Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:49:17 -0400
From: carol@carolmoore.net (Carol Moore)
Subject: [libs4peace] U.S.  Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option


Another stupid and wicked idea!!

> NYTimes

>

> July 29, 2002

>

> U.S.  Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option

>

> By DAVID E.  SANGER and THOM SHANKER

>

> WASHINGTON, July 28  As the Bush administration considers its military

> options for deposing Saddam Hussein, senior administration and Pentagon

> officials say they are exploring a new if risky approach: take Baghdad

> and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of

> cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the

> government.

>

> The "inside-out" approach, as some call this Baghdad-first option, would

> capitalize on the American military's ability to strike over long

> distances, maneuvering forces to envelop a large target.  Those

> advocating that plan say it reflects a strong desire to find a strategy

> that would not require a full quarter-million American troops, yet hits

> hard enough to succeed.  One important aim would be to disrupt Iraq's

> ability to order the use of weapons of mass destruction.

>

> The advantages and risks of strikes aimed deep inside the country and

> radiating outward are now under active discussion, according to senior

> administration and Defense Department officials.  No formal plan has yet

> been presented to President Bush or the senior members of his national

> security team, and several officials cautioned that a number of

> alternatives were still under consideration.

>

> The inside-out ideas are essentially the reverse of the American

> strategy in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, which dislodged Mr.  Hussein's

> occupying army from Kuwait.

>

> The aim would be to kill or isolate Mr.  Hussein and to pre-empt Iraq's

> use of weapons of mass destruction, whether against an incoming force,

> front-line allies or Israel.  Those weapons are the wild card in all the

> outlines of a military confrontation.

>

> Officials say it may be possible to paralyze an Iraqi

> command-and-control system that is highly centralized and

> authoritarian.  Under such a system, midlevel officers are not taught to

> improvise, should they be cut off from commanders.  It is also possible

> that those midlevel officers, if they fear that Mr.  Hussein has been

> killed, would not bother to fire weapons of mass destruction.

>

> If that can be accomplished with a smaller invasion force than the

> 250,000 troops suggested in early drafts, the approach could appeal to

> skittish gulf allies whose bases would be required for a war.

>

> Those states are quietly advocating the quickest and smallest military

> operation possible, to lessen anti-American protests on their streets.

> In that sense, the war planning includes the political dimension of

> trying to tip reluctant allies into supporting, tacitly at least, the

> operation.

>

> Something nearer the 250,000 figure might have to be deployed to the

> region anyway, to make sure that any forces that drop into Baghdad do

> not become isolated or surrounded, bereft of a land line providing

> military support, food and ammunition.

>

> The Defense Department deputy spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said the

> Pentagon would have no comment on potential military plans for Iraq.

>

> But it is clear that the debate over whether and how to dislodge Mr.

> Hussein is gaining speed within the administration and on Capitol Hill.

>

> "There is a divergence of views on how can one best diminish the

> prospect that he uses weapons of mass destruction, with any efficacy,"

> said Senator Joseph R.  Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign

> Relations Committee, who stressed that he had not been briefed on

> administration thinking.

>

> Senator Biden, who is preparing to hold hearings on Iraq this week, said

> in an interview: "That is where the argument for an inside-out operation

> gains credibility.  There is a diminished possibility that he will use

> chemical or biological weapons."

>

> In May, President Bush was presented with concepts that advocated a

> major invasion, but some senior officials are said to view the plan as

> unimaginative.

>

> In contrast, a key national security aide, retired Gen.  Wayne A.

> Downing, had reportedly argued that Mr.  Hussein could be toppled with

> minimal numbers of Americans on the ground, provided they were backed up

> by huge airstrikes.  However, senior officials concluded that a proxy

> battle would be insufficient to bring a change in power in Iraq, and

> General Downing left the White House last month.

>

> "It's easy to rule out both ends of the spectrum," one senior Defense

> Department official said.  "We are looking at the three or four options

> in between."

>

> No timetable has been set for military action, and if President Bush

> decides to go ahead, his aides say, he will have to make a public,

> convincing case about why Mr.  Hussein poses an intolerable threat to

> the United States and its allies.  Some members of Congress, including

> conservative Republicans, are beginning to urge Mr.  Bush to explain his

> reasoning and goals before committing American forces to topple a

> foreign government that has not attacked the United States.

>

> "The time will come to do all of that," a senior administration official

> said in an interview on Friday.  "And no one is opposed to doing it."

>

> A plan to immobilize the Iraqi leadership would draw from lessons

> learned on maneuver warfare in the invasion of Panama, which Dick Cheney

> and Colin L.  Powell directed, and on the surprise Inchon Sea landing in

> Korea in 1951, according to officials who monitor the internal debate.

>

> "To the degree that you can have strategic and, especially, tactical

> surprise in any military operation, that is important," said another

> senior Defense Department official.  President Bush has put Mr.  Hussein

> on direct notice that regime change is American policy.  But just as the

> Taliban and Al Qaeda had little doubt that the United States would

> respond to the attacks of Sept.  11, the timing and tactics achieved a

> great measure of surprise, military officials said.

>

> Baghdad is ringed by Mr.  Hussein's most elite forces, and the city

> itself is filled with antiaircraft batteries.  While officials declined

> to discuss details of any new operation in detail, it would probably

> include intense air attacks followed by a combined airborne and ground

> assault on strategic targets.

>

> enior admiistrationan Pentagon ofiials said they expected that a

> military action against Iraq would be mostly American-run, with Britain

> the only partner contributing significant forces.  But coopration from

> allies in the region  particularly in the form of bases  would be

> essential.

>

> Persian Gulf governments have significant areas of agreement with Mr.

> Bush's policy, and equally important areas of concern, according to

> senior officials, diplomats and military officers from the region.

>

> Those nations have issued warnings against American military action,

> have called for dialogue wih Baghdad and they identified with Iraq at

> the Arab League summit meeting last spring, yet gulf state officials

> said Mr.  Hussein, while contained today, remained a threat.

>

> "We don't like Saddam," said one senior gulf diplomat.  "We don't

> believe he is a peaceful neighbor."

>

> To win support of those strategic allies, America has to ensure that

> next time, the military operation will take down Mr.  Hussein once and

> for all, officials from the region say.

>

> "Any war against Iraq has to be successful," said another senior gulf

> official.  "America has to nail down the objective of the war."

>

> Officials from those nations are equally adamant that any military

> action should be the minimum necessary to bring about a change in rule.

> "The worst scenario from our view would be a big war by air and land and

> with lots of bombs and civilian casualties," said a gulf official.

>

> In any case, the gulf nations first want the United States to

> demonstrate some progress in the crisis between the Palestinians and

> Israelis before opening yet another front in the region, after

> Afghanistan.

>

> In concentrating its attention on an air campaign and ground action, the

> military and administration officials have been weighing troop

> deployments ranging from 70,000 to 250,000.  The new plan under

> discussion could conceivably be carried out at the lower range of that

> spectrum.

>

> Pentagon officials warn that tracking Mr.  Hussein with any certainty is

> difficult if not impossible, as shown by the global manhunt now under

> way for Osama bin Laden.  Likewise, despite a decade of intense scrutiny

> of Iraq's missile program and its efforts to field biological, chemical

> and nuclear weapons, America's knowledge of hidden labs, storage areas

> and mobile missile sites is still spotty.

>

> Iraq is thought to possess a small number of Scud missiles  "A

> handful.  A couple of handfuls, maybe," according to a senior Defense

> Department official.  Senior military officials express confidence that

> the United States would do a much better job hunting mobile Scuds next

> time than they did during the gulf war, because of coverage from

> satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

>

> Iraq has studied ways to counter stealth aircraft and improve its

> tracking and jamming abilities.  But for the most part, "They have

> mostly not used or tried to use air defenses very effectively," said

> another senior Pentagon official.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/7dY7FD/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/nJ9qlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
libs4peace-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com