This is from Newsmax: Fair use: Educational purposes

Top Bush Adviser: 'Get Saddam Out Violently' NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2001 WASHINGTON – Iraq could be next on the military's target list in the war on terror, says one of President Bush's and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's top informal national security advisers. "I think Iraq should be the principal next target because it poses the biggest threat to the United States," said Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board and one of Bush's famed "Vulcans" – his national security team during his campaign. "I think the only way you are going to get Saddam Hussein out of there is violently."

The remarks further signal a high-level effort to promote a war with Iraq.

Perle believes the regime in Iran must also be overthrown but believes it could be achieved without direct U.S. military pressure.

"I think if we destroy the Taliban and then Saddam Hussein the others will be more tractable," he said.

The Defense Policy Board is an informal advisory board that debates policy issues and provides non-binding recommendations – often conflicting ones – to the defense secretary. Its membership includes Henry Kissinger and several former defense and White House officials.

Perle said Tuesday the connection between Sept. 11 terrorist Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence agents, combined with Saddam Hussein's known stockpile of biological weapons – an arsenal that includes anthrax – should be sufficient evidence for the administration to put Baghdad in its cross hairs.

"The possibility of [Iraq] placing vicious weapons of mass destruction in the hands of people like Mohammed Atta can not be ignored," he said.

Moreover, Iraq has been pursuing a nuclear weapon, according to Perle. "He is working hard to acquire nuclear weapons. It is simply a matter of time before enough nuclear material is collected ... and he knows how to build a bomb."

Perle believes the military can succeed without the vast numbers and firepower mustered for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The military now has a preponderance of precision munitions which are far more accurate and therefore would require far fewer planes to deliver on target.

He also mentioned the B-2 bomber, which has proven its ability to fly long missions to discharge its weapons with a low risk of being shot down.

"We don't need 1,600 planes. We don't need 500,000 men," he said.

Following the pattern set in Afghanistan, Perle advocated strengthening internal resistance to Saddam Hussein by funding equipping and training the Kurdish factions in the north and the Shi'a in the south. If they are able to seize those areas, they will also have control of the majority of Iraq's oil fields, cutting Saddam Hussein off from his primary source of funding.

"The opposition to Saddam Hussein is potentially a strong opposition. It isn't strong today because it was getting no external support," he said, comparing it to the resurgent Northern Alliance which has prospered under its recent U.S. patronage.

"The combination of a modest number of American force, opposition forces and defections together with precision bombing and careful strategy encourage me to think he can be brought down more quickly than we think," Perle said. "Even the Republican Guard is no longer reliable."

The threat posed by Iraq's armored force is overstated, he said.

"Saddam Hussein is strong relative to opponents who have no armor and little else."

For American aircraft armed with precision weapons, massed armor columns are nothing more than juicy targets.

One of the main obstacles the White House would face in taking on Iraq is whether it can construct a powerful enough coalition to fight the war. Perle believes the issue is moot, given the power, precision and reach of weapons.

"The need for a coalition has been vastly overstated," he said. "At the end of the day we don't need much support ... We will get better performance out of our coalition partners when we don't need them."

Timing is everything, according to Perle.

"If too long elapses between the destruction of the Taliban and the destruction of bin Laden and [the second phase of the war on terrorism] our normal predisposition is not to be at war. The moment the sense of danger is passed a democracy tends to relax," he said. "I wish we hadn't conceived of this war against terrorism in phases ... it runs a risk there will be a break in momentum."

Taking out Saddam Hussein hard on the heels of the destruction of the Taliban would have a sobering effect on other countries known to harbor or sponsor terrorists, he said.

"You're next," he said the message would be.

After Iraq: Iran

Next on Perle's list would be Iran.

"It's part of the problem, not part of the solution," he said.

Perle's approach to Tehran would be different. He asserts the people of Iran are increasingly disaffected toward their government and favorable to the United States. That instinct could be "encouraged" with propaganda and support to political opposition groups.

"There may be ways to get other resources to opponents," he said.

Perle believes the overthrow of the government in Iran could be bloodless.

"We should be doing everything we can to encourage the centrifugal forces" of change there.

Perle said the United States should then turn its attention to longtime allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

"The Saudis don't shelter terrorists but they have been careless in the way they have made money available" to clerics who encourage anti- American sentiment, he said. "There is not a lot we can do beyond remonstration."

Perle predicted the Saudi's will suffer at the hands of the religious fundamentalists the government has allowed to prosper there.

"The Saudis in the end will be consumed by the flames they've been feeding," he said. "Osama bin Laden has been eager to get his hands on the money, power, and wealth of Saudi Arabia."

Egypt should be pressured financially to silence its nation's clerics who preach against the United States in their prayer sessions, fomenting dischord.

"It's high time we said to Mubarak we would like to see that stopped," he said, suggesting that large chunks of the $2 billion in aid Egypt receives from the United States could be cut for every week that preaching is allowed to continue. "Those prayers are a direct threat to the American people."

-- Copyright 2001 by United

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Answers

I dunno 'bout funding equipping and training the Kurdish factions in the north and the Shi'a in the south.

Isn't that how we made OBL?

Taking Saddam's strength to attack away is one thing, removing him from power is not our job.

I don't think we should be going around re-doing other countries governments. That would be up to the citizens of those countries. If they ask us for help, well, that's different.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001