Toppling Saddam Is Goal, But Not Now
President Bush has no military blueprint for toppling Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but the ouster of America's Gulf War nemesis is a top policy goal, the White House said Sunday.
As Saddam wound up a five-day celebration of his 65th birthday with massive parades designed to show his popular support at home, U.S. officials made it clear they hoped his days at Iraq's helm were numbered.
Senate leaders agreed Sunday there is broad support for toppling Saddam Hussein but that it is too early to take military action against Iraq.
"We've got to win the war on terror, we've got to stabilize Afghanistan. We have to do all that we can to ensure that we succeed there before we take on another mission," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said.
Daschle, a Democrat, said on ABC television that there is "strong bipartisan support" and "probably world support" for ousting Saddam.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican, said that the United States needs to first bolster opposition to Saddam among Iraqis inside and outside that country. "There's a lot more we could be doing," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the Pentagon had "multiple contingency plans" for dealing with Iraq but that Mr. Bush had made no decisions on what course of action to take.
"He has no plan on his desk," Fleischer said.
To the consternation of some European allies, Mr. Bush has made no secret of the fact he intends to move against Saddam at some point, publicly branding Iraq part of "an axis of evil," together with North Korea and Iran, countries he says could form a deadly alliance with terrorists by sharing weapons of mass destruction.
The explosion of Israeli-Palestinian violence has complicated efforts to win Arab support for any action, although Bush himself has recently tied Iraq to events in the Middle East, charging that Saddam encouraged suicide bombings in Israel by making payments to the families of Palestinian "martyrs."
Renewed speculation about Saddam's future was fueled by a New York Times report Sunday that the Bush administration was weighing a potential major air campaign and ground invasion -- involving the use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops -- early next year to topple his government.
"Long-standing American policy is regime change," Fleischer said, "but the president has made no decisions. The Pentagon, of course, has multiple contingency plans."
The Times said the use of American or combined allied forces became a possibility after the White House concluded a coup in Iraq would be unlikely to succeed and a proxy battle using local forces there would be insufficient to bring a change in power.
The lag time until early next year resulted from a need "to create the right military, economic and diplomatic conditions," including avoiding summer combat in bulky chemical suits, preparing for a global oil price shock, and waiting until there was progress toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the newspaper said.
With Arab nations, particularly longtime ally Saudi Arabia, upset at Mr. Bush's perceived Israeli bias in the current Middle East conflict, U.S. military planners may not be able to rely on the same cooperation the kingdom provided in the 1991 Gulf War and may have to look at the possible use of bases in places like Turkey, Kuwait and Qatar.
Fleischer declined to say whether the plan outlined by the Times was one of the Defense Department's contingencies. Pentagon spokesman Marine Lt. Col. Dave Lapan said no plans had been formally drafted but all options remained on the table.
"We always plan for a perceived threat," Lapan said. "Iraq certainly falls into that category."
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it would be difficult for the U.S. military to muster 250,000 troops after years of downsizing.
"Where do we get 250,000 troops since we have cut our military, the last 11 years, by hundreds of thousands?" Hagel asked on CNN's "Late Edition." "I don't think we're close there yet."