This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[walruskkkch]

Nice am I, nice should you be, yes.

[DanS]

This is an interesting concession. First of all, it looked like the Bush administration was caught flat-footed.

On other hand, Iraq can only use this gambit once. If they start putting conditions on the resumption of inspections, those who went out on a limb (Russia, Arabs, France somewhat) will feel burned and more likely to support military action.

In the end, Iraq has committed to an action that reduces their choices, which ultimately puts them in a box. Lincoln is right in this regard.

[rah]

Lincoln posted this in another thread, which I closed to move here.

Originally posted by Lincoln

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/top_story.html?in_review_id=698298&in_review_text_id=671535

West on brink of Iraq war

by Joe Murphy, Evening Standard

The US and Britain returned to the brink of war today as Saddam Hussein's dramatic promise to allow unfettered weapons inspections turned out to have strings attached.


Iraq made a surprise offer late last night to provide "unconditional access" to United Nations inspectors, raising hopes of a peaceful outcome to the Gulf crisis.

But today it emerged that the offer only applied to military bases - which could let Saddam hide chemical and biological arms stockpiles elsewhere.

That was not good enough for Downing Street, which insisted: "Inspectors must be allowed to go anywhere, anytime."

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw urged the world to beware of being tricked by Iraq. "We have had games played by Saddam Hussein for the best part of 12 years," he said after meeting the Prime Minister.

"One thing I know for certain about him is he only responds to sustained pressure from the United Nations."

Iraq seemed to have succeeded in opening cracks in the fragile international coalition, however. Although the United States dismissed his offer as a ploy, France and Germany promptly questioned the need for a fresh UN resolution setting a deadline for Iraq to comply with existing rules.

Other countries, too, which have previously been reluctant to back a war against Saddam, seized the opportunity to claim the crisis was all but over. Fears are growing of a split in the 15-member UN security council which will study the offer today.

Amid confusion, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear inspections body, declared it was ready to recommence its work "tomorrow" if the UN agreed.

The disclosure that restrictions were, after all, attached to Saddam's offer was made by the London ambassador of the Arab League which brokered the deal in the first place.

Ali Muhsen Hamid claimed Iraq was being sincere, but he stipulated that civilian sites would not be available to the inspectors. "We support anywhere, any military site (for inspections), but not as some people have suggested for inspections against hospitals, against schools."

Hospitals are among key sites for inspections because of evidence that Saddam uses health laboratories to manufacture viruses for biological weapons.

An Arab League spokesman said only military sites were covered because it would take 10 years for inspectors to examine civilian buildings, which would divert the UN's attention from making Iraq obey its resolutions. "If the US really wants to resolve this dispute it will welcome the offer," he added.

No10 pointed out that during the last, failed, round of inspections, the Iraqi president redesignated about half of his most secret military installations as " presidential palaces", ruling them out of bounds to inspectors.

Iraq capitalised on the disarray to mount a propaganda offensive. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister, said the offer "thwarted" any reasons for a military attack. He added: "The aim of the American policies is the oil in the Gulf."

The Iraqi state news agency said Saddam may send a personal appeal to the UN within days.

Saddam made his offer in a letter presented to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan late last night after an emergency meeting of his security and diplomatic advisers.

Within minutes, the White House issued a statement scorning the promise as "a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong UN Security Council action".

"As such, it will fail," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions."

The concern in Washington is that support for military action will rapidly lose momentum. A State Department official described the offer as " a nightmare stalling technique".

Officials said planning for war would continue unchanged. But there was no longer any guarantee of a resolution ordering Iraq to disarm.

France was the first of the big five Security Council members to waver, suggesting that a new resolution be put on hold. And its top general flatly ruled out any preemptive strike against Saddam.

Armed forces chief General Jean-Pierre Kelche said an attack would bring chaos, adding: "We have to take him at his word."

Russia declared diplomacy had triumphed. Foreign minister Igor Ivanov said: "We have managed to deflect the threat of a military scenario and to steer the process back to a political channel."

A senior European Union official implied that the US was now out of line, saying: " The question now is whether the Americans will take 'yes' for an answer."

Under the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire terms, UN inspectors must verify the dismantling of Iraqi programmes for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and longrange missiles.

President Bush, whose stated policy is the ousting of Saddam, last week told the UN General Assembly that "action will be unavoidable" against Iraq unless the world body forced Baghdad to disarm.

Tony Blair had one consolation - a poll showing far greater support for military action in the wake of President Bush's speech.

[Lincoln]

Thanks rah. That was nice of you to do that.

[MarkG]

Very good, you win a cookie, because they didn't allow an attack, they ordered a liberation of Kuwait, how do you think ol Saddam stood in power, charm and good looks?

OH MY GOD! you are really saying that the US didnt overthrow Saddam cause it wasnt authorized by the UN?!?!

[Gatekeeper]

A senior European Union official implied that the US was now out of line, saying: "The question now is whether the Americans will take 'yes' for an answer."

And, pray tell, what will the European Union and Russia do should these inspections officially have conditions attached to them? Bend over even more trying to still justify that, hey, at least we got *some* inspections?

Gatekeeper

[Lincoln]

I can't understand why people still believe the lies of Sadam. Are these the children of Nevil Chamberlin? Apeasment doesn't work with people like Sadam. Isn't this all a part of history???

[DanS]

It appears that there is a wide range of opinion in Europe. Remember, after all, that "a senior European Union official" has much less power in this discussion than Columbia's ambassador to the UN.

Lincoln: I guess we win either way. I'd like to see what kind of goodies Saddam has been hiding one way or another.

[Velociryx]

I disagree with the posters who have said, in one form or another, that Sadam has painted himself into a corner. Immediately after the war, a UN resolution was passed to this very effect. That resolution was ignored, toyed with, stretched to its limits, and finally shreded when the UN inspectors were booted out.

It's the same ploy all over again. Absolutely no different this go 'round than last, except in timing of course....and brutally effective timing it was, too. Of course, it could only be expected that the French would be the first to back away.

Will it prevent Bush from going ahead with his plans? I hope so....doing *anything* without a broad base of international support would be foolhardy in the extreme. I'm still stuck in my original position tho....I don't think we should do anything as a pre-emptive strike. We do not arrest criminals before they commit a crime, and we should not go to war with another nation just because they *might* do something bad.

Sure, Sadam has an atrocious track record, but if we were that d@mned concerned about it, then we should have acted during Desert Storm. That hour has long since passed. If Sadam's incessant sabre rattling should turn to invasion of one of his neighbors again, and if that neighbor sends out a call for help, then by all means, we should answer that call, and finish the job that should have been finished a long time ago. Till then, our only options are: a) attack anyway, and become a global pariah, or b) bide our time, trusting Sadam to act as bullies invariably do....and when he does, squash him like the annoying roach he is.

I am NOT advocating any form of appeasement whatsoever, btw! I say we leave well enough alone tho....Sadam has more than enough rope to hang himself, and when he crosses the line, we should respond with simply overwhelming force and remove him from the world's concern. Till then, let him stew....let him crow. His days are numbered, not because of US (well, not directly anyway), but because of HIMSELF. Leave him be, and he WILL get too big for his britches. Bullies are like that.

When he does, I say we make a decisive impression on him.....but not before.

-=Vel=-

[Lincoln]

The problem is that the next time he plays the "bully" it may be with weapons that no one wants to confront.

[Lincoln]

If the article that I just posted is credible then the UN I expect will back the United States anyway. It is insanity to think that Sadam has not hidden his weapons by now. And nursery schools is the first place I would look.

[Velociryx]

::nodding:: That's certainly a risk, you're absolutely right, but there are other means of ensuring that he does not acquire nuclear capability. Do you *honestly* believe we haven't been playing those kinds of cat-and-mouse games with third-world wannabe d|ck'taters for YEARS? I assure you that we have. We need not resort to brute-force invasion of his nation to keep him from getting his hands on the really *good* toys....the ONLY reason it's being seriously considered now is cos he's a terriffic target of opportunity, and it'd give us a chance to blow off a bit more steam.

Those are not valid reasons to go to war.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

On that, I totally agree with you, Linc....taking a page right out of history....something about transporting muitions and supplies abord cruise ships maybe?

-=Vel=-

[Gatekeeper]

I still think Israel will do something even if we don't. They've done so in the past and there's no reason to rule out that they won't do so again in the future.

Saddam Hussein will never be dumb enough to directly attack the homeland of the United States ... but that doesn't mean he can't make our lives miserable in other ways. I've heard that if we go in now against Iraq, he will simply try to distribute the WMD he has (or even use them) to other groups before he goes down the tubes. Yet what's to stop him from doing that if we *don't* go in? To me, the only difference is time. One way or another, now or later, Saddam will strike out at his enemies directly or indirectly. By and large, those enemies are in the Western world.

Yet there are plenty of us in the Western world who willingly live with that possible future. If someone despises us, they're going to lash out now or later, not never.

Gatekeeper

[Lincoln]

I don't like the idea of a premptive attack either but Sadam will dig his own grave when he defies the next UN resolution (yes, I assume there will be an ultimatum by the UN). We will have to wait and see how this pans out but if this latest revelation is true then there will be some angry people in the UN because they were deceived.