Will Iraq be next? What the experts say

Will the "war on terrorism" extend beyond Afghanistan? The Observer asked Lawrence Freedman, David Clark, Ivo Daalder and more foreign policy analysts from Britain and America read the runes

"Will Iraq be next? Many inside and out of the Bush administration say: Yes. But the risks of going to war against Iraq are huge. Unless Saddam Hussein is linked to Sept. 11 or subsequent terrorism, the U.S. would have to act alone. Nor would it be easy. Iraq is not Afghanistan - the opposition is weaker and the regime stronger.
Instead, Washington must revitalize containment. To avoid war, Europeans must agree to strengthen sanctions, back the return of inspectors (by threatening or using force), and support clear red lines for Saddam: no force against his people or neighbors; no support for terrorism of any kind; no possession, transfer or use of mass destruction weapons."
Ivo H. Daalder
Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

"A full-scale military assault on Iraq is unlikely for the time being. In Afghanistan, the US had allies, the legal authority of self-defence and a proxy army in the form of the Northern Alliance. Against Iraq, they will have none of those things. A limited campaign to enforce UN resolutions combined with covert action to destabalise the regime is more plausible. If Bush is wise, he will seek to offset moves against Iraq with decisive action to secure an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. This will be difficult as long as Ariel Sharon remains in power."
David Clark
Former special adviser to Robin Cook at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

"The United States has made it clear that it expects to take its 'war on terrorism' to other countries, but it has not committed itself to any course of action and it has yet to finish off the current campaign in a definitive way. Of the countries mentioned as possibly knowingly harbouring terrorists, Yemen and Sudan are working quite hard on their relationship with the US, and so any action in those countries may be with consent. Somalia is more problematic, especially given the history of US intervention in that country, and it is not obvious that the Americans have decent enough intelligence. That leaves Iraq where it is hard to see what more could be done other than a punitive and probably ineffectual bombing campaign. There is no Northern Alliance or KLA to support in a position to overthrow Saddam. The allies are all lukewarm about further action, especially without evident movement on the Arab-Palestinian front to counter the inevitable criticism of an anti-Arab bias. I would guess that the next stage with Iraq will be largely diplomatic, in an effort to get a consensus on a new sanctions regime, and that any build up to military action will be gradual."
Lawrence Freedman
Professor of War Studies, King's College, London

"US ground operations in Afghanistan will last well into next year. At the same time the US will apply pressure to all states of concern. Some, such as Somalia will be asked to allow intrusive US activity to check on terrorist activity. In the major case of Iraq, the US will build international pressure using the original UN resolutions of the 1990s as a basis. European and Arab opposition may be countered by possible strong support from Russia. US - Russian action on Iraq may produce the desired changes in Iraqi policy without necessarily changing the regime. Fear of Russian support in Iraq will persuade Europeans to be more supportive of the US."
Dan Plesch
Royal United Services Institute

"The war may go on through the winter, but an extension to other countries such as Somalia is likely, mainly in the form of raids on presumed paramilitary centres. Iraq is firmly in the sights for much more intensive military action but not for some time, not least because of a temporary shortage of munitions. The "war on terrorism" is likely to last several years, into a (presumed) Bush second term. US unilateralism has been re-inforced by recent events and European influence on future US actions will be weak.
Paul Rogers
Professor of Peace Studies, Bradford University

"It now seems probable that some sort of military action will be taken against Al-Qaeda facilities in other countries. Somalia is beginning to emerge as the most obvious candidate. Action might well involve special forces as well as bombing raids. European governments support military action directed against the groups that are linked to the 11 September atrocities. If bases in other countries are also connected to groups linked to the September 11 atrocities, European governments are also likely, in the end, to support action against them.
But - in the absence of new information - an attempt to overthrow the Iraqi regime by force could not be justified on this basis - and further bombings without such an attempt would simply be gesture warfare. Demands for the return of UN inspectors have nothing to do with the war against the terrorists responsible for the WTC. Despite this, there is now a real possibility that the US will launch such an attack - if only to avoid being seen as weak when an escalating rhetoric from Washington fails to produce results. If the attack on Iraq involves a protracted ground campaign - with all the buildup in neighbouring countries this would involve - the political fallout in Europe and the Middle East would be very serious indeed.
The UK has a real opportunity to support the moderates in Washington - but only if Blair draws his own 'line in the sand' - making it clear that Britain would join other European governments in publicly opposing a major military campaign against Iraq if the Americans ignored his advice. If there is clear evidence of an Iraqi hand in September 11 - evidence which has not so far been produced - things would be different."
Professor Malcolm Chalmers
Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford

	HOME \| NEWS \| Irak-Debatte	Druckversion
	2.12.2001 \| The Observer \| by Sunder Katwala Will Iraq be next? What the experts say Will the "war on terrorism" extend beyond Afghanistan? The Observer asked Lawrence Freedman, David Clark, Ivo Daalder and more foreign policy analysts from Britain and America read the runes "Will Iraq be next? Many inside and out of the Bush administration say: Yes. But the risks of going to war against Iraq are huge. Unless Saddam Hussein is linked to Sept. 11 or subsequent terrorism, the U.S. would have to act alone. Nor would it be easy. Iraq is not Afghanistan - the opposition is weaker and the regime stronger. Instead, Washington must revitalize containment. To avoid war, Europeans must agree to strengthen sanctions, back the return of inspectors (by threatening or using force), and support clear red lines for Saddam: no force against his people or neighbors; no support for terrorism of any kind; no possession, transfer or use of mass destruction weapons." Ivo H. Daalder Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution "A full-scale military assault on Iraq is unlikely for the time being. In Afghanistan, the US had allies, the legal authority of self-defence and a proxy army in the form of the Northern Alliance. Against Iraq, they will have none of those things. A limited campaign to enforce UN resolutions combined with covert action to destabalise the regime is more plausible. If Bush is wise, he will seek to offset moves against Iraq with decisive action to secure an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. This will be difficult as long as Ariel Sharon remains in power." David Clark Former special adviser to Robin Cook at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "The United States has made it clear that it expects to take its 'war on terrorism' to other countries, but it has not committed itself to any course of action and it has yet to finish off the current campaign in a definitive way. Of the countries mentioned as possibly knowingly harbouring terrorists, Yemen and Sudan are working quite hard on their relationship with the US, and so any action in those countries may be with consent. Somalia is more problematic, especially given the history of US intervention in that country, and it is not obvious that the Americans have decent enough intelligence. That leaves Iraq where it is hard to see what more could be done other than a punitive and probably ineffectual bombing campaign. There is no Northern Alliance or KLA to support in a position to overthrow Saddam. The allies are all lukewarm about further action, especially without evident movement on the Arab-Palestinian front to counter the inevitable criticism of an anti-Arab bias. I would guess that the next stage with Iraq will be largely diplomatic, in an effort to get a consensus on a new sanctions regime, and that any build up to military action will be gradual." Lawrence Freedman Professor of War Studies, King's College, London "US ground operations in Afghanistan will last well into next year. At the same time the US will apply pressure to all states of concern. Some, such as Somalia will be asked to allow intrusive US activity to check on terrorist activity. In the major case of Iraq, the US will build international pressure using the original UN resolutions of the 1990s as a basis. European and Arab opposition may be countered by possible strong support from Russia. US - Russian action on Iraq may produce the desired changes in Iraqi policy without necessarily changing the regime. Fear of Russian support in Iraq will persuade Europeans to be more supportive of the US." Dan Plesch Royal United Services Institute "The war may go on through the winter, but an extension to other countries such as Somalia is likely, mainly in the form of raids on presumed paramilitary centres. Iraq is firmly in the sights for much more intensive military action but not for some time, not least because of a temporary shortage of munitions. The "war on terrorism" is likely to last several years, into a (presumed) Bush second term. US unilateralism has been re-inforced by recent events and European influence on future US actions will be weak. Paul Rogers Professor of Peace Studies, Bradford University "It now seems probable that some sort of military action will be taken against Al-Qaeda facilities in other countries. Somalia is beginning to emerge as the most obvious candidate. Action might well involve special forces as well as bombing raids. European governments support military action directed against the groups that are linked to the 11 September atrocities. If bases in other countries are also connected to groups linked to the September 11 atrocities, European governments are also likely, in the end, to support action against them. But - in the absence of new information - an attempt to overthrow the Iraqi regime by force could not be justified on this basis - and further bombings without such an attempt would simply be gesture warfare. Demands for the return of UN inspectors have nothing to do with the war against the terrorists responsible for the WTC. Despite this, there is now a real possibility that the US will launch such an attack - if only to avoid being seen as weak when an escalating rhetoric from Washington fails to produce results. If the attack on Iraq involves a protracted ground campaign - with all the buildup in neighbouring countries this would involve - the political fallout in Europe and the Middle East would be very serious indeed. The UK has a real opportunity to support the moderates in Washington - but only if Blair draws his own 'line in the sand' - making it clear that Britain would join other European governments in publicly opposing a major military campaign against Iraq if the Americans ignored his advice. If there is clear evidence of an Iraqi hand in September 11 - evidence which has not so far been produced - things would be different." Professor Malcolm Chalmers Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford WADI e.V. \| tel.: (+49) 069-57002440 \| fax (+49) 069-57002444 http://www.wadinet.de \| e-mail: