| |
GETTING
SADDAM
PART 1: A
plan is hatched
By David
Isenberg
Map
Ever since details of the United States' war
plans to invade Iraq - essentially a three-pronged
attack using land, air and sea-based forces launched
from Turkey, Kuwait and Jordan - were leaked to the Los
Angeles Times and New York Times earlier this month, the
media have been abuzz with speculation about the who,
what, when, where and how of what is assumed to be, for
lack of a better code name, Desert Storm Lite.
The plan, according to the leaks, envisions tens
of thousands of marines and soldiers probably invading
from Kuwait. Hundreds of warplanes based in as many as
eight countries, possibly including Turkey and Qatar,
would unleash a huge air assault against thousands of
targets, including airfields, roadways and fiber-optics
communications sites. Special-operations forces or
covert CIA operatives would strike at depots or
laboratories storing or manufacturing Iraq's suspected
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to launch
them.
But the idea that the US is gearing up to
invade Iraq, euphemistically called a "regime change" by
the Bush administration, is hardly news. The US has been
seeking Saddam Hussein’s head since before he was kicked
out of Kuwait in 1991. On February 15, 1991
then-president George H Bush twice uttered a carefully
phrased call for revolt, calling on "the Iraqi military
and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own
hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step
aside".
Sadly, the thousands of Iraqi citizens
who took the president up on his call, on the assumption
that they would receive help from the United States,
paid for it with their lives. Given that dismal episode
and the subsequent pathetic attempts to rid the world of
Saddam by trying to instigate military coups or organize
various Iraqi opposition groups, it is unremarkable that
the current Bush administration believes that an
invasion is the only feasible solution.
Indeed,
an article in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs,
the preeminent journal of the US foreign policy
establishment, called for an invasion, outlining a
campaign involving four to six divisions totaling
200,000 to 300,000 troops plus supporting troops,
700-1,000 planes and anywhere from one to five carrier
battle groups. The envisioned campaign, including air
operations, would not take more than a month.
The real significance of the leak of US war
plans is that it appears to send a signal to those who
advocate an operation akin to what US forces did in
Afghanistan, ie, use air strikes backed by special
operations forces working in conjunction with Iraqi
opposition forces and defectors. That approach had
backing from key officials, notably Wayne Downing, a
retired army general in charge of coordinating the war
on terrorism. But General Tommy Franks, head of the US
Central Command, which would run any military campaign
against Iraq, reportedly rejected it because he believed
that the opposition was not up to the job. Not long
after Downing's plan fell out of favor he announced that
he was leaving the government.
No matter what
scenario one envisions, invading Iraq will be far from a
cakewalk. Iraq is still the largest military power in
the Gulf in terms of sheer numbers. According to the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington, Iraq’s military forces still have over
400,000 active troops. Some 375,000 men in its army and
the ability to mobilize up to 400,000 more reserves with
some degree of combat capability. They still have some
2,200 main battle tanks, some 3,700 other armored
weapons, 2,200 major artillery weapons and 70-90 armed
helicopters and about 316 combat aircraft, most of which
can be operational, at least for short periods. They
have 140-160 major surface-to-air missile (SAM)
launchers, perhaps another 500-700 light SAM missile
launchers, and 3,000 antiaircraft guns.
And left
unexplained is why Saddam Hussein would allow US forces
the luxury of the three-month buildup such an invasion
forced would require without a preemptive attack.
Another problem with an invasion is the prospect
of Saddam attacking US troops or allies with nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons. US defense officials are
calling to include more detailed analyses of the risks
posed by Saddam's suspected arsenal in plans for a
combined air, land and sea campaign against Iraq.
One way that the US plans are being affected by
the threat, according to defense officials, is the need
for US troops to operate in full nuclear, chemical and
biological warfare gear. The period between November and
February is considered the best time of year to mount
military operations in Iraq because the weather is
cooler and therefore more conducive for US troops to
wear their cumbersome protective gear.
Such
concerns have slowed the Bush administration’s momentum
for moving ahead with Saddam’s ouster and have set the
stage for a wider debate about the risks of a military
showdown. In the past, the use of chemical and
biological weapons by Saddam was considered to be a last
resort. But given that the US seeks to oust him he might
have nothing to lose and resort to their use.
Further complicating US war planning is a lack
of accurate intelligence about Iraq’s weapons programs,
defense officials said. United Nations weapons
inspectors have not been in Iraq for more than three and
a half years, despite repeated attempts to get a full
accounting of the country’s weapons of mass destruction.
One option that defense researchers are pursuing
to disable chemical and biological weapons is a missile
that would isolate weapon storage sites by coating them
with an impenetrable foam. The foam bomb is one of
several weapons on the drawing board that could include
toxic or other materials loaded on an earth-penetrating
warhead.
Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, has said that he plans to
hold a series of hearings later this summer to debate
military preparations. The hearings will place heavy
emphasis on risks posed by Iraqi nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons, according to aides. The
Republican-controlled House International Relations
Committee intends to do the same in late August or
September
Unlike the last go around, the US is
not seeking to assemble a massive coalition against
Iraq. Thus far the only other country that seems likely
to contribute ground forces is the United Kingdom. It
has announced that it was preparing to withdraw a good
number of its 2,400 troops from Kosovo, hinting that it
was preparing for a possible intervention in Iraq.
Part 2: Military preparations
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
