Confusion over Bush strategy on Iraq

Whether they mean to or not, President George W. Bush and his administration are sowing confusion about their strategy and rationale for ousting Saddam Hussein from Iraq.

The American leader's aim, reiterated this week at a White House news conference, is clear - regime change in Baghdad, the end of Saddam's long-lived oppressive reign.

But 18 months after Bush took office, the means and basis for achieving that goal have not been coherently spelled out, although US officials say extremely active military planning and possibly even covert activities are under way.

A flurry of recent public statements and media reports, reflecting continued internal debate over the US approach, have muddled rather than clarified the public's perception of administration thinking.

"The (Bush) rationale for going after Saddam seems to change every day," said one US government analyst.

"They don't seem to have a cohesive message to describe the threat ... They seem to be throwing things at the wall to see what might stick and nothing's taking hold," he added.

One week ago, the New York Times disclosed a U. military planning document that calls for air, land and sea-based forces to attack Iraq from three directions.

Several days later, USA Today reported that top officials had decided Washington cannot mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq until there is a significant provocation, like aggression against a neighbour state or deploying a nuclear weapon.

"That indicates the administration is raising the bar for an invasion, though by no means has ruled it out," it said.

Reliable information about administration thinking on Iraq is closely held. But Richard Perle, a senior official in former President Ronald Reagan's Pentagon who has ties to Bush's team, said the USA Today story was inconsistent with what he knows.

He told Reuters he did not believe the administration would put limits on its options for dealing with Saddam.

Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said the argument that the United States needs a "causus belli to start the Iraq War is a little bit the State Department strategy in order to ensure that we don't do anything." That argument "has a lot of sympathy" but whether the administration will use a dispute with Iraq over UN arms inspections as the "causus belli is a big question," he said.

The president and top aides had left an impression that no special precipitating incident would be necessary to move against Saddam, who has been viewed as a threat since he invaded Kuwait in 1990, triggering the Gulf War.

In January, four months after the September 11 hijacked airplane attacks killed about 3,000 people, Bush declared Iraq part of an "axis of evil" along with Iran and North Korea.

He accused all three of possessing or developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that could be supplied to al Qaeda and other extremists for future anti-US missions.

Vice President Dick Cheney has termed Iraq a "gathering danger", while Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the United States cannot afford to wait for "absolute proof" of a threat before acting against extremists seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Adding to the muscular rhetoric, Bush recently espoused the use of pre-emptive force to protect US interests.

Some US officials and experts allege direct connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, which is blamed for the attacks on the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the hijacking of another plane. Such a link could justify a frontal US assault on Saddam, but so far there is no conclusive evidence.

Various options, including a coup against Saddam and US air strikes coupled with US Special Forces operations in Iraq, continue to be discussed in Washington. Visions of building an insurrection around Iraqi opposition groups have faded, given their rivalries and corruption charges.

Many officials say only a massive air and ground assault involving upwards of 250,000 US troops can oust Saddam, who remains in power even after a decade of tough UN sanctions.

David Mack, a former US diplomat now with the Middle East Institute, said Bush's muscular rhetoric has been interpreted as signaling that an attack against Iraq is imminent.

But he believes US officials long ago recognised they must prepare the ground carefully and "look for the best way to do this," which includes only moving against Baghdad for reasons public opinion at home and abroad can understand.

"You need a convincing reason to act if you want to get allied support in Europe and the Arab world," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said.

A new refusal by Saddam to allow international arms inspectors into Iraq could provide that opening, experts said. So far, Iraq and the United Nations have failed to agree on return of the inspectors, who left Iraq in December 1998.

Catching Saddam off guard is key as it is assumed the Iraqi leader would use chemical or biological weapons if he feels cornered. "So it's possible everybody wakes up one day and regime change has already occurred," one senior official said.