RITTER SAYS IRAQ STRIKE WOULD BE DISASTER FOR ISRAEL

[HeXp£Øi±]

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector has recently told Israelis that they should not support US action against Iraq. However, IDF chief Moshe Ya'alon has stated that the current Intifada is more dangerous for Israel than any strike by Iraq.

A) RITTER THINKS HE KNOWS BEST FOR ISRAEL

Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector in Iraq and now ardent critic of proposed military strikes against that country, has said that an American led war against Iraq would be a disaster for Israel.

In an interview with Israeli paper Ha'aretz, Ritter said that no one in Israel should support an American led strike against Iraq, as the move would create a number of dire consequences for Israel. These are; an Iraqi attack on Israel, regional instability, a lowering of Arab opinions of Israel and an increase of terrorism inside Israel.

Some might accuse Ritter of stating the obvious. Despite Israel's excellent anti-missile system and its threat of massive retaliation, most in Israel would not be at all surprised if the Iraqi dictator sent rockets westward should international forces attempt to forcefully change his regime.

Arab opinion regarding Israel has never been very high, but it is the support of the West, especially the United States, that Israel generally seeks.

As for an increase in terrorism caused by an attack on Iraq, one might argue that the militant Islamic groups that have killed over 600 Israelis in the last two years might attempt to justify their murders by citing the upcoming regime change in Baghdad, but it doesn't change facts on the ground here in Israel.

The potential for regional instability is a worry for Israelis. However, the leaders of the Arab regimes in the area are more worried than those of the Jewish State.

Ritter's comments, placed alongside his oft repeated ideas on other aspects of the upcoming "regime change," will not convince many in Israel.

B) YA'ALON: INTIFADA WORSE THAN IRAQI STRIKE

The ongoing campaign of terrorism waged against Israelis is far more worrisome than a potential Iraqi missile attack, IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon said.

His comments to Israeli television yesterday backed up claims a day earlier that Israel is ready and able to deal with an Iraqi strike. Despite his reassurances, people are still worried, evidenced by the fact that many are exchanging their outdated gas masks for new replacements.

According to the latest figures, 15,000 people per day queue up at the Israel Defense Force's Home Front Command to exchange their gas masks. The figure is up from 3-4,000 people per day a couple of months ago.

Israeli intelligence predicts that an American offensive against Iraq would be a focused operation, with its objective of assassinating Saddam Hussein and members of his family.

The document, prepared by intelligence sources and presented to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, indicates that the narrow focus would be intended to spur a change in Iraq's regime without causing the country's dismemberment, thus allowing Saddam's successor to begin reconstruction.
http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/icej_goto.pl?type=NEWS&artid=20020918PYhfxti7kwUAACeBB7s

 

[Jeslek]

Oh brother, another of them

 

[Jeslek]

Hey thats a GREAT website!! Thanks for the link!

 

[Gonz]

What has gotten in to Ritter? He came out of Baghdad ready to go to war. The damned Israelis don't really need our help with the Arabs, even combined. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

I know he recieved $80,000 from somewhere but that couldn't possibly be enough to buy his soul or sell out his country. I'm perplexed. I Suppose it's always possible he was paid off.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Transcript of Scott Ritter's Testimony for the May 3, 2000
Congressional Briefing
Note X's denote difficult to transcribe audio

Transcript provided by Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC)

Thank you very much Congressman Conyers for the kind words of introduction.

I sit before you in awe of the intellectual and moral integrity of the two gentlemen to my left. I think everybody in this room should pay heed to what they have said about the situation in Iraq. I cannot add to what they have said. The XXXXX of sanctions alone apparently has not grabbed the imagination of the American people. Apparently, the subject of the deaths of four thousand, five thousand, six thousand, however many thousand Iraqi children under the age of five, has not shocked the American public into doing something. Mr. Halliday has just set out some ideas, some concepts about moving this issue forward, but frankly speaking none of this has a chance of succeeding so long as it is XXXXXX It is very important that Congress be apprised of this threat and that Congress be apprised of the situation in Iraq.

I sit before you as an unlikely ally in this cause. I'm very conservative, Marine Corp.- trained, a Republican. And yet this not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. This is an American issue. So I sit before you--[Applause]--so I sit before you today as an American and an American with a unique perspective. We have to overcome the concern that exists-and it is a justified concern-what will happen if sanctions are lifted? Will we be not or will we not be empowering this brutal dictatorship that exists in Iraq? Will we not be coddling a dictator and giving him the means of reconstituting the weapons of mass destruction programs I and many others like me struggled so long to rid the world of. Will Iraq not immediately become or resume its role as international pariah by threatening its neighbors. This is the question, frankly speaking, that you-members of Congress--must address to your constituents. And it's one of the reasons why the issue of sanctions has not caught hold. Prior to the Gulf War, the United Sates spent a lot of time preparing the American people for the prospect of sending its young servicemen and women abroad to fight in a war. And they did so by demonizing Saddam Hussein, a man who, frankly speaking, is very easy to demonize. He is a brutal dictator. He has a long record of human rights violations. Demonizing Saddam Hussein is not a problem. Dealing with Saddam Hussein from the perspective of fact seems to be a problem. While Saddam Hussein is a horrible leader , a brutal dictator, and is clearly repressing the innocent people of Iraq, he is not the Middle East equivalent of Adolph Hitler. Saddam Hussein in his government in Baghdad is not capable of world or regional domination. And yet this seems to be a fear that many put forward. And frankly speaking, a lot of the blame for the perceptions that exist in this crowd and around the United States today can be laid at my doorstep.

In September of 1998 when I resigned as an inspector from the United Nations Special Commission, I testified between a joint session of the United States Senate and before a joint session of the United States Congress and I spoke about Iraq. And I spoke about Iraq from the perspective of a weapons inspector. It was not my business to sit before the distinguished members of Congress and put forward a solution on how to solve the Iraqi problem. I resigned for one reason and one reason only and that is because of the manipulation by the government of the United States in the process of weapons inspections as mandated by the XXXXXX

I was speaking out as a proponent of adhering to international law, to international norms, to the process that had been agreed upon by the Security Council and set forth under Chapter Seven resolutions. And I was putting out a clear warning to the members of Congress and to anybody who cared to listen that should we continue as American government to manipulate the process of weapons inspections, we will kill the weapons inspection process and we will create the scenario for something that is less than honest in terms of dealing with the problem of Iraq. I called it the illusion of arms control.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, in December of 1998 apparently my warnings went unheeded because the government of the United States undertook military action called Desert Fox which had nothing to do with pushing forward the mandate of the Security Council and everything to do with pushing forward the mandate of the United States government, that is to get rid of Saddam Hussein-- not to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. And much as I had feared, this manipulation led to the demise of the inspections program. So don't judge my position today based upon the narrow interpretation of my words in September of 1998. I spoke as an inspector in defense of the international standards for dealing with Iraq as codified by Security Council resolutions. I spoke in warning that should we continue with our policy we will destroy the framework of international law. That framework has been destroyed and we must seek a way through the Security Council to reestablish that framework.

The main problem is how do we de-demonize a demon--upon the basis of fact not the basis of fiction. There are many aspects to this difficult problem. I will address one. And that is weapons of mass destruction. Under the original Security Council resolutions put forward regarding Iraq's disarmament obligation, Iraq-- terms of compliance were established at one hundred percent-one hundred percent. That means that Iraq cannot be found in compliance so long as it possesses any weapons, weapons components, means of production, or raw materiel associated with these weapons of mass destruction. When I sat before Congress in 1998, Iraq had not complied with its obligations to disarm in accordance with the mandate of the Security Council.

But that's not the problem facing us today. The problem facing us today is what threat does Iraq present and what threat will Iraq present should sanctions be lifted. Original resolutions against Iraq are quantitative in terms of determining Iraq's disarmament obligation-that is one hundred percent. But the reality is that, from a qualitative standpoint, when you judge Iraq's current weapons of mass destruction capabilities today, they have none. In terms of long-range ballistic missiles, missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, Iraq no longer has these missiles. They have been disarmed. In terms of missile production facilities, which were associated with the production of long range missiles, these facilities have either been destroyed, dismantled, or prior to the American military action in 1998under strict monitoring by the weapons inspectors. The same holds true with chemical weapons. In 1991 Iraq had one of the largest chemical weapons manufacturing establishments outside of the United States and Russia-that is the MUFANA STATE establishment. That establishment no longer exists today and all establishments that were capable of dual purpose activities, that is activities that could be modified for use in the production of chemical weapons, were subject to strict monitoring by weapons inspectors prior to December 1998.

The same holds true for biology. The same holds true for nuclear. So when we talk about Iraq's current weapons of mass destruction threat, the answer is there is no weapons of mass destruction threat.

Now when you lift economic sanctions, is Iraq immediately going to be able to reconstitute this capability? Again, as Mr. Halliday has said sanctions cannot be lifted in a vacuum. Right now the current legal framework for the lifting of sanctions is Iraqi compliance with the Security Council mandate to disarm. If the Security Council were to reevaluate Iraq's disarmament obligations along qualitative lines not quantitative, it would be very easy to come up with a finding of compliance. And once that finding of compliance has been given , if you reestablish a viable monitoring regime-not a bunch of Scott Ritter type inspections going around Iraq looking for every last nut, screw, bolt, and shred of documentation. Those aren't weapons of mass destruction. Those are things that can be used by Iraq to reconstitute a weapons of mass destruction capability but in themselves are nothing more than a bunch of garbage. And as long as you have weapons inspectors in place carrying out viable monitoring, that material is useless to Iraq.

Let's talk about weapons. Let's talk about weapons production. The point is today there are no weapons of mass destruction of any meaningful scale in Iraq and should United Nations weapons inspectors be brought back into Iraq and an effective program of monitoring put in place, monitoring which includes export-import control regimes as envisioned by the Security Council in Resolution 1051, Iraq will not be able to reconstitute these weapons. This is the reality. So when you move forward--I'm talking about how to deal best with Iraq-let's move forward based upon reality. It will not be an easy problem. But sanctions cannot be lifted in a vacuum. Again, once sanctions are lifted and if weapons inspectors are put back in Iraq, I caution everybody here--this is not a solution. The solution must be far reaching, must be visionary, must be long term,/ and I applaud many of the proposals put forward by Denis Halliday. I think they should be given serious, serious looks. Thank you very much.
http//www.nonviolence.org/vitw/Ritter%20Test.html