|
Analysis Which U.S. Allies Are Lending Support To The Upcoming War Effort
Morning Edition: January 28, 2003
White House Awaits Security Council Report on Iraq
BOB EDWARDS, host:
President Bush repeatedly has said the United States is prepared to go to war with Iraq with or without the support of the UN Security Council. If leading US allies refuse to join the military action, the United States would lead what the president calls a coalition of the willing. So far, the lineup of countries ready to join a war effort is small, but US officials say it is likely to grow. NPR's Tom Gjelten has this update.
TOM GJELTEN reporting:
Obviously there's a long list of countries opposed to a war in Iraq, but Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed last week there's also a very large number of countries, in his words, `anxious, willing and ready to join a war coalition.' Topping that list is Britain, now committed to sending more than 30,000 troops to an Iraq conflict, more than a fourth of its entire standing Army. A 15-ship British armada is already on its way. After Britain comes Australia. The Australian ambassador to the United States, Michael Thawley, summarized his country's contribution to the buildup in an interview yesterday on C-SPAN.
Mr. MICHAEL THAWLEY (Australian Ambassador to the United States): We already have P3s and two ships in the Gulf. And we're for deploying the lead elements of a Special Forces task group, an air force reconnaissance unit in the event of deployment and a squadron of FA-18s
GJELTEN: But after Australia, the coalition looks pretty thing. Just one other country, the Czech Republic, has officially committed forces. A Czech team of chemical warfare specialists is deployed alongside US forces in Kuwait. But that's it. The lack of support from European countries is especially notable. Last week, NATO allies postponed action on a US request for alliance support in case of an Iraq war. Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy analyst at The Brookings Institution, says the European reluctance to join the anti-Iraq coalition contrasts sharply with the situation during the Gulf War.
Mr. IVO DAALDER (The Brookings Institution): Every single European country, with the exception of the Germans, as well as Luxembourgs and the Icelanders, which didn't have military forces, were in the Gulf. If we were go to right now, one, perhaps two countries, would be sending troops, the Brits and the Czechs.
GJELTEN: The war coalition, of course, may well grow in the coming days and weeks. The governments of Poland and Bulgaria have both hinted they may be open to sending forces. But retired Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, now at the Center for Defense Information, does not see a new war against Iraq as a broad-based operation.
Rear Admiral STEPHEN BAKER (Retired: Center for Defense Information): This would be a US-led coalition and the vast majority, 90 percent, 95 percent, of the aircraft will be United States, and a lesser percentage on the ground at at sea.
GJELTEN: How significant is this? Retired Major General Robert Scales, who wrote the official Army history of the Gulf War, says broad coalition support was more essential in 1991 when the United States was unable on its own to position forces against Saddam Hussein. The situation today, Scales says, is entirely different.
Major General ROBERT SCALES (Retired): Of course, the United States, militarily, is far more powerful than it was, say, 10 years ago. Secondly, we already have bases in the region. We have access to Kuwait, Qatar, among other countries in the region, and we're also facing a military situation that is a lot less daunting now than it was in 1991. So the need for allies or coalition partners to add overwhelming force is much less than it was.
GJELTEN: Scales, a former commandant of the Army War College, argues that a smaller coalition this time may even work to the US' advantage. In 1991, Scales says, Saddam Hussein saw the size of the Gulf War coalition and was a vulnerability for the United States and its allies.
Maj. Gen. SCALES: One of the reasons he attacked Israel in 1991 with Scuds was to try to break apart the coalition, the thought being without access to bases and without active military support from countries in the region, the United States' war effort would fall apart. It's much different now, simply because to maintain a coalition is not that vital.
GJELTEN: Some countries in the end may simply be sucked into the war effort. In the Persian Gulf, there's already a multilateral maritime operation to intercept ships with ties to the al-Qaeda network. That operation could get mixed up with the action against Iraq. Rear Admiral Baker sees it continuing regardless.
Rear Adm. BAKER: In the form of maritime interception, where we could be involved with the security of the Gulf, I don't think that's going to diminish at all. It will increase.
GJELTEN: The final point, it may simply be too early to predict who will play what role in a war effort against Iraq. With diplomacy continuing and Saddam Hussein's own moves hard to foresee, many things could change in the coming weeks. Tom Gjelten, NPR News, Washington.
Copyright ©2003 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission. For further information, please contact NPR's Permissions Coordinator at (202) 513-2000.
This transcript was created by a contractor for NPR, and NPR has not verified its accuracy. For all NPR programs, the broadcast audio should be considered the authoritative
version.
|
