Bush says he remains committed to ousting Saddam

President Bush has insisted he remains committed to overthrowing President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, but suggested he was in no…

President Bush has insisted he remains committed to overthrowing President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, but suggested he was in no hurry to settle on how to do so.

Speaking in the Oval Office alongside King Abdullah of Jordan, an outspoken critic of US plans for military strikes on Iraq, Mr Bush said: "I'll assure His Majesty, like I have in the past, we're looking at all options, the use of all tools." He added: "I'm a patient man."

King Abdullah predicted the US would struggle to achieve its goals in Iraq without international support. "America would, I think, be in a difficult position unless it convinces the international community of the viability and the reason for attacking Iraq," he said.

"What we're concerned about, especially in the light of the Israeli-Palestinian problem, is that if you're going to take on Iraq at the same time, it's too many things for the Middle East to handle at one go."

READ MORE

A day before his meeting, the king told the Washington Post that foreign leaders were deeply worried about US plans for war against Iraq and that it would be a "tremendous mistake" to ignore warnings from its allies against such a campaign. The king said he was confident Mr Bush "understands the bigger picture, and at the end of the day peace and stability in the Middle East has been in the forefront of his mind".

Jordan has traditionally been one of the most reluctant of US allies in the region to support attacks on Iraq. It urged peaceful methods of seeking an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait in 1991.

In Congress, senators yesterday heard for a second day about the scale of the US military and political commitment needed to establish a stable regime in Iraq if the president were overthrown.

Ms Phebe Marr, former professor at the National Defence University in Washington, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that winning a war in Iraq was only the start of the US military role needed.

"If the US embarks on this project, it needs to be prepared to see it through to an acceptable outcome, including, if necessary, a long-term military and political commitment to ensure a stable and more democratic government," she said.

While dismissing predictions that Iraq could break up after a regime change, Ms Marr said law and order would fall apart without strong central government. "If firm leadership is not in place in Baghdad on the day after, retribution, score-settling, blood-letting, especially in urban areas, could take place," she said.

Mr Joseph Biden, the Democratic committee chairman, said the administration had lacked the resolve to secure Afghanistan after overthrowing the Taliban. "In Iraq, we can't afford to replace one despot with chaos. The long-suffering Iraqi people need to know the regime change would benefit them."

- (Financial Times Service, Reuters)