There's something singular about a man who has been severely tortured. Maybe it's the way he struggles against failing eyesight caused by repeated blows to the kidneys. Or his lop-sided posture, the result of multiple broken bones that have failed to mend properly. Sometimes there is a tremor in the hands or a twitch, a minuscule outer sign of the torment within.

The man who sat opposite me in a small, bare room at the Kurdish border post this week had all the symptoms of a man who had been systematically broken. I encouraged him to tell his story and, slowly, sometimes reluctantly, he relived the terror of the 21 months he spent in Saddam Hussein's torture chambers.

We are prepared to disarm Iraq by force," he said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute. "Either way, this danger will be removed."

Bush also remarked that the removal of Saddam Hussein would inspire peace and democracy throughout the Arab world, and that a U.S.-led war would be as much about Baghdad's defiance as the liberation of Iraq's oppressed citizenry.
...
Bush said Arab nations will be inspired by democratic reform in Iraq. "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region," he said.

Neither he nor his advisers explained why the Middle East peace process made no major advances while Hussein was contained in the 1990s. He did not mention other nations tied to unrest in the Middle East, such as Iran, but said removing Hussein would "be given clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated."

» Bush Says War Will Pave the Way for Peace

In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said. "The council's unity is at stake here."

A senior diplomat from another council member said his government had heard a similar message and was told not to anguish over whether to vote for war.

"You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."

President Bush has continued to say he has not yet decided whether to go to war. But the message being conveyed in high-level contacts with other council governments is that a military attack on Iraq is inevitable, these officials and diplomats said. What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world upheaval.

WASHINGTON In the most ambitious effort of its kind, the American military is already at war with Iraq, but it is a conflict being fought with electrons and words in advance of any order by President George W. Bush to loose bullets and bombs. American cyber-warfare experts recently made an e-mail assault against Iraq's political, military and economic leadership, urging them to break with the regime. A second wave of messages has gone to private cell phone numbers of specially selected officials. More than eight million leaflets have been dropped over Iraq, including towns 100 kilometers south of Baghdad, warning Iraqi anti-aircraft missile operators that their bunkers will be destroyed if they track or fire at allied warplanes. A similar blunt notice has gone to Iraqi ground troops: Surrender, and live.
....
Military planners at the United States Central Command are using the burgeoning field of information warfare - including electronic attacks on power grids, communications systems and computer networks, as well as deception and psychological operations - to try to break the Iraqi military's will to fight and sway Iraqi public opinion.

Troops involved in an invasion of Iraq will have a number of key targets as well as a wide variety of hurdles to overcome. Here we highlight the main aspects of a new Gulf war and how the conflict may unfold

THE INVASION

A WAVE of 700 cruise missiles will bombard Iraq within hours of the green light for war from the White House.
...
Urban fighting is expected to be particularly brutal.

If defeat seems inevitable, Saddam and his inner circle could unleash chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons as a final defiant gesture.

The death toll could reach four million if the conflict turns nuclear.

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) - U.S. officials are trying to assess how Iraq would use chemical and biological weapons in the case of war, with experts saying targeting civilians in a nearby state may be deadlier than attacking invading troops.

Iraq denies possessing such weapons, and U.N. weapons inspectors have come up empty-handed in their search for them.

But U.S. defense and intelligence officials and independent experts say they are confident Iraq not only has a hidden stockpile of chemical and biological agents but numerous ways to deliver them to their target.

Amy Smithson, a leading expert on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, said there could be no doubt Saddam Hussein maintains an extensive arsenal. But she noted that even with a large chemical and biological arms stockpile in 1991, the Iraqi president elected not to use them in the Gulf War.

Smithson said Saddam might be more inclined to use them in a war meant not to eject his troops from a neighboring state, as in 1991, but to topple him from power and disarm Iraq.

Israel's schools have joined the ongoing rehearsal for war. Children squeeze their faces into gas masks and tie plastic bags over their shoes. A few practise evacuating the "wounded" on stretchers and sliding down escape chutes from second-floor classrooms.

Everyone must be ready for anything Iraq could send over, including Scud missiles carrying deadly chemicals or nerve agents.

Saddam Hussein launched 39 warheads at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War and Israelis are preparing for a replay.

But what are the chances of an attack this time?

"Close to zero," says Moshe Aarons. He was defence minister in 1991.

War with Iraq cannot be avoided unless Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "chooses the route of peaceful disarmament," British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned.
...
The British premier said: "I obviously know the views of the pope very well and they're very clear. ... Let me make one thing plain: We do not want war, no one wants war.

"I totally understand the dislike of any member of the church or indeed wider society for war. That is why it has been 12 long years and several more months in the U.N. that we have been trying to avoid war.

"But in the end I can't avoid it unless Saddam chooses the route of peaceful disarmament. He knows what he has to do and he has the capability to do it. The question is does he have the will."

» CNN.com - Blair: Saddam can avoid war - Feb. 21, 2003

SADDAM HUSSEIN plans to "disappear" once America attacks Iraq and has told his generals to fight without him, according to an Arabic daily.
The Iraqi leader instructed his military commanders this month that when war broke out they should take their orders from his son Qusay, who alone will know of Saddam's whereabouts, according to the London-based al-Hayat.
...
"The biggest worry is that we don't get him early," one official said.

US officials are concerned that Saddam's system of doubles and constant moving could enable him to evade capture in the way that Osama bin Laden did in Afghanistan.

» Saddam 'will hide once attack starts'

U.S. military planners are now looking at mid-March as a starting date for a war against Iraq, a delay caused by diplomatic snags and difficulties in moving heavy Army divisions.
...
The timing of the war is critical, U.S. officials said, because it is best for troops and machines to fight in the Gulf's 70-degree winter weather than its oppressive desert heat of the summer. The temperatures begin to rise in April.
...
The White House continued to signal this week that Mr. Bush will not let the debate at the United Nations push a war decision into the summer.
"There's not a lot of time left," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, adding that either Turkey agrees to host U.S. ground troops for a northern front or the United States would position them elsewhere. Senior officials have said this month that a war decision is "weeks, not months" away.

The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama bin Laden resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens preemptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin.

This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it.

You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch.

US-led action against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq would likely involve the help of internal and external opponents of the regime.
These include semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdish groups in the north, Shia Muslim groups in the south, senior army officers who have defected, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC) which says it acts as an umbrella for numerous other exiled opposition groups.

"Iraq will fight against any invaders inside its territory and it has no means to attack anyone outside its territory, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said in a press conference in Italy.

Aziz made the statement when asked whether Iraq would respond to the possible US military strikes by launching attacks on 'Israel'.
...
"Iraq will do whatever possible to help UN inspectors," he said. "We are ready to continue working with Blix and ElBaradei."

"We are genuinely working with the inspectors to help them reach the truth about the absence of weapons of mass destruction," Aziz added.

Aziz on lashed out at US allegations against Iraq as seeking an excuse to "colonize Iraq and control its oil."
...
As for Iraq's cooperation with UN arms inspectors, Aziz said: "We are ready to continue working on implementing UN disarmament resolutions, and Iraq is open for more cooperation with the inspector".

» Iraq daily Newspaper

A senior Pentagon adviser today accused France of striking a deal with Saddam Hussein to oppose military action in return for a lucrative oil contract.

Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said.
...
"What's distinctive about the Total contract is that it's not favourable to Iraq, it's favourable to Total," Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York.
...
"It's entirely possible that Saddam negotiated that deal because that along with the revenues, he could get something else."

He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as "extraordinarily lopsided" in favour of the French company.

"This is not your normal oil exploration contract."

Total is currently barred from working on the oil fields because of the economic sanctions against Iraq.

If Saddam is overthrown the new regime is likely to nullify existing contracts and invite oil companies from around the globe to compete for new deals.

"The French interest in the propagation of contracts that will only go forward with this regime is perfectly obvious."

» IOL: France accused of oil-for-peace deal with Iraq

Britain and America's spies believe that they are being politicised: that the intelligence they provide is being selectively applied to lead to the opposite conclusion from the one they have drawn, which is that Iraq is much less of a threat than their political masters claim. Worse, when the intelligence agencies fail to do the job, the politicians will not stop at plagiarism to make their case, even "tweaking" the plagiarised material to ensure a better fit.

"You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing." Not since Harold Wilson has a Prime Minister been so unpopular with his top spies.
...
How selectively the work of the intelligence agencies is being used on both sides of the Atlantic is shown by a revealing clash between Senator Bob Graham and the Bush administration's top intelligence advisers. Mr Graham, a Democrat, is chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Last July, baffled by the apparently contradictory assessments on Iraq by America's 13 different intelligence agencies, he asked for a report to be drawn up by the CIA that estimated the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction.

The CIA procrastinated, but finally produced a report after Senator Graham threatened to accuse them of obstruction. The conclusions were so significant that he immediately asked for it to be declassified. The CIA concluded that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using such weapons was "very low" for the "foreseeable future". The only circumstances in which Iraq would be more likely to use chemical weapons or encourage terrorist attacks would be if it was attacked.

Iraq is rich enough and developed enough and has the human resources to become a great force for democracy and economic reconstruction in the Arab and Muslim world.

But most Arabs are in a state of denial. The gulf that opened up between Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world that began with the 1991 Gulf War has reached a kind of crescendo with the current crisis.

Out of the Iraqi opposition - as difficult and fractious as it may be - could emerge a new kind of Arab politics. One that I believe is far healthier than the politics that dominates the Arab world today
...
Part of the driving force of Arab politics since 1967 is the attribution of all of the ills of one's own world to either the great Satan America or Israel.

Arab and Muslim resentment of the West is grounded in many grievances, some legitimate, others less so. Without question, the West has blundered in its dealings with the Arab world.

But the kind of thinking in the Arab world today has led to an impasse, where people are blind to failures close to home - specifically the absence of democracy among Arab nations

Arabs politics is a self-destructive politics that has no way forward - it is epitomised by the Palestinian suicide bomber.

By calling Saddam Hussein "evil," President Bush has polarized the nation and prevented serious public debate about a war in Iraq. That's the contention of a noted Christian theologian and the leader of a liberal Christian lobbying organization.

Elaine Pagels and the Rev. Welton Gaddy said Tuesday in a news conference that the president's use of his own brand of Christian language shuts down serious public debate on many public issues.

"He's placing those who disagree with him in the realm of evil and placing himself at the axis of good, and suggesting that someone who doesn't agree with him is morally deficient," Pagels said.
...
"The presence of inappropriate religious language reflects the president's fuzzy vision of the connection of religion and government," Gaddy said.

» Bush religious rhetoric blurs Iraq debate, critics say

WASHINGTON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush seems determined to attack Iraq, but his ultimate war aims remain cloudy and have been hotly debated both within and outside the administration.

Officially, if the United States attacks Iraq, it will be for the purpose of rooting out and destroying Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's supposed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities.

But this itself represents a change. Last summer, before Bush decided to take his case to the United Nations, senior administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, were unequivocally advocating "regime change" in Iraq, administration code for the forced removal of Saddam
...
Critics and backers of the war have put forward a wide range of possible motivations, ranging from asserting U.S. power and primacy to spreading democracy in the Arab world to wresting control of Iraqi oil reserves to satisfying Bush's psychological need to finish a job his father left undone by eliminating Saddam and his government.

The best way to picture the power structure in Saddam Hussein's Iraq is to imagine a series of widening circles, with the figure of the president at their centre.

Those closest to the heart of power are those whom Saddam Hussein trusts the most - though never unconditionally - because he knows that they are so closely identified with him that they have nowhere else to go.
...
Beyond this circle are those who receive special favours and in return are expected to devote their lives exclusively to the service of the president.

These men are drawn heavily from the allied clans and tribes of the Sunni Arab north-west of Iraq, but also include those who have made their careers within the hierarchy of the Baath party, as well as state servants.
...
Further out, beyond these figures and more distant from the president, but nevertheless integrated into the webs of patronage, are those who are considered useful for social control.

Donald Rumsfeld likes making lists. This is a man, after all, who lives by a collection of maxims known as "Rumsfeld's Rules." Yet few lists the defense secretary has ever compiled are more ominous than the one that now sits on his desk at the Pentagon. It is a collection of things that could go wrong if the United States goes to war with Iraq, and for months he has been steadily adding to it. He has yet to cross anything off.
...
Yet beneath the confidence among U.S. officials about the outcome, a general unease exists about the unintended consequences of trying to take down Saddam Hussein's regime. It could go smoothly: Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution estimates that as few as 100 U.S. soldiers may be killed. If things go badly, he predicts, that figure could hit 5,000. Saddam, many fear, like the biblical Samson, will bring the walls of the temple down around himself. "Based on a fair amount of trying to figure Saddam and his cronies out, I wouldn't try to predict how they will behave," remarks one senior Pentagon planner. "That's what makes them so dangerous." The following are scenarios that war planners tell U.S. News keep them up at night. Some of their worst-case scenarios they refuse to divulge, for fear of giving Saddam any more ideas.

1. Iraqi forces unleash their chemical or biological weapons arsenal.
...
2. Saddam Hussein makes a bloody last stand in Baghdad.
...
3. Iraq's oil wells are turned into fields of fire.
...
4. Saddam puts civilians in harm's way.
...
5. Terrorists acquire Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
...
6. Once Saddam is ousted, Iraq descends into chaos.

» U.S. News: Six deadly fears: The U.S. military is confident of victory in Iraq--but at what price?

Though defectors are a notoriously unreliable source of intelligence, the fact that he had crossed the border into Kurdish-held territory only days earlier, together with his lowly rank and the lack of any apparent incentives to embellish his story, all point to the credibility of his account.

Morale was very low, he said, both among his fellow conscripts and among civilians. "We want America to attack because of the bad situation in our country. But we don't want America to launch air strikes against Iraqi soldiers because we are forced to shoot and defend. We are also victims in this situation."
...
Conditions back in the Iraqi trenches were not so good, he said. "We have two blankets for every soldier, but they are very thin and don't keep us warm. The officers beat us. And the food is disgusting. I'm only paid 50 dinars [about £3] a month."

What would have happened if he had been caught trying to run away? "I would have been executed."

As the US military puts the finishing touches to its invasion plan, it is clear that Saddam Hussein's recruits and volunteers face bleak choices in the coming weeks. If they remain in their positions they run the risk of being pulverised by American missiles. But if they try to surrender they risk being shot.

At the moment it is hard to know which is the greater danger. "There are two groups in the Iraqi army," Abbas said.

"One is made up of soldiers like me. The other is the Republican Guard. The special guard will support and defend Saddam. The ordinary soldiers and many of the commanders will surrender."

» Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | The choice for Iraq's rag-tag army: be killed by the US or by Saddam

He was supposed to have been a professional. He should have known better, but in the end he could not resist. Using a satellite phone, the senior al-Qa'ida operative excitedly called two associates and congratulated them on their cold-blooded assassination of an American diplomat.

The call cost the man his liberty. It may yet cost him his life but, more importantly, it could have provided America with the "smoking gun" evidence it has long sought and which apparently links the Iraqi regime to an active al-Qa'ida cell committing terror killings and planning others across Europe and the Middle East. One thing is certain: it has left Iraq needing to do a lot of explaining.

It's not surprising, really, that Bush is reluctant to face up to the costs of his nation-building project in Iraq. That yawning abyss could easily suck up the hopes and dreams Americans hold for the future. By the time the United States finishes paying for the president's imperial ambitions in the Middle East, there will be little money left for schools or health care or prescription drugs for the elderly -- or even homeland security.

No wonder France and Germany have snubbed this war. While the United States pays the costs of invasion and nation-building, those countries will have more money for their domestic needs: schools, health care, parks and recreation, and environmental clean-up. The European Union could outpace the U.S. because its members will have had the resources to revitalize their most important infrastructure -- their citizens.

Even without counting the invasion of Iraq, the Bush budget proposes to shackle the next generation to an unconscionable burden of debt. With war and occupation, which could easily run to hundreds of billions, your children's grandchildren will be paying off the costs.

» Yahoo! News - COSTS OF WAR WITH IRAQ MAY BE MORE THAN WE CAN BEAR

The massing of volunteer paramilitaries at Mosul was designed as a showcase of strength, a demonstration to the world, and possibly Iraqis themselves, that the people were united and uncowed by the prospect of attack by the US Army.

Ms Qassem, equipped with a tin helmet and a sword that stretched from her waist to her ankles, said: "It is a great honour for anyone to express themselves at a time of threat from America and from Britain. We are doing this to show anyone who is thinking of occupying our territories that they won't gain a metre."
...
"I am a Kurd, but I am ready to shed my blood for Saddam Hussein," said Mohammed Elias Ali, 24. "We have heard rumours that America has brought missile launchers and other weapons into the autonomous zone, but I tell you, in my family we are six brothers and all of us will fight against the Americans."

Similar protestations were repeated tirelessly at yesterday's parade, but it was difficult to gauge their sincerity. Many of the marchers betrayed no emotion and remained silent when the customary tributes were offered to President Saddam's leadership.

There were few spectators, and the marchers set off for home the instant they passed the reviewing stand of Iraqi officials.

» Iraq's women warriors in show of strength - theage.com.au

Originally devised by Greek and Roman philosophers, the "just war theory" was developed by Christian theologians. With some variations, it is widely cited and applied by various religions today.

Here we outline the six steps to a just war and square them with the issues at stake.

1. The war must be for a just cause
...
2. The war must be declared by a lawful authority
...
3. The intention behind the war must be good
...
4. All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried
...
5. There must be a reasonable chance of success
...
6. The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve
...

JUST WAR THEORY
Force can be used as a last resort
Defines conditions for declaring war & limits to conduct in war
Some Muslims claim it's similar to 'jihad' - spiritual warfare

» Could this be a 'just' war?

And here is a likely scenario of what's going to happen.

Next Wednesday, February 5, Secretary of State Powell will present evidence about Saddam Hussein to the U.N. After that, you'll see most nations of the world, including France, begin lining up behind the United States because, basically, everybody knows the game is over. Saddam will not reveal where his weapons are, and that's that.

On Valentine's Day, Hans Blix will tell the U.N. that Saddam continues to violate the weapons inspection mandate, so the U.N. must sanction military action or it can never again mandate anything. If the U.N. does not enforce its own resolutions, it goes out of business. So they have to do it.

At the end of February, allied bombing begins. Military targets are hit, and the bombing continues for a few weeks with the hope that Saddam is overthrown from within.

Simultaneously with the bombing, British and U.S. Special Forces will seize oil wells and other strategic targets.

Saddam will most likely try to attack Kuwait and Israel with whatever he can deliver, which might not be much with round-the-clock bombardment. If Saddam continues to hold out, the infantry will move in, surround Baghdad and isolate that city. By St. Patrick's Day or before, Saddam should be dead or in chains.

» Bill O'Reilly - Keeping it Simple

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told a German newsmagazine published Saturday that Iraq is prepared to deploy "thousands of suicide attackers" against the United States if Iraq is bombed.
...
In an interview published Saturday on the Web site of Der Spiegel, Ramadan was asked how long Iraq would be able "to fight the biggest military machine in the world."

"As long as it takes," he responded, "but why don't you ask the other side how long they will be able to endure. We will be happy when they start their air bombardments against our ground troops. They will meet hard resistance everywhere.

"We don't have long-distance missiles or many bombers, but we will deploy thousands of suicide attackers ... the martyrs," Ramadan said. "... Those are our new weapons and they will not only be deployed within Iraq.

"The Arab people will stand by the people of Iraq in the fight for its independence and freedom. This will be a fire in the whole region."

» CNN.com - Iraq threatens U.S. with 'suicide attackers'

Immediate popular reaction in Baghdad on Saturday to the loss of the U.S. space shuttle Columbia and its seven-member crew -- including the first Israeli in space -- was that it was God's retribution.

"We are happy that it broke up," government employee Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi said.

"God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans. They have encroached on our country. God is avenging us," he said.

» Iraqis Call Shuttle Disaster God's Vengeance