The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the news hour tonight, the president's address to the nation on Iraq. Analysis from historians, Robert Dalek, Diane Coons, Howard Zinn, and Walter Russell Mead. There's three on the ground reports, with the U.S. troops in Kuwait, the Iraqis in Baghdad, and the Kurds in Turkey. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara has been provided by... Imagine a world where no child bakes for food. While some will look on that as a dream, others will look long and hard and get to work. ADM, the nature of what's to come. Good by SBC Communications, SBC's nearly 190,000 people are proud of what they've built and how they've built it, a big company, a big responsibility, infinite service, SBC.

This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. President Bush issued an ultimatum to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq tonight, leave power and your country in 48 hours, or face military action. Earlier in the day, diplomacy ended. The U.S., Britain and Spain declined to force a vote at the U.N. Security Council to authorize military action to disarm Iraq. Secretary of State Powell said Saddam had had his chance, and there was nothing he could do at this 11th hour to avoid war. U.N. Secretary General Anon has ordered the withdrawal of all staff from Iraq, including the weapons inspectors, who have been looking for Baghdad's alleged weapons of mass destruction. President Bush spoke to the nation earlier this evening from the White House.

Here is his speech in its entirety. My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.

Over the years, UN weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men. This gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends, and it has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaeda.

The danger is clear. Using chemical, biological, or one-date nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course towards safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force and assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as Commander-in-Chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep, recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress loaded overwhelmingly

last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the UN was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace. In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will. Last September, I went to the UN General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite

and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq and material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm. Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed, and it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's longstanding demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations however do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace,

and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise two hours. In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of the seat and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should

leave Iraq immediately. Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror, and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers, and rape rums. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country

by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life. And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. Our crimes will be prosecuted, or criminals will be punished, and it will be no defense to say I was just following orders.

Shids Saddam Hussein chose confrontation. The American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the cost of conflict, because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except a certainty of sacrifice. Yet the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force in might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorist groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein

is disarmed. Our government is on heightened wash against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security at our airports and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America. Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people, yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated

by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who evaded them will face fearful consequences. We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities. The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war.

In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological, and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense. It is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now. As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region.

Our goal will not be achieved overnight. But it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Good night, and may God continue to bless America. Just after the President spoke tonight, the nation's terror alert status was raised over fears that terrorists might strike during a war. The Department of Homeland Security moved the alert status from yellow for elevated risk to orange for high risk.

The Department stepped up patrols at seaports, airports, and the nation's borders. It also called for governors to deploy national guard troops. For some perspective on what the President said, I talked earlier this evening to four historians. From Boston University, Robert Dallik, who's written extensively on the American presidency and the history of American foreign policy, and Professor Emeritus Howard Zen, author of a People's History of the United States, and the politics of history among others, Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Diane Coons, a diplomatic historian, formerly at Yale University, she's the author of Butter and Guns, America's Cold War Economic Diplomacy, Robert Dallik. Has there ever been an ultimatum issued by President of the United States, like the one we just heard? Well, this is unique, I think, I've never quite seen anything like this before, nor as a historian can I remember anything of this sort.

We have had preventive wars before. The Bay of Pigs was an operation in the United States endorsed. That was a preventive operation. We were afraid that Castro was going to subvert the hemisphere. We helped to topple a rather mosadake in Iran in 1953. But we didn't give out the kind of speeches that Mr. Bush has just given. It was an effective speech, I thought, but of course, it's not going to convert opponents who see lots and lots of questions that are going to come up in future days about this war. Mr. Mead, just as a matter of history, was some made tonight? Do you agree with Robert Dallik, just as President of the United States, looking at a television camera and telling the leader of another country you got 48 hours to get out of there? Yeah, I think it's a new departure. It shows how public diplomacy is changing real diplomacy, that increasingly the business of nations is taking place in public.

So you have the President of the United States making a public ultimatum to a foreign leader. It's a remarkable development. Howard Zen, you agree? Oh, I absolutely agree. This is unique. I mean, it's a shameful moment actually in American history, the idea that we are going to attack a nation that is not attacking us, that is not attacking anybody else. This certainly is a very different moment in our history. And we really ought to think very carefully about how the reputation of the United States is going to be damaged for a very long time to come by what we are now doing. Thank you. You agree? A shameful moment in US history? Not at all. I think this is an evolution that grows out of the September 11th tragedy in America combined with the changing nature of international diplomacy in the post-Cold War world.

What about the point that the others were talking about as well, that a President of the United States looking out and telling the leader of another country, you must leave your own country? Does that, do you agree with Walter Mead that that's just the way things are right now? That's how things will be conducted from this point on possibly? I think what's interesting to remember is that what President Bush is doing is building on Wilsonian principles. Woodrow Wilson, taking the United States into war in 1917, said, we are going to war. We will expend our blood and treasure in order to safeguard principles. And here is President Bush tonight again saying, we are doing this at least in part for the betterment of the Iraqi people, risking our soldiers' lives to create democracy in a country that is never known in. So Robert Dalek, so as Diane Coons is saying, it's not that different, actually. Well, I think it's different in the sense that the United States has such extraordinary

power. And we're going to be able, I think, in a matter of days to overwhelm the Iraqi military. But what's difficult about all this is people around the world are so antagonistic to us for doing this. In a sense, they've turned Saddam Hussein into something of a hero. And Bush has become a kind of villain. There are polls around the globe asking people who is the greatest threat to peace, and Mr. Bush or Saddam Hussein, it's a very disturbing development. And so this kind of diplomacy, which has given us an essence in some ways of black eye, is worrisome. Whatever you think of what he said in terms of content, do you think he made his argument effectively tonight to the American people? This is why we're doing it, et cetera. Yeah, I think he's been making this argument quite a while. I don't think people who are opposed to the war are going to be converted by what he said. I think people who support him find confirmation in his language, in his words. And I think we're going to see in this country and around the world an explosion of tension

and division over what the United States is doing. Do you agree with that, Walter Mayne? No, I actually think in a way that just as the stock markets have been going up, as it looks like, the crisis is going to be resolved quickly, that probably we took much more damage in the run-up to war than we'll take in the war itself. I can't predict the military course of action, but I think the President and many others now feel that further delay just creates more international tension, and the best thing we can do now is to move on, and hopefully win the wars over. And people see that the President was serious, as I believe he is, about the promises to build a better Iraq and have more freedom and more prosperity for average Iraqis. And also as more evidence of the crimes of Saddam Hussein, the torture chambers, and other things that the President spoke of, are found and made public. I think we'll see probably a swing of world opinion back toward the United States.

Would you think he made an effective argument for his case tonight, Walter Mayne? Yes I did. I think there are some ways that the argument could be made more strongly. For example, I think the closest connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of September 11th is that the cost of containing Saddam Hussein involves keeping U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. That destabilizes Saudi society, it creates a lot of tension in the Islamic world. Actually, some have been loud and formed Al-Qaeda because he broke with the Saudi government and became disgusted because they were allowing a permanent U.S. force. If Saddam Hussein had kept his ceasefire agreement, or if he'd fallen from power in 1991, there wouldn't have been that U.S. presence. There would never have been an Al-Qaeda. There probably would never have been a September 11th. The danger of doing nothing, of allowing the sort of the poison to go on, it was growing.

I think the president could have made a stronger argument that the most peaceful, the safest course is to act decisively now, but even so, I think it was a good speech. Howard Zen, what did you think of the president's case for war? Well, it's, as Robert Dalek says, it's the usual case, but the one thing that is missing in so much of the discussion is that we are going to kill a lot of people in this operation. It's all well and good to talk about the promise of a different Iraq, a democratic and free Iraq, a promise, which is very dubious considering the history of the United States in a history in which it has not been very good at creating democracy or history in which it has rather supported dictatorships around the world. But we are going to kill and think of it this way. We talk about Saddam Hussein and what he's doing to the people of Iraq. We are going to kill the victims of Saddam Hussein.

The civilians of Baghdad are going to be living under terrorism. We are concerned about terrorism. War is terrorism. The people of Baghdad are going to be terrorized. It's shock and awe. We are going to unleash enormous numbers of bombs on the cities and villages of Baghdad. Now we can't, that is certain, what is uncertain is the future. When you face certain horrors in war and uncertainties about the outcome, morally you cannot go along with this war. And I think that's why most of the world is outraged at what the United States is about to do. They are right. The present bush is right now the greatest danger to world peace. He's also the greatest danger to our young men and women whom he is sending into combat. Those who die, not just those who die in Iraq, but those people in our armed forces who die.

They will die because President Bush has grandiose ambitions for American power in the world. They will die because of oil. They will die because of politics. They will die because of the need of the United States government to expand its power. Those are not good reasons for people to die there or here. I take it and you disagree with what Walter Mead just said that over time, the public opinion throughout the world will swing to the Bush position and the American position. Nobody knows how public opinion will work. Predicting the future and predicting public opinion, we don't know what is going to happen in the future. We do know what is going to happen immediately. And what is going to happen immediately is that the United States is going to be really endangering the people of the United States, not just the people of Iraq, because even the CIA has said that the threat of terrorism will grow if we go to war. The United States government, by going to war, is making the American people less safe,

is putting us in greatest danger, and for Bush to talk about national security doesn't make any sense. He is endangering the security of the United States just as he endangering the security of the people in Iraq. I might say one more thing. Let me get you. Iraq was a real danger. One just one more sentence. If Iraq was a real danger to the world, then why is it that all the countries around Iraq? And why is it that the countries of the rest of the world do not want to go to war? Why is it that the most powerful military country in the world with oceans on both sides is going to war against Iraq? No, the reasons are not- Let me ask. Given by President Bush. We only have a couple minutes left. Let's go to Diane Lins and see if she would like to answer that question. How do you see? How would you answer Howard Zenz's question? Well, the first point I'd like to make is the reason there's going to be a war in Iraq if there will be one, will be Saddam Hussein. It is Saddam Hussein who, for 12 years, has refused to disarm, who's refused to get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

He still has an opportunity to leave. And so to say that it is the American government's fault that there may be a war in two days or five days or whenever is just ludicrous. Moreover, I think what President Bush made the point today, and I hope he makes it more clear, is that the preeminent issue for the next 20 years is how many countries will have weapons of mass destruction and how many individuals will be able to get those weapons of mass destruction illegally. And what President Bush is trying to do, I believe, is to make it very clear that the price for the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons will be extremely high. And in this way, he is definitely safeguarding American and world security. What about Howard Zenz Point, though, that meanwhile some Iraqis and possibly some Americans are going to die? Well, this is the impasse to which Saddam Hussein has brought us. And when we ask the slogan war is not the answer, well, it depends on the question.

And right now, if the United States backs down, we will have sustained, as Winston Churchill said, after Munich, defeat without war. And that is the worst case scenario. Is there any one of you who believes that Saddam Hussein will actually leave in the next 48 hours? I'm hoping so. I don't think there's any chance. But I'd like to say, in terms of the killing of civilians, that the sanctions regime actually kills 1 to 5,000 civilians, children under 5 a month, which is the number of people who died, civilians who died in the Gulf War. The status quo is not peace in Iraq. The status quo is a slow war and civilians are dying. So I think ending the slaughter of civilians is a legitimate goal of the government. This is a discussion that is only beginning tonight, and thank you all for joining us. Now three reports from the battle zone.

The first is on how U.S. and Allied forces are organized to fight the coming war. The top commander, General Tommy Franks, will run the overall war from Qatar, but the ground war will be run from Kuwait. New York Times chief military correspondent Michael Gordon reports from there. Well, there are a lot of forces here. There's a U.S.-led invasion force that at this point in time is poised to move north into Iraq. We've got a very large U.S. Marine Force, a sizable army force, and there's also a considerable British force. But what I find really striking about this war is how different it is. When last time the focus was on kicking out Iraqi troops and evicting them from Kuwait to reclaim that territory, this time the battle really centers on Baghdad. Baghdad has always been the center of power of this regime, and it's not surprising that he would try to retain that center of power by closing in his most loyal forces around

that center of power and try to retain it. Fifth Corps is the headquarters for the Army assault into Iraq, and it's commanded by General William Scott Wallace, who we interviewed. I see a foe that although maybe not as large and maybe not as capable as he was during the last conflict, he is adapted to his environment considerably. He is a foe that is not by any stretch of the imagination to be underestimated. Basically, what you're looking at in terms of the United States Army is a force that is very formidable, potent, got a lot of firepower, but is considerably smaller than the Army force that was deployed in the last Corps 4, which is not going to be entirely ready in all of its elements when this kicks off. The Army is pretty much locked into what is called a rolling start, beginning the fight

while forces are just deriving. General Wallace told us that he's comfortable with that. From the very beginning of planning for this operation, we have understood that we are going to have to both fight and build up forces simultaneously. Ready? Take it off. All right. Now, the Marines, it's a very interesting situation here. The Marine Force, they call it the MEP, the Marine Expeditionary Force, and what's really striking about the Marine Force is just how large it is. It's sort of snuck in without a lot of notice, including by the international media. Once the decision was made to deploy the forces, I think it's fair to say that we got here quickly. It's what we provide to the nation is our expeditionary capability. Probably within a period of about 45 days, and we had amphibious forces closing from both coasts of the United States. And they've amassed a bigger force than the Army. There's maybe somewhere in the order of 65,000 Marines.

But the Marines basically come from the sea, and they're not the kind of force that is traditionally conducts very, very long thrust deep deep into enemy territory. If you project a Marine attack that goes from Kuwait to Baghdad, you're talking about an attack of 400 miles, which would be one of the longest land assaults in Marine Corps history. So I think in this expeditionary age, we're simply demonstrating to the nation that we've got that kind of reach and can be employed if the President should decide. We've got the fifth Corps running the war for the Army under General Wallace. You've got General Conway running the Marine War, Land War for the Marines, and also having control over the British. But what they have this time is something they really didn't have last time. Something called Seaflake, a coalition forces land component command. It's basically a land war commander, General David McHiernan. What is it that you hope to accomplish by having a separate land commander that sits astride the Army, the Marines, and the British forces?

I think there's two reasons why the paradigm is different than it was in Desert Storm. One is that CENTCOM and General Franks are looking across his entire theater, his entire region. So he's got operations that are ongoing in Afghanistan, in the Horn of Africa, as well as the potential here on the Arabian Peninsula. The second point I would make is that we're a whole lot more joint than we were 12 years ago. Today what we have is a much better integrated joint force. So everything from logistics through war fighting we can do in a joint context here. What the Army has is a pretty considerable command center here at Camp Doha, North of Kuwait City, which they've been building up for a while. And it looks a little bit like what the Johnson Space Center might look like. You've got big screens on the board, lots of computers. This one is a main command post where we have the technology that allows us to execute

what we call battle command. So the logistics are greater, the force is smaller, the task is harder in a sense because you're facing urban warfare. It's a huge problem set for any military operation, how to conduct operations in urban terrain, Baghdad has got a large population, it's a large urban area. If there is to be a fight in and around Baghdad, we're going to have to be very patient to establish the right conditions for us to engage in that fight. That means making sure that the airspace over the top of Baghdad is available to our Air Force so we can use the precision capability of the Air Force to go after discrete targets within the city without doing extensive damage. When you talk about being patient in the Baghdad scenario, are you talking about weeks or months?

I'm talking in a matter of days, but I'm not talking about doing the bomb's rush into an urban population center that we don't know anything about them. Knowing exactly where he is pulling the strings from and how he is pulling those strings will be very important. But Saddam is confronting the United States with this sort of a Mesopotamian Stalingrad. He's trying to use that to sort of frighten the United States from going to war. What the US military is saying is they're not going to fight it like a Stalingrad. They don't want to fight block-to-block. They try to avoid all that, but they want to target the key nodes of power or what they like to call the centers of gravity and military terminology and go after them in a very kind of focused way. Now from the other side, waiting for war in Baghdad, special correspondent Simon Marks has this report.

In downtown Baghdad, the show must go on. Every night, despite the approaching drums of war, the victory theatre is a sellout for a satirical comedy that is the hottest ticket in town. The play, it's called I Saw With My Own Eyes, what nobody would tell me, has Baghdad residents rolling in the eyes. It carefully pokes fun at the predicament in which Iraq finds itself lampooning the country, though never its government, as the victim of American global domination. For audience members, it offers a rare moment of escapism. It helps pass the time and we have fun. It's great that we're able to get out to the theatre, of course it helps us. And actors like Khalid Ahmed Mustafa, he's played in this production for four years and is one of the country's biggest stars, say at a difficult hour.

He hopes to provide theatre goers with some kind of guidance for what may lie ahead. I am an actor and I am an Iraqi citizen, so of course I am tied to my people and my home and my family. As an actor in this type of play, it's my duty not only to make people laugh but also to satirize the situation. So in this play we make fun of war and it's after effect, we present a view of what the world would be like after the bombing. So for people who are watching the current situation, we are not really laughing at the war, but we are satirizing the outcome of being under attack. All over Baghdad you can find signs that people are getting ready, not only for war, but also for its possible consequences. We spotted this furniture auction for instance, auctioneer Imad El Sabah, presiding for more than 50 years he's brought Baghdad's buyers and sellers together. But never more so than now.

Thanks to God everything is going well. You saw for yourself there are plenty of buyers and plenty of sellers, for us business is normal. But for those Iraqis selling at this auction, the situation is far from normal. Many of the city's residents anxious to maximize the amount of ready cash they have in hand, a head of US-led air strikes are literally putting their living rooms under the hammer. Yes, it's a very difficult situation. You're forced to sell your personal items, your household goods, it's difficult to give these things up, but you have to. The current situation leaves us with no alternative. Prices are not high, this is definitely a buyer's market. I'll let a couch sold for the equivalent of four US dollars, a single bed for five, but for many Iraqis the extra money could make all the difference. I'll make this money last for a while.

I sold my stuff today for almost 200,000 Iraqi dinars, that's enough for about 15 or 20 days, providing that we spend it carefully. There are 10 of us in the family. And as the residents of Baghdad stock up on water, food, kerosene and other emergency supplies, many of them are also turning their attention to transportation. Despite the fact that US military planners say they intend to focus on targets like the enormous communications tower that looks out over Baghdad and other communications facilities, perhaps even the Ministry of Information, the temporary home for the world's media, many Iraqis worry that the only way they will have of getting around the city is by taking to the water. They're concerned that the roads and bridges that keep Baghdad moving could be destroyed in the opening days of a US-led campaign. So down on the ancient River Tigris that snakes its way through this city, the boat builders are doing a roaring trade.

If I work on it all day and all night, I can finish it in three days. This boat has been made order and anyone who wants a boat, I'll sell them one. In centuries past, the only way of crossing from one side of Baghdad to the other was by water. Today, many Iraqis remembering similar experiences during the 1991 Gulf War are preparing to do so again. The sudden focus on river transportation as a possible necessity here, underscores of you we've heard many times in Baghdad, whatever happens to this city, however significant the US-led military onslaught here, many residents insist they are sufficiently resourceful to overcome and eventually to rebuild what's destroyed here. It's hard to fathom, but all over this city just days before US-led forces could be given the order to attack, construction sites were busy. As workers continued to renovate some buildings, destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War and complete

work on other new buildings here. Construction worker Sabra Batchai is like many Iraqis we interviewed, he views any military action as simply a continuum of policies set in train by the United States over a decade ago. He told us even if his work is destroyed by American missiles, he'll be back on site as soon as possible. It doesn't matter to me, we'll rebuild, let them break it down and then we'll rebuild, we'll build it despite everything. God forbid they come here, they're going to travel across the oceans and around the world. And one of us will defend ourselves, God is with us. The determination of Iraq is to resist an American-led occupation could be tested in just a few days' time. In private conversations over the past 10 days, some Baghdad residents have told us they expect and will welcome the fall of President Saddam Hussein.

But they say they have enormous worries about the type of government America might install and blame the United States for economic sanctions that they say have reduced Iraq to poverty. In a field on the campus of Baghdad University, a group of engineering students has been learning to use the other lights. These are literally the young Iraqis who will rebuild their country and they told us Iraq will never succumb to what they called American aggression. Whoever governs here in future, they find it just as difficult to influence hearts and minds as it will be to reconstruct the country once more is over. And finally tonight, report three. It's from southeastern Turkey. Late tonight, that country's political and military leaders made a new push to allow U.S. troops to use Turkey to launch an invasion into northern Iraq. Meanwhile, tensions are increasing in that border area, Elizabeth Barnsworth has our report.

The Arbiker is the largest city in Turkey's Kurdish southeast. It's a very old town along the Tigris River about two hours drive from the border with northern Iraq. Though this has been part of Turkey since it became a modern state after World War 1, most people here speak Kurdish as their first language. They have close familial and historical ties to the other Kurds living in a wide swath of territory, stretching east from here across Syria, northern Iraq, and Iran. Yesterday, for example, a coalition of labor and human rights groups gathered outside a local park to mark the day 15 years ago when Saddam Hussein attacked Kurds in Halabja, a town in northern Iraq with poison gas. Squads of police broke up the event before it began. They detained some organizers and drove people away from the park, an indication of the

high state of tension as war in the region draws near. Kurds in gatherings like this have long faced opposition from Turkish security authorities, but human rights attorney Salahatine Demirtaş said the situation is especially tense now. Here in the Arbakhir, the government obstructs any opposition action that could represent a step forward for us. With the war coming closer, the unlawful behavior of the police is rising. And today, we have experienced the violence at a very high level. The Arbakhir was a hotbed of support for Kurdish separatist guerrillas, known as the PKK, who fought an armed 16-year battle against the Turkish military in the 1980s and 90s. Hundreds of Kurdish villages in the southeast were destroyed as the military targeted what it said were the guerrillas' sources of support. Homes are being rebuilt, but ruins are still visible in villages near the Arbakhir.

36,000 people died in that war, and Turkey's government has told the Bush administration it fears the overthrow of Saddam Hussein will bring a rekindling of the separatist movement here. The post-golf war, no fly zone enforced by British and American warplanes over northern Iraq, has allowed a kind of semi-independent Kurdish state to flourish there, and Turkey opposes any more Kurdish gains there now. In recent weeks, the Turkish army has moved equipment and thousands of troops to the border with Iraq, and several thousand Turkish soldiers have reportedly crossed into northern Iraq itself under cover of night. Their mission military officials say is to prevent an influx of refugees into Turkey as fighting begins. Turkey claims PKK guerrillas entered with refugees after the Gulf War. But American officials fear the troops will clash with the Iraqi Kurds to prevent an

even more independent Kurdistan inside a post-saddam Iraq. In Diyarbakir, human rights attorney Demir Tush insisted Turkey's Kurds do not want a separate state, only more civil rights. If a separate state is formed in northern Iraq, it doesn't mean that Kurds here will want to separate from Turkey and form a Kurdish state. Kurds want to live here within the Turkey state. But here we have a problem being recognized as Kurds. Here Kurds are under cultural pressures and can't practice their democratic and political rights freely. Kurds in Turkey are not permitted to put up signs or publish newspapers in their own language. Kurdish names considered provocative may not be given to Kurdish children. Last year, Turkey lifted some of the restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language in accordance with requirements for entering the European Union, a long time goal of Turkish officials.

But there is still only limited Kurdish programming available on radio and TV. Many homes in Diyarbakir have two satellite dishes, one for Turkish television and another to receive programs in Kurdish broadcast from Germany. And last week, a Turkish court outlawed the leading Kurdish political party known as Hadeb, provoking protests in the streets of Diyarbakir. Though the case had been in the courts for years, Hadeb official Mifahir Atunda said he believed the outlawing had to do with the coming war in Iraq. The environment gets more tense, close to the border with Iraq. We drove south from Diyarbakir to Qazil to pay.

We weren't permitted to fill military installations, but in this rich valley, part of the fertile crescent that lies between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are several Turkish bases where troops are preparing for action when war begins. Some American equipment and troops have been moving here in recent days, too. They're upgrading airfields and preparing logistically in case a parliamentary vote comes soon enough to permit American troops to invade northern Iraq via Turkey. Townspeople in Qazil to pay said they're afraid. We are afraid of Saddam. We are sending our children away from here. We've even made a bunker in our house. This woman said everybody is afraid. When airplanes fly over, the children say, Mama, when war comes, will we all die? She said we try to explain, but they don't understand. Whenever we went, we were closely monitored by Turkish security officials.

And as we videotaped along the highway from Qazil to pay to Iraq, a Turkish border guard spotted us and alerted troops ahead. We were detained at an army base in New Seyban for almost five hours. We were treated well, worn not to take Turkish military installations in the future, and we returned without further problems to Diyarbakir. But the detention was one sign of how tense the military is on the eve of war. In Diyarbakir, human rights attorney Dmitash said he fears worse is yet to come. The state of emergency imposed here during the guerrilla war was lifted late last year. But Dmitash said Kurdish activists are now being arrested again. Recently, we have been experiencing something like a state of emergency or something like Mark Marshall Law, as if it had already been declared. And we are worried that it will be officially declared after war starts. Diyarbakir was on edge today as the week begins.

People wanted to know when we thought the war would start. At the airport, Patriot missiles stood ready in case Saddam Hussein directs his missiles this way. A White House special envoy arrived in Turkey today for meetings with Turkish officials, as well as leaders of the Kurdish and Iraqi opposition. The UN ordered all its employees to leave Iraq today. The agency has some 300 people in the country, including weapons inspectors and relief workers. Every general Anin, an announcing they would be withdrawn, said those who wanted to avoid war were disappointed and frustrated. In the sense that we are not able to do it peacefully, obviously, it's a disappointment and a sad day for everybody. War is always a catastrophe. It leads to major human tragedy. Lots of people are going to be recruited, displaced from their homes and nobody wanted that.

The UN inspectors joined a growing exodus of foreigners from Iraq, Russia, Germany and China, among others, ordered their embassies to close. They told their citizens to leave Iraq immediately. And the U.S. urged Americans to leave Kuwait, Syria, Israel, and the West Bank and Gaza. In Baghdad, Iraqis stocked up on provisions, but many merchants had moved their inventories to warehouses, varying bombs and possible looting once war begins. Australian troops will join U.S. forces in fighting Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard, formally announced the decision after President Bush telephoned him to ask for military assistance. Australia already has some 2,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region, along with fighter planes and warships. Howard said that deployment would not be increased. The U.S. Congress will be asked within a few days for the money to pay for war. Congressional leaders said that this evening, after meeting with President Bush and Vice

President Cheney at the White House, they said no specific figures were discussed. But Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware said the request would be roughly $100 billion or more. The FBI confirmed today it would mount a major new effort to guard against terrorist attacks. The Washington Post reported up to 5,000 agents would be involved. An FBI spokesman said they would track suspected militants and interview thousands of Iraqis living in the United States. In Pakistan today, police questioned a suspected communications chief for al-Qaeda. He was arrested over the weekend. Wire Service reports said six more suspects were seized last night. Wall Street had a big day amid signs the Iraq situation will be resolved. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 282 points or 3.5 percent to close at nearly 81.42. The Nasdaq rose 52 points more than 3.5 percent to close at 13.92. Stocks rose despite news that gasoline prices have hit an all-time high.

The Energy Department reported the average cost of regular, unlettered, tops $1.72. That's up 44 cents from one year ago. You'll see you online. And again, here, tomorrow evening, I'm Jim Lera. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the News Hour with Jim Lera has been provided by... Why if we looked at the world as one giant farm field? When crops grow where they grow best, we improve agriculture efficiency. Make food more affordable and feed a hungry world. ADM, the nature of what's to come. And by SBC communications, committed to providing Americans more choices in high speed internet access and working to widen opportunities in broadband technology, as providers, as people, where SBC communications. This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions

to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. To purchase video cassettes of the News Hour with Jim Lera, call 1-866-678-News. This is PBS.