Cordesman testimony, part two
In spite of the Gulf War, and nearly eight years of UNSCOM efforts before Iraq forced an end to the UN inspection effort, Iraq still presents a major threat in terms of proliferation. It is all too clear that Iraq may have increased this threat since active UNSCOM and IAEA efforts ended in December 1998. It is known to have continued to import precursors for chemical weapons and may have increased its holdings of biological growth agents. No one can dismiss the risk that Iraq does have weapons with very high real-world lethalities.
Much depends on how well Iraq has organized its CBRN forces and weaponized its chemical and biological agents. Virtually nothing is known in the unclassified literature about the Iraqi process since 1991 in this latter area, which can affect the real-world lethality of chemical and biological warheads, bombs, munitions, and sprayers by up to two orders of magnitude.
Iraq developed effective 155-mm artillery and 122-mm multiple rocket rounds for the delivery of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War and could probably modify such technology to deliver biological weapons. The effective use of chemical weapons armed with artillery and multiple rocket rounds against large enemy ground forces does, however, require an extensive inventory of munitions, however, even in using VX-gas. It is unclear that Iraq could conceal the production, deployment, and training for an operation of this scale. The delivery of biological agents using such weapons would present two critical problems: The effects would probably only develop after the battle was over and there would be a serious risk of secondary effects if the agent blew back over Iraqi troops and civilian areas. The use of such attacks cannot be ruled out, however, particularly as a last extreme, and the troops firing such weapons would not have to be informed of such risks.
Iraq has had cluster bomb technology since the Iran-Iraq War, and has long had the theoretical engineering capability to use non-explosive release mechanisms like air bags to release chemical and biological munitions. Before the Gulf War, Iraq developed crude parachute release designs for its missile warheads, systems which would be substantially more effective than the primitive contact fuse warheads and bombs it had at the time of the war, and which might well have produced negligible weapons effects if they had ever been used.
Iraq must realize that the crude contact fusing, and chemical/biological warhead/bomb designs, it had at the time of the Gulf War drastically limited the effectiveness of its CBRN weapons. Iraq has had strong incentives to correct these problems for over a decade, and the development of parachute release weapons is only moderately challenging. Iraq has also had a decade to adapt non-destructive dissemination technology like airbags. Nevertheless, experts are deeply divided over Iraq’s systems integration and engineering skill and the probability that Iraq has developed lethal missile warheads.
There is broad agreement among experts that Iraq has probably developed effective sprayer and line source-delivery technology since the Gulf War. This is the most lethal way to deliver chemical and biological weapons, and is far more effective than using even advanced missile warheads. Iraq also experimented at the time of the Gulf War with using aircraft like the Czech L-29 trainer as a remotely piloted drone to carry out such deliveries at long ranges, and US forces were deeply concerned that Iraq might be using its UAVs for such missions early in the Gulf War. The use of fighters, helicopters, and drones for such missions requires relatively large aircraft, and they would be vulnerable to air defenses. It is at least possible, however, that Iraq could use its best strike aircraft to fly a one-way mission and succeed in penetrating deep into Southern Gulf, Turkish, and Kurdish territory or the rear area of US-led coalition ground forces. It is also possible that Iraq might be able to use a drone, UAV, or modified fighter, GPS, and earth-hugging flight profiles to create the equivalent of cruise missiles for such missions with sufficient accuracy and reliability to attack city sized targets at long ranges.
Similar critical uncertainties exist in other areas of Iraqi CBRN warfighting. Several UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq lied about its ability to produce a stable form of persistent VX nerve gas during the time Iraq was still under inspection, just as it had lied earlier about weaponizing of VX. Iraq’s mustard gas inventory proved to be highly stable during the period of inspection, and it seems likely that Iraq now has both stable non-persistent and persistent nerve gas. Iraq is known to have continued to smuggle in precursor chemicals during the inspection period and since 1998. Persistent VX would probably be at least 10 times more lethal than anything Iraq used in the Iraq-Iraq War or against its Kurds.
Iraq has experimented with the conversion of biological agents into dry, coated micropowders that can be lethal to two orders of magnitude or more versus slurries of wet agents. At least in the case of the most lethal, advanced weaponized forms of dry-storable Anthrax -- such biological weapons can achieve the lethality of simple nuclear fission weapons. They can have far more immunity to heat and sunlight, disseminate without clumping, and are extremely lethal when inhaled. They can be non-explosively disseminated with air bag technology, and are far better suited to use in bombs, missile warheads, and covert attacks. Similarly, little is known about any Iraqi advances in sprayer and line-source delivery technology, and in tailoring CB agents to make them more effective in such delivery profiles. Contrary to some literature, truly effective line source and sprayer delivery is a complex engineering problem involving both the agent and delivery system.
The greatest single unknown, in terms of Iraqi capability to use biological agents, consists of infectious agents like Smallpox and Plague. Iraq was one of the last countries to have a natural outbreak of smallpox and may well have the culture. Smallpox is easy to reproduce in a small facility and is infectious enough so agents willing to commit suicide or individuals who are unwittingly exposed could create serious corridors of infection. The long period between exposure and symptoms deprives such agents of immediate impact in war fighting scenarios, but they could be used in port, airbase, or rear areas during the staging of enemy forces with limited risk because Iraq’s borders would be sealed. Infiltrating the agent into Turkey, Southern Gulf states, Israel, or the US and UK would be an option; as is sending in exposed unwitting or deliberately infected individuals. No meaningful capability now exists to screen for the agent or exposed individuals, and agents carrying Smallpox agent could be immunized, as could those infecting unwitting subjects.
IAEA and US intelligence experts privately put little or no faith in the claims of various Iraqi defectors that Iraq retains the ability to make fissile material, has extensive covert fissile material production facilities, and has workable bomb designs small enough to be used in missile warheads. IAEA experts note that the Iraqi diffusion effort was never effective, that the Calutron designs fell far short of meeting specification, and that Iraq’s centrifuge designs proved to be far less effective during laboratory review than they initially estimated, and that Iraq does not seem to have understood the technical problems in using centrifuges to enrich fissile material beyond 90%. They note that cascades of centrifuges are relatively easy to conceal in multistory buildings, but they Iraq is extremely dependent on imports to create such a facility and would probably need outside technical support.
Iraq did, however, have at least two workable fissile weapon implosion designs that could be used in large bombs at the time of the Gulf War, had solved the technical problems in making and triggering high explosive lenses for nuclear weapons, and had workable neutron initiators. If it could obtain fissile material, it could probably make a large explosive device relatively quickly, but not fit one to a missile warhead or build a bomb that any of its aircraft other than its bombers and MiG-24s could deliver at long distances, particularly in low-altitude penetration missions. Iraq might be much more successful in arming any actual nuclear weapon it could obtain, particularly because of the relatively crude PAL systems fitted to many FSU weapons, and the duplicative code sequences used to arm them.
Iraq has shown both that it can disperse and conceal and that it is willing to take serious risks in doing so in spite of the centralized nature of the regime. During the Gulf War, Iraq was willing to place large numbers of chemical weapons under the control of its regular Army forces, although biological weapons and missiles were placed under the control of special units of the Republican Guards which seem to have had a significant element of Iraqi security forces. Iraq also showed during the Gulf War that it could disseminate chemical weapons (and possibly biological weapons) over a wide area without detection by Coalition forces. Coalition intelligence and targeting of such weapons stocks was a near total failure through the end of the war, and advancing forces sometimes had to be warned of the existence of stockpiles of chemical weapons by surrendering Iraqi officers. Iraq mixed chemical and conventional munitions stockpiles without special security precautions and even dispersed unguarded weapons at unused airstrips for possible arming in a last-ditch emergency.
A number of experts believe Iraq could disperse most of its covert biological production on warning or under attack. Iraq is known to have mobile laboratories and storage equipment and to have developed advanced techniques for rapid equipment and material movement during the time of UN inspection. It is not known whether Iraq has developed special survivable communications for such dispersal efforts, or exactly who would control such units and how loyal they would be under extreme conditions – particularly knowing the probable level of reprisals both in terms of the level of attacks on Iraq and future treatment of war criminals. Regimes like Iraq’s do, however, have a long history of successfully indoctrinating and lying to carefully selected “loyalist” units. Such units can now also make use of GPS rather than pre-surveyed sites, and may well be able to make use of GPS for preplanned targeting or to change targeting in the field. This could increase the dispersal area and the effectiveness with which an Iraqi force would be able to target cities and fixed facilities at long ranges.
Cumulatively, these uncertainties make it impossible to do more than guess at Iraq’s warfighting capabilities. As such a guesstimate, Iraq’s present holdings of delivery systems, and chemical and biological weapons, seem most likely to be so limited in technology and operational lethality that they do not severely constrain US freedom of action, or seriously intimidate Iraq’s neighbors.
Barring classified intelligence to the contrary, Iraqi CBRN capabilities must be taken seriously, but do not seem great enough to change US, British, Iranian, Israeli, Saudi and/or Southern Gulf perceptions of risk to the point where they would limit or paralyze military action against Iraq by a US-led coalition or prevent large-scale Israeli strikes on Iraq.
Iraq has not fired any Scud variants in nearly twelve years. There are no public reports that it has tested dry-storable biological weapons, or has made major advances in its weaponization of nerve gas. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Iraq can openly build up major production and deployment capabilities without them being detected and targeted, and without provoking strong US counter-proliferation programs, including preemptive or retaliatory strike capabilities.
Nevertheless, Iraq’s possession of even moderately effective CBRN weapons must affect other aspects of US, British, Southern Gulf, and Israeli perceptions of the risks inherent in attacking Iraq. President Bush has already made it clear that the US might well make maximum use of its advanced intelligence, strike, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, and air and missile power to carry out a massive preemptive strike on Iraq’s CBRN and delivery capabilities at the first sign of any major crisis or as a prelude to an invasion to overthrow Saddam. Such weapons create a strong incentive for preemption even in “peacetime conditions” if (a) they can be targeted with sufficient reliability and depth of coverage, (b) the US and its allies are confident the resulting strikes would do sufficient damage to offset the risk of Iraq lashing out with its surviving weapons, (c) the US is confident any secondary effects in terms of Iraqi civilian casualties would be limited, and (d) the US is convinced it can show the world that Iraq was in violation of the UN ceasefire. Preemption might also take place regardless of these risks if the US was convinced Iraq was prepared for the use of such weapons or was dispersed a major force for the possible delivery of such forces.
It should be noted in this regard that the physical destruction of stored or dispersed chemical and biological facilities and munitions stored on the ground presents only a limited risk of major collateral damage and secondary civilian casualties unless the weapons are in densely populated areas. No one can disprove the idea of trace effects from such explosions, such as those associated with Gulf War syndrome, but the probabilities are limited.
Factors Shaping Iraqi Operations in a Major US-led Coalition Military Effort
Iraq cannot hope to win a conventional war in the face of decisive US force, but it does have a wide range of options, and some might be effective in the face of inadequate US and coalition force levels:
· The key battle is already underway and is largely political. Iraq’s best strategy is to defuse the political momentum for a major US attack on Iraq, and to win as much Arab support as it can. This means strengthening the political accommodation it has already reach with other Arab states – including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – and attempting to win broad Arab political support through its support for the Palestinian cause in the Second Intifada. Some from of Iraqi accommodation in terms of resuming UN inspections is another potential option, although one that Saddam and other hard-liners in the regime is certain to be reluctant to take. Using oil wealth and control over much of the media to mobilizing popular support is another approach the regime is taking and one that both deters US military action and strengths Iraqi operational capabilities. In contrast, the US faces the backlash from the Second Intifada, has been unable to mobilize Arab or European support for a war tied largely to the threat of proliferation, and has no smoking gun in terms of Iraqi support for terrorism.
· The worst Iraqi option is to repeat the mistakes of the Gulf War and send its best forces out into the desert where they are most exposed and have the least air defense. Some counterattacks and raids may be needed, but a forward defense strategy is the one most vulnerable to US military action. Similarly, digging in forward areas, and the extensive use of static forces and earth barriers, could be useful in defending Basra and a few critical lines of communication, but makes Iraqi forces easy to bypass and outmaneuver.
· A city-populated area based strategy presents the most problems for the US in using air power effectively, and provides the most political advantages in exploiting collateral damage and civilian casualties. It also is unlikely to lead to uprisings or opposition action as long as loyal forces are in place and willing to fight.
· Iraq may be able to exploit water barriers against heavy US forces, but is more likely to lose bridges and road mobility to US airpower. Pre-positioning forces and supplies to defend a limited part of the country with the most loyal population and most critical cities – an urban redoubt strategy -- offers more survivable flexibility than either a forward deployed or central reserve strategy. Iraq’s surface to air missile system also supports such a strategy.
· Some form of Iraqi redoubt and scorched earth strategy is also an option. Iraq set Kuwait’s oil fields on fire during the Gulf War, and might well try to use the oil weapon in such a contingency. It has already talked about oil embargoes in the context of the Second Intifada, and Saddam Hussein might well see burning Iraq’s oil fields and CBRN attacks on major Gulf oil fields as both a defense and form of revenge. Iraq could also combine such a strategy with falling back on a largely Shi’ite dominated “redoubt” by using the cities and towns in North Central Iraq for its defense while leaving as much of a scorched earth as possible in the areas of a US-led coalition advance.
· Fighting delaying actions inside urban areas offers Iraq a way of using human shields, limiting US air strike capability, and forcing US-led coalition forces to fight on the most restricted terms. It cannot win against mobility and decisive force, but it is certain to be more effective than putting infantry in earth barriers – the “speed bump” strategy that Iraq used in the Gulf War.
· Iraq is virtually certain to try to exploit civilian casualties and collateral damage as a political and media weapon, and mix this with the use of deception and decoys. Saddam Hussein’s regime will attempt to fight a political battle to the last.
· Iraq might try to use CBRN weapons to preempt a US build-up, launch on warning (LOW), or launch under attack (LUA) against key US and coalition bases. He might try to use selective escalation to using remaining missiles and/or CBRN weapons to try to involve Israel in the war risks escalating the physical damage to Iraq, and make maximum use of the backlash from the Second Intifada. Saddam Hussein seems of have put has missiles and CBRN forces in the hands of loyalists who might well execute a LOW, LUA, and/or desperate retaliatory option. The problem with a desperate retaliatory option is that Saddam must realize that waiting until the regime is collapsing, and then conducting CBRN operations against Arab states, or conducting covert CBRN strikes against the US when the regime is already in extremis, is far more likely to increase the severity of coalition action. He must also realize that major, highly lethal, Iraqi CBRN strikes on Israeli population centers are likely to trigger a major nuclear war.
Anyone who looks seriously at this list of variables will quickly see that it is impossible to predict whether and how the US will use decisive force, the Iraqi response to a US-led coalition, the nature of a US-led coalition, how long Iraq can endure, and what strategy Iraq will actually pursue if it does use its CBRN weapons.
What does seem likely, however, is that it would take a major US miscalculation about the size of the forces needed to defeat Iraq and/or a poorly structured and over-constrained US operation, to allow Iraq to ride out the US-led attack through even the best combination of urban and redoubt warfare. Furthermore, most forms of extreme Iraq escalation can make things worse for both the attacker and defender, but will probably end in hurting Iraq more than the attacker.
Blundering into war is not a plan, and while Iraq has many military weaknesses, it is not a “cake walk.” The human costs of fighting Iraq can be all too real, and betting the lives of other men’s sons and daughters on anything other than decisive force can be exceedingly dangerous. Military adventures that kill US or allied troops and local allies and still end in defeat or frustration are even worse, and civilian casualties and collateral damage have a moral price tag. Here, it is worthwhile to remember another quotation from the classical world, and this time by Pliny the Elder: “Small boys throw stones at frogs in jest. But, the frogs do not die in jest. The frogs die in earnest.” |
