SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bilow who wrote (59864)12/4/2002 3:33:56 PM
From: paul_philp  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Fast start seen to war if Iraq disappoints
By Douglas Hamilton


DOHA, Dec 4 (Reuters) - U.S. forces in the Gulf could be in action against Iraq in no time if President George W. Bush does not accept the declaration of arms of mass destruction Baghdad is expected to deliver to the United Nations on Saturday.

American warplanes already conducting a low-level war in the "no fly" zones of the north and south could quickly ramp up their attacks in a rolling start to a bombing campaign if Bush decides no further United Nations deliberation is necessary.

From that point the United States might need only three or four weeks to put ground forces in place for a land invasion.

Unlike in the six-month buildup to the Gulf War of 1990-91, U.S. forces could this time launch an assault they hope would finish the job quickly, reducing the risk of major unrest in the Islamic world that a prolonged war might provoke.

There are currently three aircraft carrier battle groups in the region -- the George Washington, Constellation and Abraham Lincoln -- and a fourth, the Harry Truman, leaves Virginia this week for the area.

Each carrier has about 75 strike jets and each is shepherded by a half dozen or so cruisers, destroyers and submarines armed with long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles.

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT

The Americans have bases in the Gulf that did not exist in 1990, practical knowledge of the operating terrain and combat conditions, much more accurate precision munitions, and they know the enemy force and its capabilities.

Large stocks of tanks, artillery, ammunition and food have been pre-positioned by the U.S Field Support Command, whose job is to see that forces can hit the ground running.

The designated commander of an Iraq campaign, General Tommy Franks, is due in the Gulf state of Qatar any day to conduct a dry run of his mobile Central Command headquarters here, the likely nerve centre of the war.

The U.S. plan is said to call for a force of 250,000 troops. Some 55,000 are currently in place, two-thirds of them Navy and Air Force personnel at sea and at air bases in Kuwait, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

There are just 15,000 trigger-pulling U.S. troops in the region. But 60,000 or more could get to the region within weeks of the start of bombing, as a further 150,000 are moved in.

"If you are talking about armoured warfare and tanks you have to ship them across there: that's a slow process. To get a sizeable ground force in place you need a build-up which is a matter of a month," said British analyst Tim Garden.

He said that if a decision to go to war were taken on December 8 it would be difficult to imagine an operation getting under way before the end of the year.

FRONTLINE STATES

Meanwhile, the U.S. is signing up frontline allies.

Turkey announced on Tuesday that it would allow its airbases to be used by U.S. and British warplanes for any invasion of Iraq. More than 200 other combat aircraft would be based in Gulf states, and radar-evading B-2 stealth bombers would fly from the British Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Whether Saudi Arabia will ultimately permit combat sorties from the Prince Sultan base near Riyadh is not clear. But Kuwait's role is assured and Qatar is likely to give a green light to American use of its Al Udeid base.

At a Pentagon news conference on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to say what next steps the United States might take if Iraq claims at the weekend it has no weapons of mass destruction.

"We don't really talk about deployments particularly or operations," he said. "We have been moving forces around the world, as you know. We've got a somewhat higher level of presence in the Central Command area today than we did last week or the week before or the week before that."

Special forces and CIA agents are already in autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan, training forces opposed to Saddam. Washington is said to have has promised Israel that U.S. special forces will move immediately to Iraq's western desert in the event of war to neutralise any missile threat and keep Israel out of the conflict.



To: Bilow who wrote (59864)12/4/2002 3:35:43 PM
From: paul_philp  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Iraq plans to declare itself free of weapons of mass destruction

By WARREN P. STROBEL
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Iraq signaled Tuesday that it soon will declare that it is free of weapons of mass destruction, setting the stage for a renewed confrontation with the Bush administration.

A senior U.S. official said that President Bush will launch an aggressive effort to demonstrate that the expected Iraqi claim is false, using U.S. intelligence data and pressing the United Nations to conduct weapons inspections with that goal in mind. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

In Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors entered one of President Saddam Hussein's opulent, forbidden palaces from two directions Tuesday, conducting a surprise visit that tested Iraq's promise to comply with a Security Council resolution permitting unannounced inspections of any site in the country.

When the inspectors arrived at the front and rear entrances of Sijood Palace in central Baghdad -- a site usually off-limits to all but a few of Hussein's top lieutenants -- guards initially blocked the convoy.

After about eight minutes, as Iraqi officials who had been following the inspectors barked into their radios and shouted at the palace guards, the black metal gates were pulled open.

The inspectors then drove up a palm-lined driveway toward the three-story, turquoise-domed brick building at the center of the compound.

U.N. officials did not say why they chose to visit the site, what the inspectors were looking for there or whether they found any evidence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Western intelligence officials and analysts long have thought that Hussein has hidden evidence of a program to develop prohibited weapons in some of his secretive and garish palaces.

Bush's top national security advisers met Tuesday at the White House to discuss U.S. responses to Iraq's expected claim that it is free of weapons of mass destruction. They plan to reconvene Thursday, after Secretary of State Colin Powell returns from a two-day trip to Colombia.

Under a resolution that the U.N. Security Council adopted unanimously last month, Iraq has until Sunday to make a full confession of its programs to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

A senior Iraqi official suggested that the document, which he said will be delivered Saturday, will declare that Hussein's government no longer possesses such weapons.

"We are a country devoid of weapons of mass destruction," said Hussam Mohammed Amin, head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate.

The United States has promised Britain, its closest ally, that it would not launch a war against Iraq solely on the basis of a weapons declaration that it deemed false, said a senior Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Rather, the official said, Bush and his aides are expected to launch a full-scale effort to prove that the Iraqi document is false. That effort could take until next month, meaning Bush could face a decision in January on whether to go to war.

First, the United States carefully will scrutinize the Iraqi document and compare it with U.S. intelligence information, a process that could take days or more.

Then the United States will press chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix to "really do an audit, in effect, of the final declaration," the official said. "The end result of that...is to show the declaration to be false."

As part of the effort, Washington is expected to share additional intelligence data with Blix, other officials said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that, in the event of a false Iraqi declaration, the United States could begin ratcheting up pressure on Hussein by accelerating a buildup of U.S. ground forces in the Persian Gulf region for a possible invasion.

A previous inspection group, the U.N. Special Commission, stated in its final report in January 1999 that it had found serious discrepancies in Iraq's declarations of its weapons holdings.

The group said that Iraqi declarations of its holdings in the biological weapons field were assessed as "incomplete, inadequate and containing substantial deficiencies."

The earlier inspectors were pulled from Iraq in December 1998, days before the United States and Britain launched a four-day bombing campaign in response to Baghdad's refusal to grant the inspectors full access.

The new inspection team resumed inspections last week. They have reported full cooperation from Iraqi officials.

Bush this week began shifting his rhetoric away from the activities of the inspectors and toward Iraq's declaration.

"The issue is not the inspectors," Bush said Tuesday. "The issue is whether or not Mr. Saddam Hussein will disarm like he said he would. We're not interested in hide and seek inside Iraq."

A short, simple denial by Hussein that Iraq has any banned weapons could be enough to trigger a U.S. buildup to war, U.S. officials and private analysts said.

"If he denies having anything, we will know he's in violation," said Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

A flat denial would make Bush's choice easy, the senior U.S. official said. "They're not going to do that," he said.

The official predicted instead that the Iraqis would acknowledge having equipment that can be used to make chemical and biological weapons, but state that it is "dual use" and intended only for civilian purposes.

It is less clear what the Iraqis will say about suspected programs to develop nuclear weapons and missiles, technology that has no clear civilian use, the official said.

In the absence of clear-cut evidence of Iraqi deception, however, Bush could find himself again at odds with other leading members of the Security Council, who are anxious to avoid a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

European nations such as France emphasize that a false Iraqi declaration alone should not be a pretext for war.

While the Bush administration formally shares this reading of the U.N. resolution, hard-liners on the president's team are likely to renew their case for toppling Hussein.

Video from inside the palace visited Tuesday by the weapons inspectors showed inspectors, clipboards in hand, quickly moving through darkened rooms with flashlights, stopping occasionally to peruse, for example, a utility room or a refrigerator.

"Marmalade," one announced after looking over a jar.

The visit by 17 U.N. inspectors lasted only 11/2 hours. Once the inspectors left, reporters were allowed inside the palace's spectacular entry hall, a three-story-high, eight-sided room of carved white marble with a giant gold-and-crystal chandelier.

Each of the eight walls was inscribed in huge gold letters with a poem praising Hussein. "You are the glory," read one.



To: Bilow who wrote (59864)12/4/2002 3:37:50 PM
From: bacchus_ii  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Why war is now on the back burner

Bush is waiting until the 2004 elections are nearer to attack Iraq

Dan Plesch
Wednesday December 4, 2002
The Guardian

President Bush may have put an invasion of Iraq on hold until it can best help his 2004 re-election campaign. The administration would prefer to see change in Iraq by subtler means than 300,000 troops and mass bombing. He does not want to relive his father's experience of winning a war a year too early and finding that come the election the victory was forgotten or, worse, the post-war peace was turning sour.
Most observers focus on the perceived role of the Pentagon hawks versus State Department doves in the battle for influence over Bush. But his political advisers in the White House - especially Karl Rove - are far more influential. It was Rove who, in June, gave a presentation explaining that the war should be central to the Republicans' successful campaign to win control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But it was also Rove who saw that voters were as frightened by the go-it-alone war talk as they were enthusiastic for a tough line on terrorism. It was this reading of voter concern that provided the boost for talks at the UN and produced much milder language from Bush. In Britain, we were told that it was Blair's September meeting with Bush and Cheney that changed things, however the need to win an election was far more influential in persuading Bush to be patient.

In Washington there are still some close to the Pentagon who see an invasion of Iraq coming soon. But a view shared by political strategists for the Democrats, veteran reporters and long-time Republican insiders was that all the signs are that the war is now on the back burner. Had the White House really wanted to, it would have used the victory in the midterm elections to force through a faster timeline on Iraq at the UN and would have increased the pay-offs needed to ensure its 15-0 approval by the security council. As it was, they agreed a process that can easily be spun out for a year.

Then, almost as soon as the resolution passed, Iraq again fired on US and British planes. What happened? Nothing. There was no speeches declaring that Iraq had once again flouted the will of the international community and that we now had to go to war. Rather, we were reminded that our planes enforcing the no-fly zones were not covered by these UN resolutions, something that had strangely been left out of briefings these last 10 years.

If this was happening under Clinton, he would be under a howling attack from the right for wimpishness, something the Bush administration need not fear. Even if some in the government go to the media wanting a harder line, there is little they can do if the president fears an early war will damage his election chances. Delaying the invasion does not mean that Bush will not keep up the pressure and how Saddam reacts may yet trigger US action. A lot of the forces are in place but a major British force would need to be mobilised now for action early next year.

The deadlines of an Iraqi declaration of its weapons and the first UN report timed for February can all be spun on. Indeed that date in February is close to the onset of the hot weather when, we are told, it is too hot to fight. Conventional wisdom is that it is impossible to fight in the heat wearing a full chemical and biological protection suit.

Officials believe it unlikely that Saddam will be caught red-handed with his hands in a cauldron of toxins surrounded by missiles. The inspectors will have to make a judgment on a host of fragmentary and circumstantial evidence and it is likely that Britain and the US will have a different view from the rest.

With a dispute over evidence and a call for more inspections there may be an effort from Washington to apply more military pressure on Iraq through inspections backed by force, or even by using troops to capture suspected weapons sites. These troops would then be used to secure an airbase or two inside Iraq so that we end up with a gradual occupation backed up by the threat of air strikes if Saddam tries to move his forces.

Such an effort may be fitted into the next UN resolution. What will also be interesting to watch is whether the real multilateralists at the UN are better prepared to get concessions from the US on disarmament in exchange for disarming Iraq. Now that disarmament is back on the agenda we must ensure that it applies to not just to Bush's bad guys but to a global effort to manage and eliminate weapons of mass destruction.

As we watch the saga of the inspectors unfold, remember Ronald Reagan's motto: always have a bad guy and if you get in trouble change the subject. Earlier this year Bush was in trouble for not catching the prime suspect in the war on terrorism and changed the subject and the bad guy from Bin Laden to Saddam. Any further massive attack from al-Qaida may trigger the mass distraction of an invasion of Iraq.

· Dan Plesch is a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies

dplesch@rusi.org

guardian.co.uk