Daily Update

For his audience in old Europe the president had a few sharp remarks. Some governments (read "France") have threatened to veto any real disarmament resolution, said Bush. The message: they're wimps, and we're not. "These governments share our definition of the danger raised by Saddam Hussein, but not our resolve to meet it," said Bush. This might come as a surprise to the French. They feel they have a very different read on Saddam's duplicity, and that an Iraq constrained by continued inspections would constitute and acceptable risk.

Saddam Hussein and his sons flatly rejected the ultimatum. "The proposal should be that Bush leaves office in America, he and his family," Hussein's son Uday said in remarks issued by his office. "The wives and mothers of those Americans who will fight us will cry blood, not tears," he said. "They should not imagine that they will have a safe spot inside the land of Iraq or outside it."

Given that no one expects Saddam Hussein and his sons to go into exile, war now seems only days away. According to the Monitor , this second war in the Persian Gulf "would define George Bush's presidency for history, remake America's relationships with old allies, and change forever a volatile area of the world - one way or another."

Judging by the array of public reactions, the world is sharply divided on the US war signal. Clearly alarmed by the threat Bush's move may pose to the status quo of international diplomacy, Europe's " antiwar axis" - as the BBC calls France, Germany, and Russia - "angrily accused the US of going to war without necessity or legitimacy." Two of the most visible opponents of Bush's Iraq strategy, France and Germany, loudly criticized the ultimatum announcement. French President Jacques Chirac said that "Iraq today does not represent an immediate threat that justifies an immediate war." Echoing worldwide worries about the precedent this move sets, he added that the US decision "compromises for the future the methods of peaceful resolution of crises linked to the proliferation of arms of mass destruction." The BBC calls this an "apparent reference to North Korea." Germany's Chancellor Schroeder said that the majority of the world shares his stance. "My question was and is: does the degree of threat stemming from the Iraqi dictator justify a war that will bring certain death to thousands of innocent men, women and children? My answer was and is 'No'."

Many other countries voiced concern and regret over Bush's decision. Indonesia and Malaysia questioned the legality of ousting the leader of another country and going to war without UN backing. As the Straits Times of Singapore reports, countries throughout Asia are preparing for the "fallout" of an Iraq war "as though it were the start of a new world war." Among the list of ripple effects causing such concern are the fear of increased terrorist activity, government stability, and economic worries.

Meanwhile, the latest polls show that US public support for war is still rising. According to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll conducted Monday night, seven in ten Americans asked support Bush's 48-hour ultimatum. A majority also believes Bush has done enough to gain the support of other countries. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday said that 65 percent of Americans now support the war. This is up from 60 percent last month.

Showing his firm support of the US position, Prime Minister John Howard announced Tuesday that Australia would commit troops to an invasion of Iraq. "The government strongly believes the decision it has taken is right, it is legal, it is directed towards the protection of the Australian national interest and I ask the Australian community to support it," Mr Howard said. But, Howard faces stiff opposition as the Senate will not endorse the decision.

Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi also showed support for the US position saying that "it was a decision that had to be made." He reiterated his government's decision that there was no need for a UN resolution that authorized an attack on Iraq.

Recent Updates Saturday, March 22 Friday, March 21 Thursday, March 20 Wednesday, March 19 Tuesday, March 18

E-mail this story Write a letter to the Editor Printer-friendly version del.icio.us [ What is this? ] digg [ What is this? ]

Troops ready for battle
As UN inspectors boarded planes departing from Saddam International Airport, the US military finalized plans for an imminent invasion of Iraq. The Washington Post reports that the US military is negotiating with Iraqi commanders to hash out "capitulation agreements." The Iraqi troops would surrender and return to their barracks en masse rather than be taken as prisoners of war. This would pave a fast road to Baghdad without being slowed down by traveling with thousands of prisoners.

The New York Times reports that one of the allies' first objectives would be to seize the largest southern Iraqi city of Basra. The city is considered important because of its port facilities and access to key oil fields. According to the Times, the city is thought to be vulnerable because its mainly Shiite population is thought to have "no great affection" for Hussein's government. In fact, as The Monitor reports, rising tensions between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq may lead to a Shiite revolt against Hussein's forces at the start of a war.

Ridge details security plan
After raising the color-coded terror alert level from yellow (elevated risk) to orange (high risk) Monday night, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge detailed the a new national plan dubbed Operation Liberty Shield. Mr. Ridge said that new threats of terror attacks have prompted the plan which will include tigher security at airports, rail stations and, ports. "We have taken these actions because intelligence reporting indicates that while Al Qaeda and those sympathetic to their cause are still a principle threat - the principle threat - Iraqi state agents, Iraqi surrogate groups, other regional extremist organizations, and ad-hoc groups or disgruntled individuals may use this time period to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States and our interests either here or abroad."

Many of the 50 states have been asked to deploy state police or the National Guard to sensitive sites, such as railroads, chemical plants, nuclear facilities, bridges and other key infrastucture sites. This is the first request since Sept. 11, 2001 for National Guard units to cover such a wide area, according to the Washington Post.

Also...
• War's lifeline: guns, gas, and toothpaste ( The Christian Science Monitor)
• Iraq war could bring about regime change - in America ( The Straits Times, Singapore)
• Bush clings to dubious allegations about Iraq ( The Washington Post)
• On the eve of war, a black comedy in Iraq ( The Christian Science Monitor)
• Bush's doctrine for war ( The New York Times)
• Democrats rally behind US troops ( The Washington Times)
• Who would fight: a diverse military ( The Christian Science Monitor)

• Feedback appreciated. E-mail Matthew Clark.