon's position has significant implications for the Pentagon, which fears that an Israeli entry would stir up Arab public opinion and make it harder for the Pentagon to maintain cooperation from the Arab states where Washington hopes to base American forces.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday that it would be in Israel's "overwhelming best interests" not to intervene if the United States went to war with Iraq.

The Pentagon is also planning military steps to reduce the Iraqi threat to Israel and obviate the need for an Israeli retaliatory strike. Israeli officials say they have been told by their American counterparts that the United States will mount an intensive campaign to destroy Iraqi missile launchers in western Iraq, an operation that would almost certainly require the use of American commandos in addition to airstrikes.

American officials have also assured the Israelis that they will receive adequate warning of when the American attack will begin, though American officials have not said how much notice they will provide.

The United States has also quietly installed a data link to rush early warning of Iraqi missile launchings to Israeli commanders. The information would be gathered by American satellites and sent by the United States to Israel's Air Force headquarters, Israeli officials said. From there, the warning data could be sent to Israel's antimissile batteries and Israel's Home Front Command, which has responsibility for civil defense, as well as to Israeli air commanders.

Current and former Israeli officials said the arrangement provided additional warning time and was one reason why Israel had a better chance of defending against an Iraqi missile attack and protecting its civilians than during the 1991 war.

Still, most Israelis believe that the nation needs to retaliate if it is attacked, as does the Israeli leadership. According to a recent poll by the newspaper Yediot Ahronot, 70 percent of Israelis believe that the nation should retaliate if it is subjected to the same sort of Scud attacks it endured in 1991; those attacks, on 17 days spread over five weeks, killed two Israelis in direct hits, and four others suffocated in their gas masks.

"There are many more options now for Israel to be defended," said David Ivri, Israel's former ambassador to Washington and a senior defense official during the gulf war.

"The Iraqi side is less effective," he said, and experts think that Iraq has far fewer Scuds than it did the last time. Also, he added, "we have better early warning combined with the U.S.

"But there is also much more of a tendency to respond this time," Mr. Ivri said. "Otherwise, we will lose deterrence. We did not retaliate in 1991. If we do not retaliate another time, neighboring countries may think we do not have confidence in our ability."

While there is broad political and popular support for retaliation, not all Israelis believe that the policy is necessary in every case. Some officials suggested that it might be difficult to ignore American appeals for restraint if a Scud missile landed in an empty lot or off the coast of Israel. And some Israeli experts argue that there is little the Israelis could do to hurt Saddam Hussein's government that the Americans would not be doing already.

"When you retaliate, you really need to do something that is impressive," said Shai Feldman, who runs the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. "It is not that easy to do something impressive when a much larger American bombing capability is already in operation."

But the current debate in Israel turns more on arguments about deterrence and the need to demonstrate national resolve than strictly military considerations.

The debate over retaliation is an echo of the gulf war. The concern then was that Mr. Hussein's government would try to draw Israel into the conflict in an effort to split the American and Arab military coalition. The Israeli military drew up plans to intervene, including an operation to send Israeli commandos into western Iraq to destroy Scud launchers. The United States urged Israel to stay out of the war and promised to neutralize the Scud threat.

The Scud is a surface-to-surface missile, which Iraq used during its war with Iran , as well as against Israel and targets in the Persian Gulf in 1991. It was very inaccurate and sometimes broke up in flight. But Iraq wanted the missiles to terrorize and demoralize its foes. A Scud killed dozens of American soldiers at a barracks near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in 1991.

American and British efforts to stop or disrupt the Iraqi Scud firings were only marginally successful. To encourage Israel to stay out of the fight, the United States sent American-manned Patriot antimissile batteries to Israel and allowed the Israeli military to pick bombing targets for allied airstrikes.

The 1991 war established a pattern of military cooperation between Israel and the United States, which has been expanded. The establishment of the early warning data link early warning data is one example.

American ammunition, medical supplies and other equipment is also stockpiled in Israel. An agreement allows the Israeli military to draw on it in a crisis. The American military also has the right to use the stocks under some circumstances.

With the current threat of war, Mr. Sharon has told American officials that he believes that the Israel's decision not to strike back at Iraq in 1991 undermined its ability to deter an enemy strike and that the Israeli public will demand retaliation if Iraq attacks.

The issue, Mr. Sharon has suggested to the Americans, is not whether to respond but how to calibrate the response. There is wide agreement among Israeli officials that the use of chemical and biological weapons by Iraq would prompt a particularly strong retaliation, though it is less clear what Israel would do if Iraq carried out a small or ineffective attack that did not cause casualties.

To order a retaliation, Mr. Sharon would have to coordinate the decision through his security cabinet, a small group of ministers, including Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who are responsible for important national security decisions. Western officials say no top Israeli officials have been pressing for restraint.

"There is nobody who says to us, `I am going to be the one to argue for restraint,' " a Western official said. "I think you have to assess from everything that people are saying and writing that if anything hits Israel, even if it does not even do much damage, they will do something."

Still, the issue of retaliation is a complex one. First, it is very possible that United States will be successful in stopping Iraq from striking Israel. Iraq is believed to have a covert Scud force of anywhere from a handful to several dozen missiles, a much lower number than during the gulf war. Washington's efforts to hunt Scuds are likely to be more intensive and better coordinated. In 1991, the United States underestimated the difficulty of detecting and destroying mobile Scud launchers and waited weeks to send commandos into Iraqi territory.

Israel's ability to defend against Scuds is much improved. In addition to the early warning arrangement with the United States, Israel has deployed its own Arrow antimissile system.

If an Iraqi missile or aircraft should sneak past the American and Israeli forces, an Israeli retaliatory blow would have to be carefully arranged so as not to interfere with the American military campaign. Israel would also have to take precautions not to strike Iraqi civilians. One aim of the American strategy is to encourage the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to turn against Mr. Hussein.

There is no serious expectation that Israel would use its small but potent arsenal of nuclear weapons. Most Israelis believe that nuclear weapons should be used only if the existence of the state of Israel is in question or never used at all, according to the Yediot Ahronot poll.

In his appearance before Congress, Mr. Rumsfeld argued that Israel would be vulnerable to an Iraqi attack but that the American military would be so effective against the Iraqi forces that the vulnerability would not last long. "There's also no doubt in my mind but that it would be in Israel's overwhelming best interest not to get involved," he said.

A senior Israeli official argued differently. "The Americans prefer that we not retaliate, but they don't understand that if we are hit, we have to retaliate," he said. "This is the dilemma. The questions are: When? How much? If? We will have to see first where this big American military machine is going."

"But if something happens, we will have to solidify our deterrence," the official continued. "We think that everybody has to understand that it is not an easy task to try and challenge Israel from a military point of view."

Guest · Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2002 10:09 pm Post subject:

That last paragraph sounds as much a warning to the USA as to anyone else.

Thomas Edward Lawrence

"Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said if the Israelis became involved ``it becomes an Arab-Israeli war.''

What's said for public discussion and privately are far different .

An Arab-Israeli war would be a turkey shoot.

Oil prices will plummet after more production is inaugurated.

New governments could be instituted in the back-asswardness of the region known as the Middle East.

Have Israel take over management of the shrines at Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina. They could charge admission.

Let's call it the Crusades Part 4 and then the region will see the superiority of Judeaic-Christian modernity and its strength and the Land of Zion shall reign supreme.

So what's the downside?. None.

We can only hope......a new day is coming and it is the quiet docility of the Arab world living in a controlled world where the West knows best.

Praise Allah

Jefferson Davis · Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2002 8:42 pm Post subject:

Knew T.E. Lawrence did you?
a relative?

What's the idea of using someones else's name in a forum?

Have you gone daft?

Oh,...... nevernind.

Statement's still bull.

Guest · Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2002 9:53 pm Post subject:

Hey Jeff, I agree with you on that one, some I do some I dont, thats debate...

But at the risk of being boring and going back to the old Haw Haw thingy a few threads ago, lots of people look on the present mid east conflct and Ive seen lots in newsgroups refer to lawrance and what it would all be like now if hed gone into politics etc...

For those that didnt know the guys politics, which he kept close to his chest on most occasions, have a look at the day he died, who he was due to have dinner with and why, on the day he crashed his bike.

That part of his last day always seems to be missed out in our great heros movie and book stories, not that he was not a hero of course.

Jefferson Davis · Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2002 12:23 am Post subject:

Lawrence's fame was a result of a fledlging media campaign by Thomas.
Conventional history has still not figured him out.

His legacy I believe keeps the West from complete takeover of the region. TEL opened our eyrs to the Arab world.
He demonstrated that the magic carpet was nonsense and that Islam is not irrelevant. That the Arabs were no different than anything else despite our stereotypes of Arabian nights, fezes and at the time "The Shiek" movies.

As to his death, that theory remains open but TEL was a very private and haunted man with his own demons. I always could relate to him as an American when you hear someone exclaim "one person cannot change the world".
T. E. Lawrwnce was one man who did. For the West anyway and the better.

Guest · Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2002 12:39 am Post subject:

He certainly did, and its always a thing with us these days to explore the what ifs....

Which is the point of my talking of his last day....Not instigating any X files conspiracy theories as to his death...that I believe was a simple accident.

Its just the company he kept at that time, and the company he may well have kept if he had lived further, then history may not have looked on him so kindly, before his country went into a war of national survival.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Senators Warn Attack on Iraq Could Trigger Arab-Israeli War