Ahmed Faruqui: Desert Storm gave birth to Al Qaeda. the current war in Iraq may do the same. Mark Engler: The Iraq War is turning into the latest arms expo. Ronald Bruce St. John: Lets learn from our experience with Gadhafi: using force against a dictator can stengthen his hand William Dowell: Will the troubled war in Iraq stop the terrorist threat, or increase it?

New York University

ANTI-AMERICANISM IS BACK IN STYLE
Boston University professors Margaret and Melvin DeFleur have updated their study of attitudes about America in different countries of the world. Click here to see the an interactive guide.

Click here for the full report as a pdf file

David Isenberg's critique of Homeland Security and recommendations for improvements
[click on image to go to the executive summary]

U.S. TROOPS REACH BAGHDAD'S AIRPORT AND THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY
"...Nobody should be euphoric that now that we are on the edge of Baghdad this thing is just about over," General Richard B. Myers said. "That's not true."
To the south-east of the capital, US marines are advancing on the south-eastern outskirts of Baghdad after pushing up the River Tigris from Kut overnight...Baghdad was plunged into darkness overnight by its first blackout of the war which cut in as the assault on the airport began .
Despite the call to arms by President Saddam Hussein, there remain few defences, no real troop movements and a brittle air of business as usual, the U.S. may take over part of Baghdad and set up a parallel government. (BBC April 5, 2003)

ISRAEL WANTS OIL PIPELINE FROM IRAQ TO HAIFA
Reports in Ha'aretz that Israel has U.S. support to push for restarting an oil pipeline from Mosul in Iraq to Haifa on the Mediterranean coast, has fueled speculation that the U.S. plans to restructure the Middle East. The pipeline would bypass Arab emirates on the Persian Gulf. (Asia Times, April 3, 2003)
Ha'aretz background on original plan for Mosul-Haifa pipeline
(Ha'aretz, March 31, 2003)
WAR IN WASHINGTON VS. WAR IN IRAQ
Seymour Hersh reports on the behind-closed-doors battle between the President's neo-conservative advisors and Pentagon professionals that preceded the invasion of Iraq. As Hersh tells it in the New Yorker, Donald Rumsfeld's over reliance on high-tech ordinance and airpower left U.S. commanders with a force that was too light on the ground, and insufficiently equipped. The most egregious blunder may have been Rumsfeld's decision to ignore the "tip-fiddle," short for "Time Phased Force Deployment List," an elaborate check list of requirements for major military operations. According to Hersh, Rumsfeld badly underestimated the demands of a protracted war and then tried to shift the blame by insisting that the plan had been drafted by the general staff and CENTCOM. Hersh's report was generally confirmed by similar, although less detailed, reports in the New York Times and Washington Post.
(Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, March 31, 2003)

Gen. Richard B. Meyers

Donald Rumsfeld

RUMSFELD AND MYERS COUNTER ATTACK
In a blistering press conference on Tuesday, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers responds to criticisms reported in the New York Times, Washington Post and the New Yorker: "...My view of those reports -- and since I don't know who you're quoting, who the individuals are -- is that they're bogus. There is -- I don't know how they get started, and I don't know how they've been perpetuated, but it's not been by responsible members of the team that put this all together. They either weren't there,or they don't know, or they're working another agenda , and I don't know what that agenda might be. It is not helpful to have those kind of comments come out when we've got troops in combat, because first of all, they're false, they're absolutely wrong, they bear no resemblance to the truth, and it's just -- it's just -- harmful to our troops that are out there fighting very bravely, very courageously..." Myers' denunciation, clearly prepared in advance, ran to nearly 1,000 words, and seemed aimed as much at sending a message to active U.S. officers as at the press. Myers is in the Air Force, and much of the criticism is coming from army staff officers in the field. (Department of Defense briefing, April 1, 2003)

Donald Rumsfeld responds to the allegations on Fox News
In an earlier reaction, on Sunday, the Secretary tells Fox that"...The plan is a good one -- and I would be happy to take credit for it because it's an outstanding plan and it's going to work and we're going to win -- but the reality is it's a plan that was developed by General Franks..."
(Donald Rumsfeld on Fox TV, Department of Defense, March 30, 2003)
GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS,
CENTCOM BRIEFING (MARCH 30, 2003) Franks says only a few people saw the entire invasion plan which was a work in progress.
The Washington Post Reports on Sunday that Some Officers Are Definitely Concerned
Vernon Loeb writes: "More than a dozen officers interviewed, including a senior officer in Iraq, said Rumsfeld took significant risks by leaving key units in the United States and Germany at the start of the war..." Loeb quotes one officer as saying: "The civilians in [Rumsfeld's office] vetoed the priority and sequencing of joint forces into the region -- as it was requested by the war fighters -- and manipulated it to support their priorities. When they did this, it desynchronized not only the timing of the arrival of people and their organic equipment, but also the proper mix of combat, combat support and combat support units."
(Vernon Loeb, the Washington Post, March 30, 2003)
SOME U.S. OFFICERS WANT TO ADOPT A NEW WAR STRATEGY
A number of officers in the Gulf reportedly now feel that the current strategy should be reassessed, and that the war strategy should essentially be redefined. A key issue is that political and military demands are beginning to diverge.
(Rick Atkinson and Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, March 30, 2003)
RUMSFELD SOUGHT TO RADICALLY CHANGE THE NATURE OF AMERICA'S DEFENSE. MORE IS AT STAKE THAN THE WAR IN IRAQ
While Rumsfeld's concept of substituting high tech weaponry for infantry on the ground has already run into serious problems in Iraq, there is no question that the nature of war is changing. The question is whether the Secretary has the right answers for that change.Michael Gordon analyzes the debate.( the New York Times, April 1, 2003)

PETER ARNETT FIRED FOR DISCUSSING IRAQ INVASION PROBLEMS ON IRAQ TV
The veteran correspondent's statements to an Iraqi journalist reflected the view held by a number of news organizations. Arnett's mistake was to speak freely about the situation on Iraqi television. NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic decided to sever any connection. In segments shown on American television, Arnett said:"Now America is reappraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week and rewriting the war plan. The first plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another plan." (Reuters, March 31, 2003)
Walter Cronkite: Mr. Arnett hangs by a rope of his own weaving
(OpEd, New York Times, April 1, 2003)

RICHARD PERLE HOLDS ON TO HIS SEAT ON THE DEFENSE POLICY BOARD, ALTHOUGH HE IS FORCED TO GIVE UP THE CHAIRMANSHIP
Until last week, membership on the secretive Defense Policy Board, which ostensibly advises the Pentagon on policy issues, was one of the fastest routes to lucrative defense contracts. 9 of the 30 members have ties to companies that won more than $76 billion in defense contracts from 2001 to 2002. four are registered lobbyists. One of them represents two of the three largest defense contractors. Richard Perle, who stepped aside as the Board's chairman last week, showed just how profitable membership on the board can be. Perle had hoped to earn up to $725 million for convincing the Pentagon to authorize the sale of the communications giant, Global Crossing, to a Chinese-owned company. The Pentagon had balked because of the company's access to sensitive technology which might have an adverse impact on American security if it fell into the wrong hands. Perle's sales pitch pointed out that his position as chairman of the group made him particularly well positioned to overcome the Pentagon's reluctance. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a close friend, saw no reason to drop Perle from the Board, but it did seem to be time for Perle to adopt a lower profile, especially with House and Senate committees calling for investigations. The Center for Public Integrity has called for transparency concerning other members of the Board. The CPI provides links to members and a sample agenda of discussions.
(Center for Public Integrity, March 2003)

COLIN POWELL CHOOSES AMERICA ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING FOR WARNINGS TO SYRIA AND IRAN
Following a similar warning from Donald Rumsfeld on Friday, the administration seems to be signaling "red lines" that Iraq's neighbors will not be allowed to cross. There is some concern in Washington that supplies may move through both countries to reinforce Iraqi forces, but there has also been a suggestion that the U.S. may move against what it considers to be terrorist elements in Syria and Iran, once Iraq has been brought under control.
(Analysis by the BBC, March 30, 2003)
THE COMPLETE TEXT OF POWELL'S SPEECH TO AIPAC
IRAN’S REACTION TO POWELL’S REMARKS (IRAN PRESS SERVICE)
Iran's Nuclear Ambitions (IISS, March 2003)
Israelis believe Iraq hid weapons in Syria

ISRAEL REPORTS THAT THOUSANDS OF ARAB VOLUNTEERS ARE NOW CROSSING INTO IRAQ
What started as a trickle with dozens of volunteers from Lebanon has now swelled to a steady stream from several Arab countries.
(Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'aretz, March 31, 2003)

AL AZHAR’S FATWA ON IRAQ
Al Azhar is the oldest university and one of the most respected authorities on Islam in the world.
Al Azhar's fatwa on the Iraq War stops short of advocating a violent jihad, but the fatwa warns that the attack against Iraq may be only the first skirmish in a larger war aimed at the rest of the Arab countries and Islam itself. The goal, Al Azhar predicts is to divide up the Arab world in a way that suits American and Israeli interests, and which ends Palestinian resistance. The fatwa may have ominous implications for the way the war in Iraq is likely to be interpreted by the rest of the Muslim world.
(Al Azhar, via Islam on-line, March 11, 2003)

IS THE U.S. CONSIDERING USE OF NON-LETHAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS?
Donald Rumsfeld has expressed frustration at not being able to use non-lethal chemical agents in combat situations. If the U.S. finds itself facing house-to-house fighting in Baghdad, the temptation will increase to resort to a variety of gases--including the kind of incapacitating gas used to end a Chechen hostage taking in Moscow. The problem is that the use even of riot agents is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention. As the Russians discovered, even supposedly non-lethal incapacitating agents can kill if they are used in real-life situations. Despite the dangers, the administration could try to use a presidential directive to get around current legal limitations. David Isenberg analyzes the U.S.'s highly secret non-lethal weapons program.(David Isenberg, Basic Papers, March 2003).

RUMSFELD DRAWS A COOL RESPONSE FROM ENGLAND
The British concern is that even the use of non-lethal tear gas or pepper spray is likely to set a precedent that could weaken the chemical Weapons Convention and lead to the use of lethal gases in the future.
(Geoffrey Lean and Severin Carrell in the Independent, March 2, 2003)

A SURVEY OF NON-LETHAL CHEMICAL WARFARE
The Sunshine Project provides a comprehensive primer on U.S. attitude to non-lethal incapacitating weapons so far. Included are photocopies of bidding contracts to university researchers and other documents.

U.S. CONCERNED ABOUT ULTRALIGHT FLIGHTS OVER U.S. POSITIONS IN IRAQ
Two Iraqi ultralight aircraft flew over U.S. positions in Iraq during the weekend creating a sense of unease among troops who spotted them. The aircraft had not triggered U.S. air defense systems, and by the time clearance was obtained to shoot them down, they were already long gone. The aircraft appeared to be on a spotting mission, but they raised the fear that Saddam might try to use pilotless drones, or other small craft to deliver chemical or biological weapons, passing through U.S. airdefenses without detection. (the Army Times, March 29, 2003)

ONCE THE WAR IS OVER, WHAT COMES NEXT?
The International Crisis Group analyzes the requirements for constructing a new government in Iraq once the current fighting ends. (ICG, MARCH 25, 2003)

THE HUMANITARIAN SITUATION STILL PROMISES TO BE DRAMATIC
Reconstructing Iraq depends on having a civilian population that is functional. Secrecy and suspicion have made it difficult for international aid organizations to be effective, and there are questions about the suitability of the military to provide relief and fight a war at the same time. The International Crisis Group assesses the situation. (ICG March 25, 2003)

HOW MUCH IS IT ALL GOING TO COST?
Everyone expects the war to have a dramatic impact on the U.S. deficit, but many countries in the Middle East are even more concerned about the spill over effects in their region.
(Middle East Economic Survey, March 30, 2003)

IRAQ'S DECEPTIVE TACTICS AND U.S. EDGINESS LEADS TO CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
Nearly 600 Iraqi civilians have already died as a result of what the Pentagon calls "collateral damage" in Iraq--mostly from the air war, but increasingly from mistakes made on the ground. In the worst incident so far, U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division opened fire with high explosive rounds on a vehicle which refused to stop. When the shooting was over, the horrified G.I.'s realized that they had just killed five small children who appeared to be under five years old. Two women also died. A wounded woman refused to leave the car. She cradled her two dead babies on her lap. Moments earlier, Captain Ronny Johnson roared into a radio at his forward sentries;"You just killed an entire family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough."
The shooting came two days after an Iraqi suicide car bomb had killed four G.I.s near the same location, and the Iraqi government had promised a new wave of terrorist suicide bombers. The soldiers involved "absolutely did the right thing", General Peter Pace, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said. Somehow that didn't ring quite right.
William Brannigan reports the incident in the Washington Post

The BBC on the Fog of War.

Need information, but having trouble with a broken link? Send an e-mail to wtd2@nyu.edu
or click here
We may be able to help

For quick access to the Global Beat, set your bookmark to:
http://globalbeat.org

THE SEARCH FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPON FOR LIMITED CONFLICTS
Mark Bromley and David Grahame report on the Pentagon's search for a nuclear "bunker buster"

THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL

Rose Gottmoeller:
an interactive assessment of nuclear disarmament after the Moscow Summit,