現在地 HOME > 掲示板
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
★阿修羅♪
|
|
●小ブッシュ政権の対イラク戦争計画は、同盟諸国の非難で国際的に孤立
していますが、かの人格破綻傀儡大統領はそれでも一発ぶちかますと
公言してはばかりません。米国お得意の野蛮で冒険主義的な棍棒外交、
すなわち外交的恫喝――あるいは「心理戦争」と言ってもいいですが――
がいつまでもテメエの願望通りに働くと思ったら大まちがい。
サミュエル・ハンティントンの新冷戦願望丸出しの「文明の衝突」テーゼが
もしそのまま通用するのであれば、アメ公のアマい願望に基づく心理戦は
“すべりやすい坂”を勝手に転がり落ちて実戦に発展する恐れがあるでしょう。
●小ブッシュは対イラク戦争に関して“独裁者になります”と明言したようですが、
その理由が、アタマ悪すぎて泣けてきますな。
「この男（フセイン大統領）が世界をあざけり、自国民（クルド人）を
毒ガスで殺し、大量破壊兵器を欲しがっている」
……だからサダム・フセイン打倒の戦争を仕掛けるんだってさ。
●前回のペルシャ湾岸戦争でサダムは“イスラエル・リンク論”を出してきて、
結局、それが国際政治的な重要問題と認知された結果、湾岸戦争終結後に
パレスチナ問題が世界的外交アジェンダとして浮上してマドリッド会議が開かれ、
オスロ合意―→パレスチナ暫定自治政府の誕生という“中東平和に向けた前進”
を生みだしてきたわけでした。しかし“サダム・フセインの皮肉な贈り物”
と呼びうる90年代前半のこうした中東和平の動きは、イスラエルの領地泥棒
主義者によるラビン暗殺でたちまち消え失せ、国家総動員でZionismの増長を
進めようとする“NAZIonist”と呼ぶべき勢力が、オスロ合意を踏みにじり、
約束を反故にして、なおかつパレスチナ側を挑発してアラファトの暫定自治政府
に卑劣な責任転嫁を行なって、領土泥棒を公然と続行しているありさまです。
●イスラエルがパレスチナに対して行なってきた“ゲットー”政策と虐殺は
絶望的なほどに増長し、中東世界におけるイスラエルの犯罪性は米国を
除く世界の大部分の国の共通認識となっているわけで、そういう状況の
なかで“NAZIonist”を後押ししてきた米国がイラクへの軍事干渉を行なえば
中東は世界大戦の発火点となりかねません。米国あたりのキリスト教保守勢力
にしてみれば“メギドの丘”で裁きの戦いが行なわれ、“反キリスト勢力”
がイスラエル国家もろとも地上から消滅する日を心待ちにしているのかも
しれませんが（中東紛争で米国がイスラエルに肩入れし続けてきた背景には
ユダヤ系市民の政治工作だけでなく、そうした皮肉な宗教的差別意識が
働いていた可能性もあるのでは……と疑ってしまいますな）、宗教的妄信は
ともかくとしてABC兵器がすっかり拡散してしまった現状で、米国がイスラエル
を援護射撃するような形で中東武力介入を行なえば、米国本土に火の粉が飛んで
くる危険性は避けられません。
●キッシンジャーが小ブッシュの対イラク戦争計画に公然と異議を唱えたのは
非常に興味深いと思いますが、こうしたなかで“サダム・フセイン政権打倒
のためのイラク攻撃”の倫理的根拠である「この男が世界をあざけり、自国民
を毒ガスで殺し、大量破壊兵器を欲しがっている」という理屈を転覆してしまう
暴露発言が、なんと米国政府高官から出てきたとのこと。
（「米国がイラクに毒ガス兵器使用を知りつつ軍事援助をしていたと、米国政府
高官が暴露」記事を参照）
●暴露の内容は、アメリカ軍部の複数の高官が「レーガン政権時代に米国政府は
イラクがイラン・イラク戦争で毒ガスを使うのを見越した上で軍事援助を行なっていた」
という、すでに公然と秘密となっている事柄を追認したというものにすぎませんが、
とにかくタイミングが絶妙ですな。だって、小ブッシュの言い方を借りれば
「この男が世界をあざけり、自国民を毒ガスで殺し、大量破壊兵器を欲しがっている」
悪漢を支えていたのは米国自身ってことだもんな。サダム・フセイン政権打倒がこの
理屈で正当化されるなら、米国だってペンタゴンやホワイトハウスを爆撃されても
文句は言えないってことになる。 ……ああ、おバカ！（笑
● ……ところで大ブッシュ政権で大統領補佐官（国家安全保障問題担当）を務めた
ブレント・スコウクロフトが「イラク攻撃は中東にハルマゲドンを引き起こしかねない」
と警告して小ブッシュの“好戦小児病”を諫めましたが、ハルマゲドンの典拠になって
いる『新約聖書』の記述部分を以下にオマケとして紹介しておきます。
（ノストラダムス大予言的な関心から紹介する気はまったくありませんので誤解
しないでネ。こういう聖書の記述をアタマから信じている人々が米国あたりには
かなり沢山にて、それが内政や外交に無視できない影響力を及ぼしているという
現実こそが、懸念すべき問題なのです。）
----------------------------------------------------------------
ヨハネ黙示録
第１６章 怒りの７つの鉢
（本文）
１，それから、大きな声が聖所から出て、７人の御使にむかい、
「さあ行って、神の激しい怒りの７つの鉢を、地に傾けよ」と言うのを聞いた。
２，そして、第１の者が出て行ってその鉢を地に傾けた。すると、
獣の刻印を持つ人々と、その像を拝む人々との体に、ひどい悪性のできものができた。
３，第２の者が、その鉢を海に傾けた。すると、海は死人の血のようになって、
その中の生き物がみんな死んでしまった。
４，第３の者がその鉢を川と水の源に傾けた。するとみな血になった。
５，それから、水をつかさどる御使がこう言うのを聞いた。
「今いまし、昔いませる聖なる者よ。このようにお定めになったあなたは、
正しい方であります。
６，聖徒と預言者との血を流した者たちに、血をお飲ませになりましたが、
それは当然のことであります。」
７，わたしはまた祭壇がこう言うのを聞いた、
「全能者にして主なる神よ。しかり、あなたのさばきは真実で、かつ正しいさばきであります。
８，第４の者が、その鉢を太陽に傾けた。 すると、太陽は火で人々を焼くことを許された。
９，人々は激しい炎熱で焼かれたが、これらの災害を支配する神の御名を汚し、
悔い改めて神に栄光を帰することをしなかった。
１０，第５の者が、その鉢を獣の座に傾けた。すると、獣の国は暗くなり、
人々は苦痛のあまり舌をかみ、
１１，その苦痛とでき物とのゆえに、天の神をのろった。そして自分の行いを悔い改めなかった。
１２，第６の者が、その鉢を大ユウフラテ川に傾けた。すると、その水は、
日の出る方から来る王たちに対し道を備えるために、かれてしまった。
１３，また見ると、龍の口から、獣の口から、
にせの預言者の口から、かえるのような３つの汚れた霊が出てきた。
１４，これらは、しるしを行う悪霊の霊であって、全世界の王たちのところに行き、
彼らを召集したが、それは、全能なる神の大いなる日に、戦いをするためであった。
１５，（見よわたしは盗人のように来る。裸のままで歩かないように、
また、裸の恥を見られないように、目をさまし着物を身に着けている者は、さいわいである。）
１６，３つの霊は、ヘブル語でハルマゲドンという所に、王たちを召集した。
１７，第７の者が、その鉢を空中に傾けた。すると、大きな声が聖所の中から、
御座から出て、「事はすでに成った」と言った。
----------------------------------------------------------------
●１５節の次のくだり――「見よわたしは盗人のように来る。裸のままで歩かないように、
また、裸の恥を見られないように、目をさまし着物を身に着けている者は、さいわいである。」
サウジアラビアの米軍基地で、肌を隠すという現地の規範が面白くなくて文句たれた
アメリカ駐留軍の女性兵士を連想してしまいました。（苦笑
“アーマゲドン”が起きたら米国も敗者ということになるでしょうな。
ハリウッド映画のようにはいかないヨ。
■■■■@■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20020817-00001020-mai-int
海外ニュース - 8月17日(土)10時43分
＜米大統領＞フセイン政権打倒計画の決定は「自分で決断」
【ワシントン中島哲夫】ブッシュ米大統領は１６日、イラクのフセイン政権打倒計画
について、米議会や同盟国とも協議を続けるが、米政府として実際にどう行動するかは、
米国や同盟国を防衛するために何が最善かという判断に基づいて、自分が決断すると明言
した。休暇で滞在中のテキサス州クロフォードで記者団に語った。イラク攻撃にからむ
重要決定は議会や同盟国との協議には縛られないとの認識を示唆したものとみられる。
ブッシュ政権はフセイン政権打倒を「政策」と公言しており、米議会の中には軍事攻撃
による政権転覆に賛成する議員も多い。だが、攻撃論が先走りする中、最近、与党である
共和党の一部有力者が武力行使に否定的な見解を表明するなど、慎重論も出始めている。
こうした状況に関する質問を受け、ブッシュ大統領は「何人かの聡明な人々がサダム・
フセインやイラクについて意見を言っていることは知っている」と前置きした上で、それら
の意見の内容を聞いてみれば「この男（フセイン大統領）が世界をあざけり、自国民（クルド
人）を毒ガスで殺し、大量破壊兵器を欲しがっている」ことには異論がないと強調した。
さらに、大統領は「私は最新の情報と、われわれ自身の国と友人、同盟国を守るために
どうするのが最善かを考え、（イラクへの対応を）決断する」と述べ、武力行使に踏み
切るのか、その時期はいつかといった決定は自らが行うとの認識を示した。（毎日新聞）
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/international/middleeast/16IRAQ.html
Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy
【共和党指導者たちが小ブッシュの対イラク戦略に異議を唱えだした】
By TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 ｰｰ Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.
These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States.
At the same time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who summoned Mr. Kissinger for a meeting on Tuesday, and his advisers have decided that they should focus international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein -- not only in an effort to assure a democracy but as a way to outflank administration hawks and slow the rush to war, which many in the department oppose.
"For those of us who don't see an invasion as an article of faith but as simply a policy option, there is a feeling that you need to give great consideration to what comes after, and that unless you're prepared to follow it through, then you shouldn't begin it," one senior administration official involved in foreign policy said today.
In an opinion article published today in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft, who helped build the broad international coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war, warned that "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken." An attack might provoke Iraq to use chemical or biological weapons in an effort to trigger war between Israel and the Arab world, he said.
His criticism has particular meaning for Mr. Bush because Mr. Scowcroft was virtually a member of the Bush family during the first President Bush's term and has maintained close relations with the former president.
Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska said that Secretary Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, had recently told President Bush of their concerns about the risks and complexities of a military campaign against Iraq, especially without broad international support. But senior White House and State Department officials said they were unaware of any such meeting.
Also today, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who was briefly secretary of state for Mr. Bush's father, told ABC News that unless Mr. Hussein "has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction, and our intelligence is clear, I don't know why we have to do it now, when all our allies are opposed to it."
Last week, Representative Dick Armey, the House majority leader, raised similar concerns.
The comments by Mr. Scowcroft and others in the Republican foreign policy establishment appeared to be a loosely coordinated effort. Mr. Scowcroft first spoke out publicly 10 days ago on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."
In an opinion article published on Monday in The Washington Post, Mr. Kissinger made a long and complex argument about the international complications of any military campaign, writing that American policy "will be judged by how the aftermath of the military operation is handled politically," a statement that seems to play well with the State Department's strategy.
"Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed," he added. Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.
Through his office in New York, Mr. Kissinger relayed a message that his meeting with Secretary Powell had been scheduled before the publication of his article and was unrelated. But a State Department official said Secretary Powell had wanted Mr. Kissinger's advice on how to influence administration thinking on both Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft wrote that if the United States "were seen to be turning our backs" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute "in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us."
He added: "There is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive."
Richard N. Perle, a former Reagan administration official and one of the leading hawks who has been orchestrating an urgent approach to attacking Iraq, said today that Mr. Scowcroft's arguments were misguided and naive.
"I think Brent just got it wrong," he said by telephone from France. "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."
Mr. Perle added, "I think it is naive to believe that we can produce results in the 50-year-old dispute between the Israelis and the Arabs, and therefore this is an excuse for not taking action."
Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.
He said he shared Mr. Kissinger's concern that Mr. Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes at governments armed with weapons of mass destruction could induce India to attack Pakistan and could create the political cover for Israel to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.
"You can take the country into a war pretty fast," Mr. Hagel said, "but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are."
He added, "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."
For months, the State Department's approach has been to focus on how to build a government in Iraq.
After meetings here last week involving Iraqi opposition groups and administration officials, one official said today that there was now consensus in the State Department that if more discussion was focused on the challenge of creating a post-Hussein government, "that would start broaching the question of what kind of assistance you are going to need from the international community to assure this structure endures -- read between the lines, how long the occupation will have to be."
Such discussions, the official added, would have a sobering effect on the war-planners.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=325081
17 August 2002 09:12 BDST Home > News > World > Americas
Kissinger joins protests at Bush plan to attack Iraq
【キッシンジャーが小ブッシュの対イラク戦争に抗議する動きに加わった】
By Andrew Gumbel
17 August 2002
The Bush administration's plans to go to war against Iraq are causing growing disquiet among eminent members of the President's Republican Party, including congressmen, foreign policy veterans and one close confidant of the first President Bush who was deeply involved in the war against Iraq a decade ago.
The names who have come forward this week to express scepticism or outright opposition to a military invasion could not be more high-profile: Henry Kissinger, the primary architect of American foreign and security policy during the second half of the Cold War, who is considered something of a Delphic oracle by many Americans; Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to George Bush Snr and is still close to the whole Bush family; and Lawrence Eagleburger, another veteran from the Reagan-Bush era who briefly served as Secretary of State after the 1991 Gulf War.
The congressional critics are no slouches either. They include Dick Armey, the influential House majority leader and noted Texas oil lobbyist, and Chuck Hagel, a senator from Nebraska seen as an expert on intelligence and security.
All of these voices are asking the same set of questions: whether the administration has thought through the knock-on effects of an invasion; whether an attack might make Saddam Hussein more inclined to use weapons of mass destruction ? if he has them; and what plans, if any, have been drawn up for a post-war settlement to stop America being drawn into a colonial occupation.
All of them are pressing the Bush administration to make its case more clearly and rely less on demonising President Saddam, as Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, did in an interview with BBC Radio 4 this week. Mr Scowcroft, writing in The Wall Street Journal, was perhaps bluntest, saying a war risked undoing all the administration had set out to do since 11 September. An attack on Iraq "would seriously jeopardise, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken". It also opened the possibility of an exchange of chemical and nuclear weapons between Iraq and Israel, he argued, warning of "Armageddon in the Middle East".
Because of his closeness to the first Bush administration, speculation is widespread that Mr Scowcroft was acting as an ambassador for the President's father, begging the younger George Bush to think again. The New York Times called his intervention "an extraordinary challenge to the Bush administration". The paper added: "Mr Scowcroft's concerns about attacking Iraq were the equivalent of a cannon shot across the White House lawn."
Almost as striking were Mr Eagleburger's remarks, which pointed to the lack of evidence that the Iraqis are close to having or using weapons of mass destruction. "I don't know why we have to do it [the invasion] now, when all our allies are opposed to it," Mr Eagleburger told ABC Television.
Mr Kissinger, writing in The Washington Post, was more sympathetic to the administration's desire to end President Saddam's regime, but he too had criticisms of the administration's apparent proclivity for solving geopolitical problems with military might alone. "America's special responsibility is to work toward an international system that rests on more than military power -- indeed, that strives to translate power into co-operation," Mr Kissinger wrote. "Any other attitude will gradually isolate and exhaust America."
What effect such criticisms are having on the President's inner circle of advisers is not clear. Reports have been numerous that Colin Powell, the relatively moderate Secretary of State, has urged the President to develop a more detailed plan for a post-invasion settlement. But how much of the President's confidence Mr Powell enjoys is not certain.
* A federal judge has delayed the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person to be charged over the 11 September attacks on the US, to give him more time to review the huge amount of evidence. District Judge Leonie Brinkema granted separate requests by Mr Moussaoui, who is defending himself, and his court-appointed lawyers, for a 60-day delay. Opening statements will now be taken on 6 January. He is accused of conspiracy. Officials suspect he was meant to be the 20th hijacker.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/international/middleeast/18CHEM.html
Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
【米国がイラクに毒ガス兵器使用を知りつつ軍事援助をしていたと、米国政府高官が暴露】
By PATRICK E. TYLER
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 -- A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq.
The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.
During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.
Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.
The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."
"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."
Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."
Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.
Iraq shared its battle plans with the Americans, without admitting the use of chemical weapons, the military officers said. But Iraq's use of chemical weapons, already established at that point, became more evident in the war's final phase.
Saudi Arabia played a crucial role in pressing the Reagan administration to offer aid to Iraq out of concern that Iranian commanders were sending waves of young volunteers to overrun Iraqi forces. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, then and now, met with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and then told officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iraq's military command was ready to accept American aid.
In early 1988, after the Iraqi Army, with American planning assistance, retook the Fao Peninsula in an attack that reopened Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf, a defense intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Rick Francona, now retired, was sent to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers, the American military officers said.
He reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to cinch its victory, one former D.I.A. official said. Colonel Francona saw zones marked off for chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their positions. (Colonel Francona could not be reached for comment.)
C.I.A. officials supported the program to assist Iraq, though they were not involved. Separately, the C.I.A. provided Iraq with satellite photography of the war front.
Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, said he would not discuss classified information, but added that both D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran.
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Colonel Lang asserted that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program, a former participant in the program said.
Iraq did turn its chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, but the intelligence officers say they were not involved in planning any of the military operations in which those assaults occurred. They said the reason was that there were no major Iranian troop concentrations in the north and the major battles where Iraq's military command wanted assistance were on the southern war front.
The Pentagon's battle damage assessments confirmed that Iraqi military commanders had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested. Iran claimed that it suffered thousands of deaths from chemical weapons.
The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews.
Another former senior D.I.A. official who was an expert on the Iraqi military said the Reagan administration's treatment of the issue -- publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas while privately acquiescing in its employment on the battlefield -- was an example of the "Realpolitik" of American interests in the war.
The effort on behalf of Iraq "was heavily compartmented," a former D.I.A. official said, using the military jargon for restricting secrets to those who need to know them.
"Having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran," he said, "the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy."
One officer said, "They had gotten better and better" and after a while chemical weapons "were integrated into their fire plan for any large operation, and it became more and more obvious."
A number of D.I.A. officers who took part in aiding Iraq more than a decade ago when its military was actively using chemical weapons, now say they believe that the United States should overthrow Mr. Hussein at some point. But at the time, they say, they all believed that their covert assistance to Mr. Hussein's military in the mid-1980's was a crucial factor in Iraq's victory in the war and the containment of a far more dangerous threat from Iran.
The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.
Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the administration.
"I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being circulated within the administration that `we have demolished a budding relationship (with Iraq) by taking a tough position in opposition to chemical weapons,' " he wrote.
Mr. Shultz also wrote that he quarreled with William J. Casey, then the director of central intelligence, over whether the United States should press for a new chemical weapons ban at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. Mr. Shultz declined further comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。