THE NATION’S NEWSPAPER

Collegiate Case Study

www.usatodaycollege.com

Many CEOs silent on prospect of Iraq war

Confronting Iraq: Part II

By James Cox and Del Jones

5

Saddam seeks to placate Kurds U.S., Iraq wrestle for rebel support By John Diamond

8

Jordan on a 'tightrope' in U.S.-Iraq conflict War would put nation in a 'difficult' position By Barbara Slavin

9

Dubious about UN inspections, the Bush Administration is poised to undertake a high-tech military intervention to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Although some critics dispute that Saddam poses an imminent threat, and opinion is divided on whether the Iraqi people and troops will support Saddam or surrender to U.S. troops, the U.S. is preparing to deploy a wide array of high tech hardware, as well as an anti-Saddam propaganda campaign in order to enhance their prospects of success. Many neighboring Arab countries face domestic antiwar pressure and have specific concerns about the destabilizing effects of war in the region and domestically, U.S. opinion is likewise divided. USA TODAY polls and expert analysis of the issues highlights the stakes and interests of the various actors involved in the pre-war debate. This case study, exploring economic, political, bilateral, and multilateral facets of the showdown with Saddam Hussein will illuminate the root causes and various scenarios envisioned by the actors involved.

Diplomats maneuver for position from gulf to U.N. By Barbara Slavin

10

Case Study Expert Sherry L. Steeley

USA TODAY Snapshots® Americans say war is likely Will the United States be at war with Iraq in the next three months? Definitely

8% 53%

Probably One year from now? Definitely

17%

I R A Q

Probably

PS2002-07

54%

Source: USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 404 adults for the first question and 399 for the second Sept. 13-16. Margin of error: ±4 percentage points. By Sam Ward, USA TODAY

Cover Story

U.S. aim in Iraq: 'Lightning' action Don't look for another Persian Gulf War. Instead, the scenario will include high-tech weapons, snap intelligence, swift movement and propaganda. By Dave Moniz USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- On a moonless night as soon as December, a flock of

B-2 Stealth bombers cruising some six miles above Baghdad, Iraq, unleashes dozens of satellite-guided bombs on military command and air defense targets. Waves of Navy F-18s and Air Force F15s and F-16s follow. They fly just under the speed of sound, dodging orange anti-aircraft tracer fire to hunt chemical and biological weapons facilities. An all-night barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles rains down on Saddam Hussein's 50 presidential palaces and on the base of his internal security forces.

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

AS SEEN IN USA TODAY NEWS SECTION, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2002, PAGE 1A

Experts predict war would be even more sophisticated and relentless Then come the foot soldiers. This is how the Bush administration's campaign to dislodge Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein could begin. While the Pentagon continues to refine options for a possible invasion of Iraq and has made no final decision, a broad outline for how the war could be fought is emerging from months of heated debate within the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command in Tampa. From Day 1, it would be fast: Army Rangers with night-vision goggles and "whisper" microphones would parachute from C-130s flying at 500 feet to seize airfields in southern and western Iraq. After a 10-second plunge to earth, they would quickly set up hubs for tens of thousands of American ground forces streaming into these new bases by air and land. The campaign would be sophisticated: The arrival of American troops would coincide with the dropping of leaflets and blaring radio broadcasts that are designed to persuade Iraq's conscript army to lay down its weapons and help "liberate" the country.

Baker and others say a Desert Stormlike buildup and a massive ground invasion are not likely. Experts say that if the United States chooses military force to get rid of Saddam, the war will be defined by fundamental beliefs now associated with Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department: Reliance on precision weapons, superior intelligence and swift movements designed to capitalize on U.S. military advantages including information gathering and agility. v Don't look for a huge invasion force thundering across Iraq's borders. The United States controls much of the airspace over southern and northern Iraq and believes it can keep Saddam's crumbling military at bay while it sets up bases inside his borders. The Pentagon is unlikely to position large ground forces within range of Iraq's dozen or so remaining Scud missiles before the attack, experts say.

A dozen military officials and analysts interviewed by USA TODAY described a conflict that would bear little resemblance to the 1991 Persian Gulf War. What most envision is more like the 1989 invasion of Panama, when the United States removed an entrenched dictator.

v The war will almost certainly be preceded by a lengthy disinformation campaign designed to keep Saddam guessing about U.S. intentions. That effort, some say, has already begun with the disclosure of plans to move a key military headquarters to the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Qatar and the continued leaking of "war plans," including military training for Iraqi dissidents, to U.S. media. Says one former Gulf War planner: "It's been wonderful to have all those stories out there to confuse Saddam."

"Look for innovative, agile lightning tactics and look for it to be immediately overwhelming," says Steve Baker, a retired rear admiral who is a military analyst at the Center for Defense Information.

v Besides smart bombs and surgical commando raids, a key part of a U.S. strategy will be convincing the regular army and Iraqi civilians to assist in the effort to "free" their country. This psychological operations, or "psyops,"

campaign is designed to topple Saddam and leave the Iraqi people unharmed. v In this war, look for elite U.S. commandos to attack sensitive targets quickly and for conventional forces such as Army tanks and helicopters to move more deliberately, analysts predict. Destroying Saddam's grip on power, but not necessarily his military, is the central aim of the war. The speed of the war depends on whether Iraq's military decides to fight or step aside, as large portions did in 1991, and on whether Saddam uses stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. U.S. troops will be inoculated against anthrax and will carry protective suits with them to protect against nerve agents. A much smaller force If the United States could be at war with Iraq within three months, where are all the troops? Unlike Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 199091 -- characterized by massive flows of soldiers and tanks to the Arabian Peninsula -- there has been no discernible U.S. buildup. There are several reasons. With U.S. personnel already stationed in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, the Pentagon has a ready-made military infrastructure that it didn't have a decade ago. Since the Gulf War, the United States and Great Britain have controlled airspace over much of Iraq and have moved ready-to-use war stocks to regional bases. This war is likely to involve a much smaller force than Desert Storm. Instead of 500,000 U.S. troops, it could require fewer than 100,000. Military experts add that they don't all have to be in place before the United States launches an attack.

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 2

Confronting Iraq: Part II Case Study AS SEEN IN USA TODAY NEWS SECTION, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2002, PAGE 1A

"You could do this in phases," says David Grange, a retired Army general and an expert in special operations warfare. It's possible that the largest portion of U.S. troops -- some say a minimum of 25,000 -- will be needed to maintain order and disarm Saddam's military after the invasion. Some would probably have to stay for years to ensure peace.

U.S. military presence around Iraq The United States has about 18,500 naval, air and ground troops deployed across the Persian Gulf region. The U.S. forces:

To keep Iraqi aircraft out of the northern no-fly zone, the United States patrols with 28 fighters (F-16s and F-15s) and other support aircraft based at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey. To monitor a southern nofly zone, 5,000 to 6,000 troops and 120 aircraft (F-15s, F-16s and A-10s) are positioned in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Turkey

Incirlik Air Base

NO-FLY ZONE

Tehran Iran

Syria

Given the danger of Iraq striking Israel or U.S. forces before the attack, the Pentagon will seek tactical surprise, analysts say. The Pentagon could base ground troops hundreds of miles away or on ships to maintain surprise. It's also possible that any U.S. plan might have to be ditched or quickly redrawn if Iraq strikes U.S. forces or Israel ahead of time. Given the uncertainties over which Arab countries might offer bases or assistance, Rumsfeld and the Bush administration are almost certain to insist on flexible options that can be easily altered, one experienced Pentagon war planner says. The Air Force, for example, has already studied attack plans that do not require the use of Saudi air bases. The Saudi government originally said it would bar U.S. attacks from its bases but agreed more recently to allow the use of its facilities as long as the attacks are sanctioned by the United Nations. The United States is not likely to need the massive armada of aircraft -- more than 2,000 -- that took part in bombing Iraq 11 years ago. The widespread use of smart bombs, dropped infrequently in 1991, would shrink the number of fighters and bombers needed to strike. A single B-1, B-2 or B-52 carrying as few as a dozen smart bombs can destroy as many targets as an entire squadron of 24 aircraft did during Desert Storm. The bombers' destructive power was

Caspian Sea

Azerbaijan

Iraq Mediterranean Lebanon Sea Azrak

Baghdad

Air Base

Israel

Jordan

Camp Doha, a U.S. Army base in Kuwait, has 250 troops with more than 250 armored vehicles positioned so that a U.S. Army brigade could land there and quickly deploy.

NO-FLY ZONE

Saudi Arabia

Camp Doha

Egypt

Kuwait

The carrier USS Nimitz, cruising in the Persian Gulf, has 50 F-14s and F-18s and 27 other planes and helicopters. The carrier’s battle group also includes two missile cruisers, four destroyers, three frigates and a nuclear attack submarine. Also, a U.S. Marine Corps expeditionary force with the group has 2,100 Marines aboard six ships.

Al Jaber Air Base

Dhahran Air Base Bahrain Qatar

Persian Gulf

N 0

The USS George Washington

100 Miles

Red Sea

is a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier like the Nimitz and carries similar aircraft. It is in the Red Sea steaming toward the Persian Gulf.

Source: Periscope Military Database Research by Christina Pino-Marina, USA TODAY

magnified in Afghanistan by special operations troops using laser pointers and global positioning system receivers to call in airstrikes. According to Pentagon officials, one Special Forces soldier directing smart bombs from the ground called in strikes that killed 3,000 Taliban in a single day last fall. The Air Force is also poised to use a deadly new bomb against Iraqi tanks if Saddam threatens U.S. ground troops. Known as "sensor-fuzed weapons," the hockey-puck shaped smart bombs are dropped by one fighter or bomber and can target up to 40 tanks or armored vehicles over 30 acres. Already at war The United States has begun an

By Kevin Rechin and Grant Jerding, USA TODAY

aggressive campaign to dismantle Iraq's air defense network in the past month. During that time, U.S. and British aircraft have attacked air defense command centers south of Baghdad and in western Iraq with raids of up to 30 aircraft. The Pentagon has explained the expanded strikes as acts of self-defense after Iraqi batteries targeted American warplanes. Privately, military officials say the United States is taking the opportunity to dismantle Saddam's air defenses. Military officials say they are confident that they can quickly disable Iraq's countrywide air defense network, which is connected by underground fiber optic cable. Iraq is believed to still have

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 3

Confronting Iraq: Part II Case Study AS SEEN IN USA TODAY NEWS SECTION, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2002, PAGE 1A

thousands of surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft guns. The first part of the air campaign will be designed to reduce the threat against U.S. pilots from those weapons and, according to recent statements from Rumsfeld, neutralize chemical and biological weapons facilities. Among the weapons that could be employed are 5,000-pound, groundpenetrating "bunker buster" bombs and special bombs used in Afghanistan to kill terrorists hidden in deep cave complexes by literally sucking the oxygen out of the underground tunnels. Will they fight? The big wild card in any war with Iraq is gauging the Iraqi military's loyalty. Will conscript soldiers fight to keep Saddam in power or, as happened during the Gulf War, surrender en masse? Many analysts predict that a large portion of Saddam's 375,000-man regular army will refuse to fight. During the 1991 war, more than 70,000 gave up after a month-long pummeling from the air and ground. But Iraq's 100,000-man Republican Guard, Saddam's most loyal and welltrained troops, could choose to resist. They are augmented by the Special Republican Guard, a security force that is centered in Baghdad and designed solely to keep Saddam in power. Although U.S. intelligence and Iraqi defectors believe many Republican Guard troops will choose not to fight, the Pentagon cannot build a war plan based on that assumption. Thomas McInerney, a retired Air Force lieutenant general with close ties to the Iraqi opposition, says the Pentagon will

use exiles to persuade soldiers to leave the regime.

in Grozny, which produced thousands of casualties for the Russian army.

"All the military forces will be told that they have two choices: Either help us change the regime and build a democracy, or be destroyed," McInerney told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Monday. McInerney also echoed warnings from Rumsfeld that Iraqis who use weapons of mass destruction will "be tried as war criminals."

Few experts would compare battlehardened Muslim extremists in Grozny with Saddam's ill-trained draftees, but it's possible that the Iraqi leadership would try to create the conditions for similar street-by-street gunbattles.

Despite those warnings, planners have to assume Iraq could unleash chemical or biological weapons. Saddam held off deploying such weapons in the 1991 war after being warned that their use would provoke a devastating U.S. response. Now that U.S. forces are aiming to oust or kill him, he may feel he has nothing to lose by targeting U.S. troops or Israel with missiles or artillery shells packed with gas or biological agents. During the 1991 war, Army planners estimated that if Iraqis employed chemical weapons, they could kill up to 10 times as many U.S. troops as might die from conventional arms. Destroying Saddam's ability to launch such weapons would be among U.S. forces' first priorities in any invasion.

"Saddam will try to hide and embed troops in with the population. If we can separate Saddam's forces from his people, then we've won half the battle," Christman says. Retired general Joseph Hoar, a former U.S. military commander in the Middle East, recently described the possibility of 100,000 Iraqi troops with thousands of artillery pieces defending Baghdad. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hoar said Saddam has learned that he cannot fight the United States in open terrain and hope to win. The Pentagon, Hoar said, should do everything possible to avoid urban warfare. "U.S. forces would prevail," he said. "But at what cost? And at what cost as the rest of the world watches while we bomb and have artillery rounds exploded in densely populated neighborhoods?"

Even though Iraqi forces are much weaker than they were 11 years ago, there are still potential nightmare scenarios for U.S. war planners. One is a grisly urban battle in which clusters of Iraqi troops attempt to inflict huge casualties on American foot soldiers. Retired Army lieutenant general Dan Christman, who helped plan the Gulf War, says the worst case is that such a fight could look like the Russians' deadly street fights with Chechen rebels

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 4

AS SEEN IN USA TODAY MONEY SECTION, FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2002, PAGE 1B

they think a U.S. attack is justified and wise, and whether it would help or hurt the economy. There are plenty of reasons for CEOs to be AWOL on the subject. By voicing objections, a chief executive risks looking unpatriotic and could invite the wrath of the Bush administration. By citing economic concerns, he looks parochial and self-interested. By publicly supporting an assault, he faces a backlash if the war is protracted and U.S. casualties are heavy.

Many CEOs silent on prospect of Iraq war

There's another reason. The barrage of corporate scandals has left chief executives "in a state of shock," says Jeffrey Garten, dean of Yale University's School of Management. The silence emanating from the corner office is notable now because only two years ago, CEOs were being lionized, their input sought on everything from foreign affairs to education and welfare reform. That has all changed. "It will be a very rare CEO right now who sticks his head up and opines on foreign policy," Garten says. "Anyone who calls attention to himself for anything other than improving the conduct, reputation and performance of his company is an easy target."

Scandals keep some from voicing opinion on possible conflict By James Cox and Del Jones USA TODAY There's a voice missing in the national debate about war with Iraq. It belongs to the CEO. Top business leaders have been curiously mute about the U.S. drive to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Few, if any, chief executives have said publicly whether

The Business Roundtable, a lobbying group of 150 big-company CEOs, declined to make any officers available to talk about prospects of a U.S.-Iraq war. Tom Donahue, CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also declined to be interviewed. An official with the 14,000member National Association of Manufacturers said his organization hadn't heard enough from its members to be able to say much. The business people who are willing to stake out positions on the Iraq question tend to run small and midsize companies. And they are sharply divided about the need to go after Saddam.

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 5

Confronting Iraq: Part II Case Study AS SEEN IN USA TODAY MONEY SECTION, FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2002, PAGE 1B

Heads of small, midsize firms have differing views Technology executive Eric Schmidt of Canal Winchester, Ohio, is a hawk. The CEO of iBeam Solutions says the United States should attack Iraq "immediately" because war benefits the country and the economy. "There is too much uncertainty in the world because Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are at large," he says. "Once these two are off the streets, people will feel more confident about the state of the world and their country." Narayan Laksham, CEO of San Jose, Calif.-based eBots, which tracks goods through the supply chain, dreads the idea. He says eBots has finally managed to rebuild sales that fell sharply after the Sept. 11 attacks. "I am worried that an Iraq situation will get us into the same spot again," Laksham says. "President Bush has too many balls in the air -- unstable Afghanistan, al Qaeda, a sputtering economy, big-company accounting disasters and never-ending Middle East troubles. The juggling act might become unmanageable." Such divergent views illustrate that "there is no consensus, either about the war or the impact on the economy," says Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, a 500-member lobbying organization. Miller says some tech-company bosses see Saddam as "such a terrible danger to the world that something must be done, or future generations will chastise us. . . . Others believe he's very dangerous, but they think the case has simply not been made by the president and the administration that there's an immediate risk." Lots of concerns All the talk of war creates uncertainty, preventing the technology industry from climbing out of a hole that has information technology spending down 20% from 2000 levels. "Being jittery isn't usually a time when CEOs sit down and make positive decisions on IT spending," Miller says. Corporate bosses big and small worry a fight in Iraq will cause a spike in oil prices, already up 50% since January. Saudi Arabia and other producers have signaled that they

will loosen the taps to make up whatever short-term production is lost on world markets. But Saddam could send prices shooting to $40 or $50 a barrel if he was able to disrupt the flow of Saudi or Kuwaiti oil. "High crude prices would certainly halt any world economic recovery, which (already) seems uncertain at best," concludes James Williams, publisher of the research newsletter Energy Economist. Lawrence Lindsey, President Bush's chief economic adviser, stunned many this week when he said it could cost as much as $100 billion to $200 billion to rout Saddam, vs. $58 billion for the 1990-91 Gulf War and $10 billion for the Afghan war. Lindsey, head of the White House's National Economic Council, told The Wall Street Journal that a war to oust Saddam would neither push the country into recession nor boost the economy. "Whatever it is that's finally decided to be done, we will succeed, and we can afford it," Treasury chief Paul O'Neill said this week. But once the shooting starts, consumers are certain to be rattled, many believe. And that could be dangerous: Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of economic activity. With business investment falling, consumers powered the economy out of recession by taking advantage of cheap mortgages and zero-percent car loans. If consumers pull back, they could doom any hopes for a turnaround in hard-hit industries such as air travel, hotels, advertising and telecom, and damage healthy sectors such as real estate and autos. The economy is too fragile to withstand another shock, says Jim Evans, whose company owns two Gold's Gyms in San Diego. "A war with Iraq would trigger a recession," he says. He frets that his customers would "perceive our services as a luxury" if fighting causes consumers to start scrutinizing their spending. Corporate bosses aren't deaf to the war drums, but they have other worries, too. In February 2001, about 150 CEOs ranked conflict in the Middle East as sixth among the factors that would influence their decisions to invest around the world, according to a survey by management consultants A.T. Kearney. Earlier this month, they listed the

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 6

Confronting Iraq: Part II Case Study AS SEEN IN USA TODAY MONEY SECTION, FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2002, PAGE 1B

Middle East as their No. 4 concern, after U.S. economic recovery, free-trade initiatives and Japan's recession.

More than half -- 16 -- said a war would delay a U.S. economic recovery or tip the country back into recession. Nine felt war could speed up an economic turnaround.

No sure thing Most CEOs see too many variables in an attack on Baghdad to feel comfortable speaking out about the wisdom of an assault, says Paul Laudicina, the A.T. Kearney vice president who conducts the survey of corporate bosses. "Even if you ask the best strategists in the military community what's the likely length of the campaign, the casualties, the geopolitical factors, most don't know," he says. "The reason (business) people aren't willing to stand up and say their mind is that most aren't very well informed about what would happen." After Bush's speech to the United Nations last week, USA TODAY sampled opinion among a handful of people who own or run small and midsize businesses around the country. Seventeen of the 29 said the U.S. should get a go-ahead from the U.N. before attacking Iraq; seven said the U.S. could launch an attack without U.N. approval; five said the administration should not go to war with Saddam Hussein.

Bob Meeker, president of Preferred Communications, a Creedmoor, N.C., company that sells emergency equipment to the military, is convinced that an attack on Iraq is the right thing for the country and the economy. "The world is a different place since 9/11, and the U.S. is now in a more powerful position to alter world politics -- hopefully with wisdom," he says. Others say the U.S. lacks the moral authority to go on the offensive against Baghdad. "Many of us are old enough to remember the Vietnam debacle, and we don't want to see it happen again," says Sue Quambusch, president of A to Z printing company in Lincoln, Neb. Adds Alvin Dziurzynski, president of Access Systems, a Knoxville, Tenn., financial consulting firm: "It's a close line between world leader and world bully. Think about it: What if some other nation tried to dictate what weapons we could have?"

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 7

AS SEEN IN USA TODAY NEWS SECTION, MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2002, PAGE 1A

and get a share of Iraq's oil revenue only if they do not support U.S. efforts to remove him, two U.S. intelligence officials say.

Saddam seeks to placate Kurds

Since those signals, operatives of the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency in northern Iraq have reported that they are having increasing difficulty securing commitments from Kurdish leaders to support U.S. action, the officials say.

U.S., Iraq wrestle for rebel support By John Diamond USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has stepped up efforts to persuade Kurdish rebels to remain neutral if the United States attacks his regime, a move that is complicating U.S. planning for a possible invasion, U.S. intelligence officials say. In the latest sign that he is taking President Bush's threat to oust him seriously, Saddam has used intermediaries in northern Iraq in recent weeks to appeal to the rebels he terrorized for decades. The Kurds, who are 15%-20% of Iraq's population, seek independence and have cooperated with the United States. But now they are enjoying an unusual degree of autonomy and revenue from Iraqi oil with Saddam's tacit blessing. Saddam has signaled the Kurds that they will continue to be able to govern themselves, teach their children the Kurdish language, collect taxes on commerce passing through the region

The development adds to war planners' doubts that the Kurds would join any effort to overthrow the Saddam regime. Although few expect the Kurds to back Saddam instead, the growing expectation that they would sit out a U.S.-Iraq conflict is one factor driving draft Pentagon plans that call for as many as 300,000 troops for the mission, the officials said. The Kurds hate Saddam, but they have been burned by past U.S. promises of assistance against Iraqi oppression. The most recent example was in 1996, when Iraqi forces moved north and shattered a CIA covert operation to generate internal opposition to Saddam, then executed scores of Kurds who were helping the spy agency.

0

N

100

Azerbaijan

Miles

Turkey

Kurdish areas

Syria

Iran

Mosul Kirkuk Iraq

Halabjah

Tikrit Baghdad Jordan Saudi Arabia USA TODAY

gained and a lot to be risked" in backing the United States. "They're being very, very cautious. They have long memories." Saddam's forces crushed Kurdish bids for independence in 1975, again in the 1980s by killing thousands with poison gas and also in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War. In each case, Kurds accused Washington of ignoring their plight. Since the episode in 1991, the United States and Britain have patrolled the skies of the northern and southern thirds of Iraq to protect minority populations from Saddam's forces.

Neighboring Turkey, a NATO ally and one possible launching pad for a U.S. assault on Iraq, has demanded and received assurance from Washington that a post-Saddam Iraq would not be broken up into multiple states. The Turks fear that Kurdish independence in Iraq would inflame their own Kurdish minority. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, says that for the Kurds, "there's nothing yet to be

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 8

AS SEEN IN USA TODAY NEWS SECTION, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, PAGE 4A

Jordan on a 'tightrope' in U.S.-Iraq conflict War would put nation in a 'difficult position'

Lebanon Syria

By Barbara Slavin USA TODAY

West Bank

"We are walking a tightrope," Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher told reporters here last week. "We have a political and economic relationship with the United States that we don't want to jeopardize. At the same time, (Jordanian) public opinion is opposed to the war. We are going to be put in a very difficult position." Because of Jordan's strategic location bordering Iraq, the Bush administration might seek to fly over the country or mount special-operations missions if there is a need to rescue U.S. troops. Muasher said U.S. officials had not asked Jordan to be a "launching pad." During the 1991 Gulf War, Jordan was the only Arab country to side with Iraq, which provides Jordan with oil at cut-rate prices. This time, Jordan and other Arab countries publicly oppose a war to eject Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. But they are expected to grudgingly acquiesce if the United States invades because they perceive that they have no other choice.

Amman Dead Sea

Jordan Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Israel

WASHINGTON -- Jordan will be a reluctant ally if the United States goes to war with Iraq. The fragile monarchy wants assurances that it will survive both the collapse of the Iraqi regime and a possible exodus of Palestinians from the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Iraq

Jordan River

have not seen one public statement by any Israeli official saying transfer is contrary to Israeli policy." Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said it was not necessary to issue such denials because "the Israeli government has never believed in the transfer option."

N

0

50

Miles

By Adrienne Lewis, USA TODAY

Support will be less reluctant if the United Nations sanctions the use of force. Muasher, who met last week in Washington with Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, said he found "a serious intent" to work through the United Nations. But President Bush has also made it clear that the United States is prepared to go to war against Iraq without U.N. approval. One of Jordan's key concerns is that Israel will use the cover and chaos of a war against Iraq to push thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan, already home to millions of refugees from previous Middle East wars. A majority of Jordan's 5 million people are of Palestinian origin, but the country is ruled by a monarchy from the East Bank of the Jordan River. In the past, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has declared that there is no need for a Palestinian state on Israeli-occupied territory because there is already a Palestinian homeland: Jordan.

About 200,000 Palestinians have voluntarily fled eastward since a Palestinian uprising began two years ago because of the dire economic situation in the West Bank. Israel has kept Palestinians there under siege to prevent suicide attacks on Israeli citizens. Creation of an independent Palestinian state, Jordan hopes, would provide incentives for Palestinians in the West Bank to stay put and for others to return. Muasher challenged Israel to announce acceptance of a three-year time frame for Palestinian independence that Bush called for in June. Regev said that Israel "has not explicitly rejected" the time frame but that progress depends on an end to attacks on Israelis and on Palestinian political reform.

Muasher said Israelis had privately assured Jordan they would not transfer Palestinians en masse in the event of war with Iraq. But, he said, "we

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 9

AS SEEN IN USA TODAY NEWS SECTION, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, PAGE 4A

Diplomats maneuver for position from gulf to U.N. Iraqi officials appeal to Turkey, Iran; U.S., Britain press tough resolution By Barbara Slavin USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- Iraq is expanding its diplomatic counteroffensive against the United States and Britain by sending its deputy prime minister to Turkey today to try to slow momentum toward a new Persian Gulf war. Tariq Aziz was due in the Turkish capital, Ankara, to argue that the status quo is preferable to the "regime change" demanded by the Bush administration. Turkey is a NATO member, and its air bases would be a key launching pad for U.S. strikes against Iraq. Turkey is also an Iraqi trading partner. The visit to Turkey follows a rare high-level meeting Sunday between Iraq and Iran. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in Tehran that U.S. pressure on Iraq was "not just a threat to us, but a threat to the Islamic world." The two countries fought a bloody war from 1980 to 1988, but both governments have hostile relations with the United States. The Iraqi diplomacy, which included inviting several liberal Democratic members of Congress to Baghdad, is part of an escalating campaign on both sides to affect the debate over resolutions in the United Nations and Congress. U.S. and British diplomats showed no appreciable progress Sunday in gaining support for a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Iraq if it fails to disclose all its weapons of mass destruction within 30 days. The other three members of the U.N. Security Council with veto power -- France, Russia and China -- have not agreed to the resolution. After quick stops in Paris and Moscow, Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of State for political affairs, was returning to Washington Sunday apparently empty-handed. A British counterpart was in China.

A senior State Department official said Sunday that the Bush administration was not discouraged. And British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the British Broadcasting Corp. on Sunday, "I hope and believe we will get the resolution that we want." The United States and Britain have several options: v Continue to press France, Russia and China for their support. v Amend the resolution. v Give up seeking one. France, Russia and China have urged the United States to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq for the first time in nearly four years. Hans Blix, chief U.N. arms inspector for Iraq, was due to hold meetings with Iraqi officials in Vienna today and Tuesday on arrangements for sending inspectors back next month. The U.S. position is that inspectors should not return without a new resolution demanding unrestricted access to suspected weapons sites and threatening force if Iraq does not comply. But Iraq rejected on Saturday any change in the ground rules for inspections. "Iraq's latest defiance makes a new U.N resolution even more necessary," said White House deputy press secretary Gordon Johndroe, who was with the president in Crawford, Texas. Bush may get Congress to authorize the use of force before the United Nations acts. "We ought to do it sooner rather than later," Sen. John Breaux, D-La., told Fox News Sunday. However, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said on CBS' Face the Nation that Bush must exhaust efforts to get international cooperation or "he'll win a resolution, but it'll be a divided Congress and, I think, a divided public."

Contributing: Richard Benedetto in Crawford, Texas, and Jim Drinkard in Washington

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Page 10

For discussion 1. What is the primary Turkish concern over potential U.S. action in Iraq? How can broader transnational concerns related to the Kurds be addressed? 2. What are some initial ways to mitigate Jordan's apprehensions? What could the U.S. do in this realm? What are possible reactions of minority religious groups and Palestinian groups in the West Bank, Lebanon, Turkey and around the world in the event of war? What about Israel's likely reaction? 3. What alternatives should be developed in order to offset the possibility of a widening regional conflict in the Middle East? What is the role of the UN in this area? What about the U.S.? Do you think that the individual members of the UN Security Council play a more influential role with players in the Middle East, or do you think that the Security Council as a whole carries more weight? What are the opportunities and potential pitfalls of each approach? 4. What is the rationale of the Security Council members committed to continuing a deliberative inspection process? 5. What are the concerns of U.S. companies regarding war? What are the short-term problems and opportunities? What are the medium-term prospects? Are there sectors or industries that are potential "winners" or "losers" in the event of a military conflict?

Future implications 1. What affect would unilateral U.S. action have on future efforts to encourage recalcitrant regimes to follow the prescriptions of international law? 2. How would unilateral U.S. military action affect actors and decisionmakers in local or national conflicts such as those ongoing in Chechnya, Cote d'Ivoire, and Sierra Leone? 3. Which other "rogue states" should the UN confront upon resolution of the Iraq crisis? How does the precedent of successful inspections and a united Security Council impinge upon prospects in North Korea? Libya and the issue of reparations for PanAm 103? In your opinion, would improved enforcement of UN sanctions policies obviate the need for highstakes inspections? 4. What are the international implications for U.S. businesses with multinational trade and investment interests? How will these be affected by reliance upon the UN apparatus versus unilateral U.S. action?

About The Expert Sherry L. Steeley is a former Foreign Service officer with a background in development economics, public policy, and international economic law, with a strong interest in education, institutional development, and cross cultural communication, and transnational cooperation. Ms. Steeley has been active in multicultural and multilingual education, and is currently a language instructor for non-native speakers of English at Mount St. Mary's College in Emmitsburg, Maryland, holds an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and is a doctoral student at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. For more information, log on to www.usatodaycollege.com

Page 12