Chicago Tribune
By John Diamond
Washington Bureau
March 02, 2001

WASHINGTON Conservatives are pressuring a divided Bush administration to develop a
harder-line policy toward Iraq, including possibly using the northern and southern no-fly
zones as sanctuaries for Iraqi opposition groups.

Dissatisfied with last month's air strikes on targets near Baghdad, which left many targets
undamaged, lawmakers indicated Thursday that they want a sharp shift away from the past
decade's policy of simply preventing Saddam Hussein from threatening oil-rich Persian Gulf
states. They are concerned by the Bush administration's apparent tilt toward narrowing the
sanctions that have been in place against Iraq since the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who outlined a proposal for "smarter sanctions" against Iraq
during his just-completed journey to the Mideast, testifies next week before the House
International Relations and Senate Foreign Relations Committees. He is certain to face
tough questioning on what some in Congress regard as a relaxation of pressure on Baghdad.

"According to press reports about Secretary Powell's trip to the Middle East, the
administration now supports easing the existing sanctions and instituting so-called smarter
sanctions," said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who led a subcommittee hearing Thursday
on Iraq. "I look forward to discussing this proposal with Secretary Powell next week."

The hearings come at a critical time. President Bush's national security team is conducting a
review of Iraq policy, hoping to develop a new plan of action by midmonth and possibly
sooner.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a conference call with Tribune editors on Wednesday, said,
"There is not yet any new policy to announce," suggesting that Powell's remarks during his
Mideast trip were not the final word on the Bush administration's stance toward Iraq.

Rather, Cheney characterized Powell's visit as "testing the waters" of opinion, particularly in
the moderate Arab Gulf states such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which are major oil
suppliers.

"The sanctions are breaking down, and the consensus that had once existed on how to
contain the Iraqis' military aspirations seems to have eroded," Cheney said.

"We've got to put together a policy that will be effective going forward," Cheney said, "and
make certain that we do have the support of our friends and allies in the area and that we're
equipped to use the necessary means to guarantee that Saddam Hussein doesn't threaten the
region once again."

The debate within the Bush administration centers on two seemingly conflicting goals:
ousting Hussein and rebuilding the coalition of friendly Arab states that existed before the
gulf war. These countries are pressing for an easing of pressure on Iraq.

One senior GOP lawmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Powell appeared to
be "a little bit squishy" in his stance toward Iraq and said he hoped harder-line elements,
including Cheney, would prevail in the administration's internal debate.

Powell anticipated the criticism, telling reporters during his swing through Egypt, Israel,
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that "the charges will come that [U.S. policy] is weakening. ...
There will be a lot of people who will want to hear more."

Brownback said the United States should step up its enforcement of the northern and
southern no-fly zones to prevent movement of Iraqi armored columns on the ground as well.
That could create sanctuary conditions for the opposition to gain strength and pose a threat
to Hussein's army.

Witnesses at the hearing were also critical. Anthony Cordesman, a Mideast expert with the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the "one round of half-successful strikes
the Bush administration launched on Feb. 16th is Clintonesque at best."

But Cordesman also dismissed the support for Iraqi opposition groups as a "forlorn hope"
with little chance of success against an Iraqi army that remains the strongest in the region.

The Bush administration review of Iraq policy operates on three tracks.

The first is the issue of economic sanctions, in which Powell is taking the lead. Iraq along
with Arab states and France, Russia and China have complained that the broad economic
sanctions against Iraq are hurting the Iraqi people.

"Smarter" sanctions would focus on barring Iraqi access to weapons and technology for
building chemical, biological and nuclear arms. This change in focus, administration
officials hope, would win back international support for the sanctions and improve their
effectiveness.

The second track focuses on the possibility of revamping enforcement of the no-fly zones, a
review in which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is taking the lead. Bush administration
officials are concerned that the February strike was just another "pinprick" operation of the
kind they criticized when President Clinton was in charge.

Options under Pentagon review include reducing the number of patrols but widening the list
of possible targets when Iraq challenges U.S. and British planes; conducting fewer but more
intensive air strikes; and attacking Iraqi ground forces if they move into the zones.

The third area of focus is the U.S. support for groups seeking to topple Hussein. The
Pentagon has begun preliminary weapons training in Texas for elements of the Iraqi
National Congress, one of the key beneficiaries of U.S. aid.

State Department officials caution that countries in the region, particularly Turkey, a NATO
ally, are concerned that support for the Iraqi opposition groups could lead to the breakup of
Iraq and the formation of a Kurdish state in the north. Turkey, which has been battling
separatist Kurdish minority groups for years, would strongly oppose that development.

Bush wants to have a new policy in time for the next Arab League summit, scheduled late
this month in the Persian Gulf region.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher downplayed the significance of disagreement
within the Bush administration on Iraq policy.

"These are people that deal quite successfully with each other," Boucher said. "They
probably wouldn't serve the president unless they had disagreements from time to time. But
it's clear that the decision is the president's."
******************
The Kurdistan Observer
www.kurdistanobserver.com