USA: Uncle Sam Takes Aim
February 2003 1140
REPORTER: Ginny Stein
DEMONSTRATORS CHANT: We want justice! We want peace! We want out of the Middle East!
Despite growing domestic opposition to a war on Iraq, the American President has not waivered from his resolve for regime change. For the last few months, the United States has been preparing for war. 65,000 troops are already engaged in combat exercises in Qatar and Kuwait and are ready for action.
SOLDIER: The soldiers are motivated, the morale is high and our soldiers are doing a great job here.
A further 87,000 troops are on their way to the Gulf, after the customary farewell from the Commander in Chief.
GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT: We are ready, we are prepared, and should the United States be compelled to act, our troops will be acting in the finest traditions of America. You will be fighting not to conquer anybody, but to liberate people. See, we believe in freedom.
Even though the United Nations weapons inspectors have found no smoking gun, or indeed anything yet that would trigger a Security Council vote to go to war, the Republican administration seems determined to topple Saddam Hussein militarily.
ROBERT McFARLANE, FORMER REPUBLICAN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Can you afford not to do this given the maturity and lethality of these biological systems that are on the shelf, truly. And systems that, given to al-Qa'ida or terrorist group, could inflict horrendous damage.
This belligerent mood is shared by the Democrats.
SANDY BERGER, FORMER DEMOCRAT NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think that the belief on the part of the Administration is that - and I share this - that an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, particularly in my mind with nuclear weapons, is strategically dangerous in a very important region of the world.
But critics warn that such aggression may have profound consequences.
PHYLLIS BENNIS, US INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: I think it's absolutely a moment of extraordinary danger in the relationships between the Western countries led by the United States, but certainly including all those countries that go along, whether it be Tony Blair and the UK, whether it be Australia, whether it be any of the European countries that are dragged along by right-wing governments against the wishes of their own population, they will be held accountable and their people will be held accountable for tremendous antagonism in the region towards this arrogance with which this policy is imposed.
HANS BLIX, UN CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Inspections is not a prelude to war. It is an alternative to war.
Next Monday, Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspection team will release his interim report on Iraqi compliance. But George Bush has already indicated that his patience is wearing thin.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm. I'm sick and tired of games and deception.
Bush's cabinet includes the hawkish Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Vice-President Dick Cheney. They're prepared to take unilateral action against Iraq. But Secretary of State Colin Powell has urged the President to seek allies, like Australia, in any war - and for one key reason.
SANDY BERGER: How this unfolds is important to the American people and to the Australian people. I think there is a way to do this that increases risk, and there's a way to do this that decreases the risks. And to me, internationalising this to the greatest extent possible is the way to decrease risks.
So far only Australia and Britain have announced extra troop deployments to the for the Gulf in support of America. Sandy Berger fears this could have dangerous consequences.
SANDY BERGER: If this is essentially seen as United States, Britain, Australia, and a handful of essentially Western countries moving into Iraq, overthrowing the government and establishing their own government, I think it's going to be...there's going to be unrest in the region. The old colonial powers and the new colonial powers dividing up Iraq.
The threat of wider instability in the region is a concern shared by supporters and critics of Bush's strategy.
ROBERT McFARLANE: I believe that there could well be a wider conflict in the Middle East emerging from a move into Iraq. For example, it is likely that Saddam would act against Israel, launching Scuds or some other violence, and that indeed Israel is certain to respond militarily. That could, in fact, lead to wider conflict, bringing in other Arab states. So yes, there is a potential for a much wider conflict.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: The consequences in the region are going to be horrific. The irony is, of course, the United States is asking its allies in the region for support for a war that could end with the overthrow of those same allies. In countries like Jordan, even Saudia Arabia, you have a scenario where the government is facing a huge crisis of legitimacy.
REPORTER: So ultimately it could lead to greater instability if it's not carefully controlled?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Absolutely. US policy in the region has always been based on a triplet of three things - oil, Israel and stability. And one or another of them always had to give. You can't really have them all. And right now, what's going to give it looks like is stability.
So why is America once more moving down the road to war? Increasingly, America's conservative foreign policy thinkers are prepared to justify a war in order to ensure American access to oil and to thwart Saddam's dangerous ambition.
ROBERT McFARLANE: To have gone into a sovereign state 10 years ago, to have intended to go into Saudia Arabia, and then to have been able to dominate the fuel which underwrites the entire global economy expresses an ambition that's truly towering. And he hasn't changed. If he could do it, he would.
REPORTER: You mentioned just now about oil. How much is that a motive, though, in this whole issue?
ROBERT McFARLANE: The primary motive is to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction. To be able to change the regime and hold the promise of a more stable Iraq would, of course, make world oil markets and the global energy balance a much more stable one. But this is not a matter of economic or financial ambition by the United States.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: This is very much about oil. It's about oil and it's about empire. It's about control of the region, both politically, militarily, and economically and through control of oil. The issue of Saddam Hussein is a very new thing. Saddam Hussein has always been a brutal dictator, but for years he was our guy.
But whatever the motivation for invading Iraq, there remains the problem of what to do after the battle is over. Superior technology is likely to deliver victory, but does the Administration have the stomach for the prolonged task of rebuilding Iraq?
ROBERT McFARLANE: Well, the conflict, I believe, could be relatively short - a matter of 60 days, perhaps. However, the day after, which is a nation-building challenge to put in place institutions worthy of the name, is going to require a matter of years.
REPORTER: Do you believe the Bush Administration is also committed to the millions of dollars and years that it's going to take to stabilise Iraq?
ROBERT McFARLANE: I think that's unresolved at this point in the Administration. I think there are differing views within the Administration. There are some who believe that our job, should conflict become necessary, is to dislodge Saddam Hussein, work to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction without much obligation thereafter. I think there are others who believe that if we are in fact involved in a war in Iraq, we have a long-term obligation. I tend to believe the latter.
But even friends of the Administration doubt the government's resolve.
ROBERT McFARLANE: The Bush Administration is going to have to accept that they, along with allies, need to nurture, teach, indeed occupy Iraq for a long, long time until the fundamentals of stability are established.
REPORTER: From the pattern of what we're seeing so far in terms of Afghanistan, that's not the case, is it?
ROBERT McFARLANE: Well, the United States has, in Afghanistan, relied on the donor community from Europe and Japan, Australia to do the follow-on heavy lifting. And it isn't going terribly well. We have an obligation, not only in Afghanistan, but wherever we change the status quo to make the successor climate better. And I think that's a fundamental change that has to be accepted in the Bush Administration, and I believe it will be.
REPORTER: And if it isn't?
ROBERT McFARLANE: If it isn't, we're likely to see not only turmoil in Iraq, but in the neighbouring countries that could be quite harmful to our own interests.
But it's not only America's interests that are at stake. Instability in the Middle East is unlikely to be in Australia's best interests either.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: It's not, I can't imagine, in Australia's self-interest to have massive instability in the Middle East region. It can't be in Australia's best interest to have Australians and the Australian Government hated throughout the region. This is not something that is going to help protect Australians from terrorist attacks. It's not going to prevent something like the terrible thing that happened in Bali from happening again. It's going to make all of that worse.
As America flexes its muscles in the Gulf, war seems almost inevitable.
February 2003 1140
REPORTER: Ginny Stein
DEMONSTRATORS CHANT: We want justice! We want peace! We want out of the Middle East!
Despite growing domestic opposition to a war on Iraq, the American President has not waivered from his resolve for regime change. For the last few months, the United States has been preparing for war. 65,000 troops are already engaged in combat exercises in Qatar and Kuwait and are ready for action.
SOLDIER: The soldiers are motivated, the morale is high and our soldiers are doing a great job here.
A further 87,000 troops are on their way to the Gulf, after the customary farewell from the Commander in Chief.
GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT: We are ready, we are prepared, and should the United States be compelled to act, our troops will be acting in the finest traditions of America. You will be fighting not to conquer anybody, but to liberate people. See, we believe in freedom.
Even though the United Nations weapons inspectors have found no smoking gun, or indeed anything yet that would trigger a Security Council vote to go to war, the Republican administration seems determined to topple Saddam Hussein militarily.
ROBERT McFARLANE, FORMER REPUBLICAN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Can you afford not to do this given the maturity and lethality of these biological systems that are on the shelf, truly. And systems that, given to al-Qa'ida or terrorist group, could inflict horrendous damage.
This belligerent mood is shared by the Democrats.
SANDY BERGER, FORMER DEMOCRAT NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think that the belief on the part of the Administration is that - and I share this - that an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, particularly in my mind with nuclear weapons, is strategically dangerous in a very important region of the world.
But critics warn that such aggression may have profound consequences.
PHYLLIS BENNIS, US INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: I think it's absolutely a moment of extraordinary danger in the relationships between the Western countries led by the United States, but certainly including all those countries that go along, whether it be Tony Blair and the UK, whether it be Australia, whether it be any of the European countries that are dragged along by right-wing governments against the wishes of their own population, they will be held accountable and their people will be held accountable for tremendous antagonism in the region towards this arrogance with which this policy is imposed.
HANS BLIX, UN CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Inspections is not a prelude to war. It is an alternative to war.
Next Monday, Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspection team will release his interim report on Iraqi compliance. But George Bush has already indicated that his patience is wearing thin.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm. I'm sick and tired of games and deception.
Bush's cabinet includes the hawkish Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Vice-President Dick Cheney. They're prepared to take unilateral action against Iraq. But Secretary of State Colin Powell has urged the President to seek allies, like Australia, in any war - and for one key reason.
SANDY BERGER: How this unfolds is important to the American people and to the Australian people. I think there is a way to do this that increases risk, and there's a way to do this that decreases the risks. And to me, internationalising this to the greatest extent possible is the way to decrease risks.
So far only Australia and Britain have announced extra troop deployments to the for the Gulf in support of America. Sandy Berger fears this could have dangerous consequences.
SANDY BERGER: If this is essentially seen as United States, Britain, Australia, and a handful of essentially Western countries moving into Iraq, overthrowing the government and establishing their own government, I think it's going to be...there's going to be unrest in the region. The old colonial powers and the new colonial powers dividing up Iraq.
The threat of wider instability in the region is a concern shared by supporters and critics of Bush's strategy.
ROBERT McFARLANE: I believe that there could well be a wider conflict in the Middle East emerging from a move into Iraq. For example, it is likely that Saddam would act against Israel, launching Scuds or some other violence, and that indeed Israel is certain to respond militarily. That could, in fact, lead to wider conflict, bringing in other Arab states. So yes, there is a potential for a much wider conflict.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: The consequences in the region are going to be horrific. The irony is, of course, the United States is asking its allies in the region for support for a war that could end with the overthrow of those same allies. In countries like Jordan, even Saudia Arabia, you have a scenario where the government is facing a huge crisis of legitimacy.
REPORTER: So ultimately it could lead to greater instability if it's not carefully controlled?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Absolutely. US policy in the region has always been based on a triplet of three things - oil, Israel and stability. And one or another of them always had to give. You can't really have them all. And right now, what's going to give it looks like is stability.
So why is America once more moving down the road to war? Increasingly, America's conservative foreign policy thinkers are prepared to justify a war in order to ensure American access to oil and to thwart Saddam's dangerous ambition.
ROBERT McFARLANE: To have gone into a sovereign state 10 years ago, to have intended to go into Saudia Arabia, and then to have been able to dominate the fuel which underwrites the entire global economy expresses an ambition that's truly towering. And he hasn't changed. If he could do it, he would.
REPORTER: You mentioned just now about oil. How much is that a motive, though, in this whole issue?
ROBERT McFARLANE: The primary motive is to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction. To be able to change the regime and hold the promise of a more stable Iraq would, of course, make world oil markets and the global energy balance a much more stable one. But this is not a matter of economic or financial ambition by the United States.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: This is very much about oil. It's about oil and it's about empire. It's about control of the region, both politically, militarily, and economically and through control of oil. The issue of Saddam Hussein is a very new thing. Saddam Hussein has always been a brutal dictator, but for years he was our guy.
But whatever the motivation for invading Iraq, there remains the problem of what to do after the battle is over. Superior technology is likely to deliver victory, but does the Administration have the stomach for the prolonged task of rebuilding Iraq?
ROBERT McFARLANE: Well, the conflict, I believe, could be relatively short - a matter of 60 days, perhaps. However, the day after, which is a nation-building challenge to put in place institutions worthy of the name, is going to require a matter of years.
REPORTER: Do you believe the Bush Administration is also committed to the millions of dollars and years that it's going to take to stabilise Iraq?
ROBERT McFARLANE: I think that's unresolved at this point in the Administration. I think there are differing views within the Administration. There are some who believe that our job, should conflict become necessary, is to dislodge Saddam Hussein, work to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction without much obligation thereafter. I think there are others who believe that if we are in fact involved in a war in Iraq, we have a long-term obligation. I tend to believe the latter.
But even friends of the Administration doubt the government's resolve.
ROBERT McFARLANE: The Bush Administration is going to have to accept that they, along with allies, need to nurture, teach, indeed occupy Iraq for a long, long time until the fundamentals of stability are established.
REPORTER: From the pattern of what we're seeing so far in terms of Afghanistan, that's not the case, is it?
ROBERT McFARLANE: Well, the United States has, in Afghanistan, relied on the donor community from Europe and Japan, Australia to do the follow-on heavy lifting. And it isn't going terribly well. We have an obligation, not only in Afghanistan, but wherever we change the status quo to make the successor climate better. And I think that's a fundamental change that has to be accepted in the Bush Administration, and I believe it will be.
REPORTER: And if it isn't?
ROBERT McFARLANE: If it isn't, we're likely to see not only turmoil in Iraq, but in the neighbouring countries that could be quite harmful to our own interests.
But it's not only America's interests that are at stake. Instability in the Middle East is unlikely to be in Australia's best interests either.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: It's not, I can't imagine, in Australia's self-interest to have massive instability in the Middle East region. It can't be in Australia's best interest to have Australians and the Australian Government hated throughout the region. This is not something that is going to help protect Australians from terrorist attacks. It's not going to prevent something like the terrible thing that happened in Bali from happening again. It's going to make all of that worse.
As America flexes its muscles in the Gulf, war seems almost inevitable.