Further, the incremental cost of an occupation following combat operations would vary from about $1 billion to $4 billion a month. The estimates of monthly costs incorporate no assumptions about the duration of the conflict or the occupation. And CBO has no basis for estimating any costs for reconstruction or for foreign aid that the United States might choose to extend after a conflict ends.

The first of CBO's examples emphasizes ground forces. Called the Heavy Ground option in this report, it includes about five U.S. Army divisions and five U.S. Air Force tactical fighter wings. The second option relies more on air power. Termed the Heavy Air option, it comprises two and one-third U.S. Army divisions and 10 U.S. Air Force tactical fighter wings.

CBO estimates that the cost of deploying the Heavy Ground force to the Persian Gulf would be about $13 billion; after that, the incremental cost of prosecuting a war in Iraq would reach just over $9 billion during the first month of combat and subsequently fall to about $8 billion a month. Similarly, the cost of deploying the Heavy Air force to the Persian Gulf would be $9 billion, and the incremental cost of prosecuting a war would reach $8 billion during the first month of combat and then fall to $6 billion a month. Eventually, forces deployed to the conflict from other locations would return to their home stations. CBO estimates that the costs to redeploy those forces would be approximately $7 billion for the Heavy Ground force and $5 billion for the Heavy Air force. For the full report, please check:  http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3822&sequence=0

What do you think?

Lee SIu Hin
PeaceNoWar.net
==================================================
Audio Interview:
1) Critics Charge Bush's Iraq War Plan Directly Linked to November Congressional Elections (Between the Lines, USA)
URL:  http://66.175.55.251/nichols100402.ram

News:
1) US draft text would delay entry of UN inspectors (Reuters)
2) U.S. Demanding an 'Occupation Arrangement'? (Institute of Public Accuracy, USA)
3) US Gave Germs to Iraq in 1980's (Assoicated Press)

US Military attacks in Iraq:
4) Oct 1-Allied Planes Strike Southern Iraq (Assoicated Press)
5) Oct 3-Allies Hit Iraq's No-Fly Zone Again (Assoicated Press)

Analysis:
6) Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation (FAIR, New York, USA)

At the Lighter Side....
7) Iraqi Official Suggests a US-Iraq Duel Between Bush & Saddam (Assoicated Press)
==================================================
1) US draft text would delay entry of UN inspectors
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 1 (Reuters) - The United States wants U.N. arms inspectors to delay their entry into Iraq until Baghdad supplies at list of any weapons of mass destruction and all related materials, according to a draft U.N. resolution.

The American-drafted measure, if adopted as written, could delay the start of U.N. arms inspections several weeks beyond the mid-October date that once was proposed by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix.

The four-page text, which authorizes a military strike, is now under discussion by the five permanent U.N. Security Council members with veto rights -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. It has not been formally introduced to the 15-member council.

The proposed measure, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday, says that Iraq, within 30 days of adoption of the resolution, has to provide a "complete declaration" of all its programs to develop chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic weapons.

This declaration has to be submitted "prior to the beginning of inspections," the draft says.

Blix, who completed two days of negotiations with Iraqi arms experts in Vienna on Tuesday, had expected to send an advance team to Baghdad in two weeks.

Other elements in the draft are similar to what diplomats had reported earlier. It authorizes any member of the United Nations to "use all necessary means" to establish "peace and security" and if Iraq submits any "false statements or omission" in its declaration.

It also asks for security forces to guard the inspectors and allows any of the five permanent council members, such as the United States, to be represented on an inspection team "with the same rights and protections accorded other members of the team" and recommend sites to be inspected.

The draft calls for security forces to protect the inspectors at their bases and gives them the right to declare no-flight and no-drive by exclusion zones for ground and air transit corridors. Still in dispute is a provision that would allow these measures to by enforced by U.N. security guards or outside troops.

The draft would also allow the inspectors to conduct interviews at their discretion inside or outside Iraq. The United Nations would "facilitate" the travel of any scientists, or government official as well as their family members, if necessary, the document says.

But before the inspectors enter Iraq, Baghdad is expected to come forward with an "acceptable and currently accurate declaration." It must declare all aspects of its weapons programs, including holdings and precise locations of such weapons, their components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and the locations where the research had been carried out.

(Irwin Arieff contributed to this report)
10/01/02 18:52 ET
==================================================
2) U.S. Demanding an 'Occupation Arrangement'?

(i) JAMES PAUL,  james.paul@globalpolicy.org,  http://www.globalpolicy.org,
 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm
Executive director of Global Policy Forum and author of several recent
papers on Iraq, Paul said today: "The U.S./U.K. draft of a proposed U.N.
Security Council resolution, leaked to The New York Times [published in the
Oct. 2 edition], says that 'Iraq shall provide ... immediate, unconditional
and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities,...' and 'Any
permanent member of the Security Council may request to be represented on
any inspection team with the same right and protections....' This is one of
several booby traps in the text to make sure that the Iraqis don't accept
it. The idea is that the U.S. and the U.K. can put their people on the team
and can be present anywhere, anytime in Iraq. When the Security Council
created the new inspection regime, UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification,
and Inspection Commission], it was seen as intended to be free of the taint
of espionage and other covert operations, primarily by the U.S., that
destroyed the credibility of UNSCOM. This resolution totally undermines
that. The text also says: 'Teams shall be accompanied at the bases by
sufficient U.N. security forces,... shall have the right to declare for the
purposes of this resolution no-fly/no-drive zones, exclusion zones, and/or
ground- and air-transit corridors, which shall be enforced by U.N. security
forces or by members of the Council;...' What they are talking about is an
occupation arrangement, similar to demands made at Rambouillet on
Yugoslavia. Since the government of Iraq will not accept that, Iraqi
rejection will be used as a pretext for war. The resolution further says
that if Iraq does not comply, member states can use 'all necessary means'
-- a green light for the use of force."

(ii) JOHN QUIGLEY,  quigley.2@osu.edu,
 http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/law/quigley2.htm
Professor of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley said
today: "The U.S. should not be seeking to disrupt an agreement between the
U.N. and Iraq on how this should be resolved.... The U.S./U.K. resolution
says that 'failure by Iraq at any time to comply and cooperate fully in
accordance with the provisions laid out in this resolution, shall
constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and that such
breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means...' It's saying
that any violation, even an insignificant or accidental one, could be used
as a pretext for invasion. It also says that member states can make such
determination. You should have some mechanism, such as further
consideration by the Security Council. This is really just a blank check
for an armed attack on Iraq."

(iii) FRANCIS BOYLE,  fboyle@law.uiuc.edu,
 http://www.will.uiuc.edu/WILL_Contents/AM_Contents/AM_mcchesney.htm
Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of
Law, Boyle said today: "The resolution is just a pretext for war. No way
Iraq, or any other state, could accept such a resolution.... The U.S.
government is [currently] violating the U.N. Charter ... by using military
force to allegedly 'police' the illegal 'no-fly' zones..."

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020;
==================================================
3) US Gave Germs to Iraq in 1980's
By MATT KELLEY
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Oct. 1) - Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.

The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.

''I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs,'' said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.

''But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time.''

The disclosures put the United States in the uncomfortable position of possibly having provided the key ingredients of the weapons America is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. Byrd entered the documents into the Congressional Record this month.

Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Middle East envoy.

''Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?'' Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.

''I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it,'' Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other government agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.

Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three.

The company sent the bacteria to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors concluded had been used as a front to acquire samples for Iraq's biological weapons program.

The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid - used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin - directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

Botulinum toxin is the paralyzing poison that causes botulism. Having a vaccine to the toxin would be useful for anyone working with it, such as biological weapons researchers or soldiers who might be exposed to the deadly poison, Tucker said.

The CDC also sent samples of a strain of West Nile virus to an Iraqi microbiologist at a university in the southern city of Basra in 1985, the records show.

AP-NY-10-01-02 0445EDT
==================================================
4) Allied Planes Strike Southern Iraq
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Allied aircraft launched an airstrike in the southern no-fly zone over Iraq after Iraqi aircraft penetrated the restricted area, defense officials said Wednesday.

It brought to 45 the number of strikes reported this year by the United States and the United Kingdom coalition put together to patrol zones set up to protect Iraqi minorities following the 1991 Gulf War.

``They placed a mobile radar south of the 33rd parallel,'' the boundary for the southern zone, said Navy Commander Frank Merriman, spokesman for Central Command in Tampa, Fla. ``And they flew military aircraft into the zone.''

He declined to say how many Iraqi aircraft.

Coalition planes responded, targeting precision-guided weapons at the radar at Al Kut, some 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, at 5 p.m. EDT Tuesday, a statement from the command said.

It was the sixth time in a month that coalition aircraft have struck at Al Kut, targeting it also on Aug. 29 and 30 and Sept. 5, 7 and 9. Pentagon officials said Iraqis keep moving mobileradar equipment to the area.

The amount of any damage from Tuesday's strike was unknown because assessment was still under way.

Tuesday's strike was in the southern zone, set up to protect Shiite Muslims, and it was the 35th one in the zone this year. In the northern zone, set up to protect Kurds, there have been 10 this year. Both groups were given protection after unsuccessfully revolting against the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Iraq considers the patrols a violation of its sovereignty and frequently shoots at the planes with anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. In response, coalition pilots try to bomb Iraqi air defense systems.

The strikes come as the Bush administration increases efforts to convince the world of the need to overthrow Saddam.

10/02/02 09:08 EDT
==================================================
5) Allies Hit Iraq's No-Fly Zone Again
By PAULINE JELINEK
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Allied forces dropped thousands of leaflets over southern Iraq Thursday, warning Saddam Hussein's troops against firing on British and U.S. planes that have been patrolling the no-fly zone.

Iraqi forces fired on aircraft delivering the leaflets and allied forces bombed an air defense operations center in response, said officials at the U.S. Central Command.

It was the first known direct warning from the Pentagon to Iraq's military rank and file since the Bush administration launched its campaign to topple Saddam. Defense officials said on condition of anonymity that it is not directly related to another leaflet campaign in which the Pentagon plans to warn Iraqi officers against firing chemical or biological weapons in the event of U.S. military action to remove Saddam.

The retaliatory action brought to 46 the number of ``strike days'' reported this year by the United States and the United Kingdom coalition put together to patrol zones set up to protect Iraqi minorities following the 1991 Gulf War. On some days, more than one area is bombed.

Officials said coalition aircraft dropped 120,000 leaflets depicting a fighter jet bombing a missile launcher and a radar site with the message: ``Iraqi ADA (air defense artillery) Beware! Don't track or fire on coalition aircraft!''

``The destruction experienced by your colleagues in other air defense locations is a response to your continuing aggression toward planes of the coalition forces,'' leaflets written in Arabic said in reference to the four dozen times coalition planes have struck back this year.

``No tracking or firing on these aircraft will be tolerated. You could be next,'' said an English translation released by defense officials.

``We were telling them 'Don't shoot at us or we'll shoot back','' said Navy Commander Frank Merriman, a spokesman for Central Command in Tampa, Fla. ``And they were shooting at that aircraft that was dropping the leaflets!''

He said a similar leaflet drop was done last October to try to halt the firing on planes patrolling the restricted zones over Iraq.

Another official insisted Thursday's action was not related to any possible war with Iraq, portraying it as something done from time to time to remind Iraqi gunners they target coalition planes at their peril. Three officials said they didn't know how often it had been done before. They discussed the situation only on grounds of anonymity.

``Today's strike came after Iraq air defenses fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft,'' said a statement from the Central Command.

In their retaliation, coalition planes targeted precision-guided weapons at the site, an operations center and air defense headquarters for the sector near Tallil, some 160 miles southeast of Baghdad at 4:30 a.m. EDT Thursday. There was no assessment immediately available on how much damage was done.

It was the third time in nine days that planes launched strikes in the area, trying to destroy communications equipment, control radar and a surface-to-air missile launcher, in missions Sept. 25 and 28.

Repeat missions have become common in recent weeks. Coalition aircraft for the sixth time in a month struck this week near Al Kut, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, because Iraqis keep moving mobile radar equipment to the area, Pentagon officials said.

Iraq considers the patrols a violation of its sovereignty and frequently shoots at the planes. In response, coalition pilots try to bomb Iraqi air defense systems.

Coalition strikes are not necessarily aimed at the place or equipment used to target them. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disclosed recently that he has ordered that pilots attack command and communications links in Iraq's air defense network rather than the guns and radars used to target or shoot at U.S. and British pilots.

The goal of the new approach, more than a decade after American and British pilots began enforcing no-fly zones, is to reduce dangers to the pilots while increasing the damage inflicted on an Iraqi air defense system that has grown more sophisticated.

The amount of any damage from Thursday's strike was unknown because assessment was still under way.

The strike was in the southern zone, set up to protect Shiite Muslims. The northern zone was set up to protect the Kurdish population. Both groups were given protection after unsuccessfully revolting against Saddam's regime.

10/03/02 13:28 EDT
==================================================
6) Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation
September 24, 2002
 http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001

ACTION ALERT:

Nothing makes a newspaper prouder than a juicy foreign-policy scoop. Except,
it seems, when the scoop ends up raising awkward questions about a U.S.
administration's drive for war.

Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing
that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for
the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today
that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms
inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the
Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage
equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to
eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency."
Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed
to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi
leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," wrote the Boston
Globe (1/6/99).

Each of the three news stories ran on the papers' front pages. At first,
U.S. officials tried to deny them, but as more details emerged, "spokesmen
for the CIA, Pentagon, White House and State Department declined to repeat
any categorical denials" (Washington Post, 3/2/99). By the spring of 1999,
the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact by other
outlets, and even defended; "Experts say it is naive to believe that the
United States and other governments would not have used the opportunity
presented by the U.N. commission to spy on a country that provoked the
Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that has continued to tangle with U.S. and
British forces," USA Today reported (3/3/99).

But now that the Bush administration has placed the inspectors at the center
of its rationale for going to war, these same papers have become noticeably
queasy about recalling UNSCOM's past spying. The spy scandal badly damaged
the credibility of the inspections process, especially after reports that
data collected through UNSCOM were later used to pick targets in the
December 1998 bombing of Iraq: "National security insiders, blessed with
their unprecedented intelligence bonanza from UNSCOM, convinced themselves
that bombing Saddam Hussein's internal apparatus would drive the Iraqi
leader around the bend," wrote Washington Post analyst William Arkin
(1/17/99).

Suddenly, facts that their own correspondents confirmed three years ago in
interviews with top U.S. officials are being recycled as mere allegations
coming from Saddam Hussein's regime.

The UNSCOM team, explained the New York Times' Barbara Crossette in an
August 3 story, was replaced "after Mr. Hussein accused the old commission
of being an American spy operation and refused to deal with it." She gave no
hint that Saddam's "accusation" was reported as fact by her Times colleague,
Tim Weiner, in a front-page story three years earlier.

"As recently as Sunday, Iraqi officials called the inspectors spies and
accused them of deliberately prolonging their work," the Washington Post's
Baghdad correspondent wrote recently in a story casting doubt on the Iraqi
regime's intentions of cooperating (9/8/02). Readers would have no way of
knowing that the Post's Barton Gellman exhaustively detailed the facts of
the spying in a series of 1999 articles.

"Iraq accused some of the inspectors of being spies, because they remained
on their host countries' payrolls while reviewing Iraq's weapons," the
Boston Globe's Elizabeth Neuffer wrote recently, in an oddly garbled
rendition of the charges (9/14/02). She could have boasted that her paper's
own Colum Lynch (now with the Washington Post) was widely credited with
first breaking the story of UNSCOM's spying in a January 6, 1999 front-page
expose. But she chose not to.

It's hard to avoid the impression that certain media outlets would rather
that UNSCOM's covert espionage had never been exposed in the first place.
The day after Barton Gellman of the Washington Post first reported the
spying charges, in a story sourced to Kofi Annan's office, his own paper ran
a thundering editorial denouncing Annan's "gutless ploy" ("Back-Stabbing at
the U.N.," 1/7/99) and instructing the U.N. leader that instead of providing
the information to a Washington Post reporter, he and his aides should have
"raised their concerns in private."
==================================================
7) Official Suggests a US.-Iraq Duel
By SAMEER N. YACOUB
.c The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An Iraqi vice president offered an unusual suggestion Thursday for solving the U.S.-Iraq standoff: Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush should fight a duel to settle their differences and spare their people the ravages of war.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would be the referee for the duel, which should be held on neutral territory, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told Associated Press Television Network in an interview.

Ramadan, wearing a green uniform and a black beret, made his remarks without giving any outward sign he was joking, although reporters who were present detected a note of irony in his voice.

``Bush wants to attack the whole (of) Iraq, the army and the infrastructure,'' Ramadan said.

``The American president should specify a group, and we will specify a group and choose neutral ground, with Kofi Annan as referee, and use one weapon, with a president against a president, a vice president against a vice president, and a minister against a minister in a duel,'' Ramadan said. ``In this way we are saving the American and the Iraqi people.''

Iraq has two vice presidents. Ramadan did not say whether he or Taha Muhie-eldin Marouf might take on Dick Cheney.

In Washington, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the Iraqi offer was irresponsible and did not warrant a ``serious response.''

``I just want to point out that, in the past when Iraq had disputes, it invaded its neighbors. There were no duels, there were invasions. There was use of weapons of mass destruction and the military; that's how Iraq settles its disputes,'' Fleischer said.

Bush says he wants Saddam toppled and accuses the Iraqi leader of stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and harboring terrorists. Disarm or face attack, is Bush's message to Saddam.

Ramadan told APTN that Iraq was neither concerned with nor surprised by U.S. lawmakers' support of a congressional resolution that would authorize Bush to use force against Iraq.

``We pay no attention to this issue,'' he said, adding that approving such a resolution ``makes no difference'' to Iraq.

The congressional resolution would support Bush's efforts to seek Iraqi compliance through the United Nations and requires the president to report to Congress, within 48 hours of commencing an attack, that further diplomatic means would not protect U.S. security interests and that military action against Iraq would not detract from the war on terrorism.

The agreement on the resolution specifies that authorization applies only to relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq and not to establishing regional security.

Ramadan criticized U.S. efforts to delay the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq until the U.N. Security Council adopts tougher measures that would give the inspectors broad new powers to hunt for weapons of mass destruction and provide them with military backing to carry out the search.

Iraq and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix reached a deal in Vienna on Tuesday under which Baghdad agreed to an unconditional return of the inspectors under existing U.N. Security Council resolutions and a 1998 agreement that put the so-called presidential sites off limits to the inspectors.

Meanwhile, allied warplanes dropped thousands of leaflets over southern Iraq on Thursday, warning Iraqi forces against firing on British and U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone.

Iraqi forces fired on the plane that was delivering the leaflets and allied forces bombed an air defense operations center in response, officials at the U.S. Central Command said.

In Baghdad, a military spokesman said Thursday that five people were killed and 11 injured when U.S. and British warplanes bombed civilian targets in an area 218 miles south of Baghdad.

10/03/02 14:25 EDT
==================================================
*To Translate this page to Arabic, please visit ajeeb.com:
 http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=1

*To Translate this page to French, Spanish, German, Italian or Portuguese, please visit Systran:
 http://www.systransoft.com/
--------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
--------------------------------------------------
Peace, No War
War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate

Information for antiwar movements, news across the World, please visit:
 http://www.PeaceNoWar.net

Please Join PeaceNoWar Listserv, send e-mail to: mailto: peacenowar-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
-------------------------------------------------