Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 12:51:43 -0700 (MST) From: thekoba Subject: [azsecularhumanists] Re: drums of war To: nebukhadhnasar@yahoo.com Cc: azsecularhumanists@yahoogroups.com, cbpeek@hotmail.com Reply-To: azsecularhumanists@yahoogroups.com
>Here's a story from the New York Times on Bush war
>plans. The publication of the story means they're
>pushing ahead, I think.
Dear Eric,
Thanks for this information. On the bright side non-Taliban Afghans are starting to get seriously pissed off at Bush over that wedding bombing. A force as large as described could probably conquer Iraq, but holding Iraq after conquest is quite another matter. I can belive Bush himself would be stupid enough to overextend American forces like this, but I'm surprised his advisors are.
--Kevin
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/international/middleeast/05IRAQ.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
>
>
>July 5, 2002
>U.S. Plan for Iraq Is Said to Include Attack on 3
>Sides
>By ERIC SCHMITT
>
>
>ASHINGTON, July 4 An American military planning
>document calls for air, land and sea-based forces to
>attack Iraq from three directions the north, south
>and west in a campaign to topple President Saddam
>Hussein, according to a person familiar with the
>document.
>
>The document 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 C.I.A. operatives
>would strike at depots or laboratories storing or
>manufacturing Iraq's suspected weapons of mass
>destruction and the missiles to launch them.
>
>None of the countries identified in the document as
>possible staging areas have been formally consulted
>about playing such a role, officials said,
>underscoring the preliminary nature of the planning.
>Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited American
>bases in Kuwait and Qatar and the Fifth Fleet in
>Bahrain on his most recent trip to the Persian Gulf
>region in June.
>
>The existence of the document that outlined
>significant aspects of a "concept" for a war against
>Iraq as it stood about two months ago indicates an
>advanced state of planning in the military even though
>President Bush continues to state in public and to his
>allies that he has no fine-grain war plan on his desk
>for the invasion of Iraq.
>
>Yet the concept for such a plan is now highly evolved
>and is apparently working its way through military
>channels. Once a consensus is reached on the concept,
>the steps toward assembling a final war plan and, most
>importantly, the element of timing for ground
>deployments and commencement of an air war, represent
>the final sequencing that Mr. Bush will have to
>decide.
>
>Mr. Bush has received at least two briefings from Gen.
>Tommy R. Franks, the head of the Central Command, on
>the broad outlines, or "concept of operations," for a
>possible attack against Iraq. The most recent briefing
>was on June 19, according to the White House.
>
>"Right now, we're at the stage of conceptual thinking
>and brainstorming," a senior defense official said.
>"We're pretty far along."
>
>The highly classified document, entitled "CentCom
>Courses of Action," was prepared by planners at the
>Central Command in Tampa, Fla., according to the
>person familiar with the document.
>
>Officials say it has already undergone revisions, but
>is a snapshot of an important, but preliminary stage,
>in a comprehensive process that translates broad ideas
>into the detailed, step-by-step blueprint for combat
>operations that the Pentagon defines as a "war plan."
>
>Still, the document, compiled in a long set of
>briefing slides, offers a rare glimpse into the inner
>sanctum of the war planners assigned to think about
>options for defeating Iraq.
>
>"It is the responsibility of the Department of Defense
>to develop contingency plans and, from time to time,
>to update them," Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon
>spokeswoman, said today. "In fact, we have recently
>issued new general planning guidance, and that
>generates activity at the staff level."
>
>Officials said neither Mr. Rumsfeld, nor the Joint
>Chiefs of Staff or General Franks had been briefed on
>this specific document as yet.
>
>The source familiar with the document described its
>contents to The New York Times on the condition of
>anonymity, expressing frustration that the planning
reflected at least in this set of briefing slides was >insufficiently creative, and failed to incorporate
>fully the advances in tactics and technology that the
>military has made since the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
>
>Administration officials say they are still weighing
>options other than war to dislodge Mr. Hussein. But
>most military and administration officials believe
>that a coup in Iraq would be unlikely to succeed, and
>that a proxy battle using local forces would not be
>enough to drive the Iraqi leader from power.
>
>Nothing in the Central Command document or in
>interviews with senior military officials suggests
>that an attack on Iraq is imminent.
>
>Indeed, senior administration officials continue to
>say that any offensive would probably be delayed until
>early next year, allowing time to create the right
>military, economic and diplomatic conditions.
>
>Nonetheless, there are several signs that the military
>is preparing for a major air campaign and land
>invasion.
>
>Thousands of marines from the First Marine
>Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif., the
>marine unit designated for the gulf, have stepped up
>their mock assault drills, a Pentagon adviser said.
>The military is building up bases in several Persian
>Gulf states, including a major airfield in Qatar
>called Al Udeid. Thousands of American troops are
>already stationed in the region.
>
>After running dangerously low on precision-guided
>bombs during the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has
>said it has stepped up production of critical
>munitions. The Air Force is stockpiling weapons,
>ammunition and spare parts, like airplane engines, at
>depots in the United States and in the Middle East.
>
>"We don't know when or where the next contingency will
>be," Gen. Lester L. Lyles, head of the Air Force
>Materiel Command, said in an interview this week. "But
>we want to fill up the stock bins."
>
>The Central Command document, as described by the
>source familiar with it, is significant not just for
>what it contains, but also for what it leaves out.
>
>The document describes in precise detail specific
>Iraqi bases, surface-to-air missile sites, air defense
>networks and fiber-optics communications to be
>attacked. "The target list is so huge it's almost
>egregious," the source said. "It's obvious that we've
>been watching these guys for an awfully long time."
>
>Dozens of slides are devoted to organizational
>details, like the precise tonnage of American
>munitions stored at various bases around the Persian
>Gulf, deployment time lines fr troops leaving East
>and West Coast ports for the gulf region, and the
>complexities of interwoven intelligence, surveillance
>and reconnaissance networks.
>
>At the same time, according to the source, the
>document is silent on or barely mentions other
>important aspects of any operation, suggesting that
>there are several highly classified documents that
>address different parts of the planning.
>
>For instance, the "Courses of Action" document does
>not mention other coalition forces, casualty
>estimates, how Mr. Hussein may himself be a target, or
>what political regime might follow the Iraqi leader if
>an American-led attack was successful, the source
>said.
>
>Nor does the document discuss the sequencing of air
>and ground campaigns, the precise missions of special
>operations forces or the possibility of urban warfare
>in downtown Baghdad, with Iraqi forces possibly
>deploying chemical weapons.
>
>In fact, the discussion about Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction is relatively terse. The document
>discusses the broad threat such weapons pose to
>American forces and surrounding countries, the need to
>deter Baghdad from using them, and, failing that,
>devising ways to counter them.
>
>It describes the number of Marine and Army divisions,
>air expeditionary forces, and aircraft carriers. These
>and other forces add up to as many as 250,000 troops,
>the source familiar with the document said, but there
>is little detail about those forces beyond that.
>
>Nor does the document contain a comprehensive analyss
>of the Iraqi ground forces, including the Republican
>Guard and various security forces that are believed to
>be fiercely loyal to Mr. Hussein. This again suggests
>that such analysis is either incomplete or is
>contained in another planning document.
>
>By emphasizing a large American force, the document
>seems to reflect a view that a successful campaign
>would require sizable conventional forces staging from
>Kuwait, or at least held in reserve there.
>
>An alternative plan, championed by retired Gen. Wayne
>A. Downing of the Army, calls for conquering Iraq with
>a combination of airstrikes and special operations
>attacks in coordination with indigenous fighters,
>similar to the campaign in Afghanistan. Relying solely
>on that approach appears to have been ruled out.
>
>General Downing resigned last week as Mr. Bush's chief
>adviser on counterterrorism, reportedly frustrated by
>the administration's tough talk against Iraq but lack
>of action.
>
>Among the many questions the military and the
>administration must address before staging an invasion
>is where to base air and ground forces in the region.
>
>Geography and history, specifically the gulf war,
>would suggest that countries like Kuwait, Turkey,
>Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain would be
>likely candidates for staging troops or air combat
>missions.
>
>Any mention of using bases in Saudi Arabia, from which
>the United States staged the bulk of the airstrikes in
>the gulf war, is conspicuously missing from the
>document, said an official familiar with the briefing
>slides. The United States would need permission to use
>Saudi airspace adjacent to Iraq, if not Saudi bases
>themselves, officials said.
>
>The Saudis have allowed the United States to run the
>air war against Afghanistan from a sophisticated
>command center at Prince Sultan Air Base, outside
>Riyadh, but have prohibited the Air Force from flying
>any attack missions from Saudi soil.
>
>Senior Air Force officials have expressed mounting
>frustration with restrictions the Saudis have placed
>on American operations, and the Central Command is
>developing an alternate command center at the
>sprawling Udeid base in Qatar, should that be needed.
>
>The Central Command document does not contain a time
>line of when American forces could start flowing to
>the gulf or how long it would take to put all the
>forces in place. Nor does it answer one of the big
>questions administration officials are wrestling with:
>how will Mr. Hussein react if there is a large buildup
>of conventional forces, such as the United States had
>in the gulf war.
>
>"The Iraqis aren't just going to sit on their butts
>while we put in 250,000 people," a military analyst
>said.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Will You Find True Love? Will You Meet the One? Free Love Reading by phone! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ztNCyD/zDLEAA/Ey.GAA/VkWolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community email addresses: Post message: azsecularhumanists@onelist.com Subscribe: azsecularhumanists-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: azsecularhumanists-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: azsecularhumanists-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/azsecularhumanists
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/