William Cohen’s Agenda

The Jerusalem Post, 20 April 1998

Though today’s visit will be his first as US secretary of defense, William Cohen will be
welcomed
as somewhat of an old friend, as befits the representative of a close strategic partner. Regardless
of the bumps in the diplomatic road, military relations between the United States and Israel have
never been closer. Washington rightly recognizes that, besides being in America’s strategic
interest, the tight military ties with Israel provide a critical backdrop without which the peace
process could not exist.

Cohen’s visit is part of a five-nation swing through the region, originally scheduled for last
December. If there is a theme to it, it would seem to be the situation in Iraq, which may have left
the headlines but not the concerns of the American defense establishment. In Turkey, Cohen
visited the Incirlik air force base, from which over 50 US, Turkish, and British aircraft fly out
daily to police the “no-fly” zone in northern Iraq.

In Incirlik on Saturday, Cohen sent another volley in America’s ongoing battle against the
pressure to prematurely lift the sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime, stating the Iraqi
leader has “an obligation to show proof of where, when, how and under what circumstances the
materials [to produce weapons of mass destruction] were destroyed … Until he does that, there
should be no lifting of the sanctions.”

The fact, however, that Cohen needs to make such statements shows that the fears of many
following the latest UN-brokered deal with Iraq are becoming reality – Saddam has succeeded in
shifting the international focus toward lifting sanctions.

What Cohen may be hearing in capitals as disparate as Istanbul, Amman, Jerusalem and Cairo
is
that keeping a lot of firepower parked outside Iraq and relying on UN inspectors may buy time,
but it does not constitute an effective policy. The bravest voice in this regard is that of Jordan’s
King Hussein, who, as a former supporter of Saddam and current neighbor, should be listened to
closely.

During a press briefing last month with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Hussein
said,
speaking of an Iraq freed from Saddam: “I visualize Iraq as a free country, as a democracy, as an
example of pluralism … I hope that the people of Iraq will be able to come together in dialogue to
live in a democracy, which is on the way. That would ensure that Iraq can contribute a positive
role to the future of the region. And we’ll continue to work for that to the best of our ability.”

Backing his words with action the very next day, Hussein met with the leader of Iraq’s
democratic
opposition, Iraqi National Congress President Ahmed Chalabi. Once again, King Hussein has
demonstrated what it means to be a leader, in a region fraught with uncertainty.

By contrast, official American support for Chalabi has been tepid at best. In an April 2 speech,
all
Albright could muster was: “We will explore ways to work more effectively with the Iraqi
democratic opposition.”

One good way to start would be for President Bill Clinton to meet with Chalabi, thereby
opening
the door for other leaders in the region – who may not be quite as gutsy as King Hussein – to help
the Iraqi National Congress.

It is difficult to fathom why the US seems slavishly attached to a policy, built upon
“containment”
and UN inspections, that is doomed to failure.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush Administration clearly decided that it would evict
Saddam
from Kuwait, but was not interested in overthrowing him. Not only would this have been an
expansion of the war’s objective, but the US was worried about upsetting the regional power
balance if post-Saddam Iraq were to break into pieces.

This may have been a rational consideration at the time, but to paraphrase King Hussein, now
there is a viable democratic alternative to Saddam. Given the existence of this alternative,
supporting it should be considered a strategic and moral imperative.

Much of Cohen’s visit will concern the many joint programs that constitute the nuts and bolts
of
the military relationship. One major agenda item – funding for a third battery of Scud-busting
Arrow missiles – is directly related to the missile threat from the east.

Yet security against missile attacks, for example, cannot only be viewed from the narrow
perspective of preparing military measures in self-defense. In the case of rogue regimes such as
Iraq’s, which have violated every international law and norm of civilized behavior, the first line of
defense is to help the people of that nation to free themselves.