A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
Bush's War Plan for Iraq |
---|
yunus |
07/06/02 at 12:09:39 |
"President Bush early this year signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple Saddam Hussein, including authority to use lethal force to capture the Iraqi president, according to informed sources." - Washington Post, June 16, 2002 * "Saddam Hussein has issued a presidential order barring civil servants from traveling abroad." - Iraq Press, June 30 * "...diplomatic sources have disclosed to "as-Safir" that the United States of America has begun to carry out a plan of security and military operations aimed at Iraq, that American troops have entered areas in northern Iraq, and that major bases have been set up for them inside Jordan." - As-Safir, Translated from Arabic, July 1 * "Saddam Hussein has sent more troops... backed by tanks, artillery and rockets are now positioned a few kilometers south of Arbil, the administrative capital of the semi-independent Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq.... Saddam has sent emissaries to the leaders of the major Kurdish factions, threatening unspecified consequences if they take part in any U.S. bid to overthrow him." - Iraq Press, July 1 * "Saddam Hussein's relatives are reported to have left the village of Uja as fears of a U.S. military strike mount in Iraq." - Iraq Press, July 2 * "Saddam Hussein signed Military Directive 531 ordering commando units from the Republican Guards and special military intelligence combat units to head into northern Iraq. He had just received intelligence reports indicating that the US special forces and CIA personnel he knew to have landed in the northern region were making impressive strides in recruiting and training Kurdish fighters..." - DebkaFile, July 3 ====================================================================== http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/international/middleeast/05IRAQ.html July 5, 2002 U.S. Plan for Iraq Is Said to Include Attack on 3 Sides By ERIC SCHMITT WASHINGTON, 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 ba 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 for 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 analysis 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. ====================================================================== http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/international/05ASSE.html July 5, 2002 The Warpath: Pressures Build on Iraq By PATRICK E. TYLER The pressure on the Pentagon to produce a plan for President Bush to make war on Iraq underscores the failure of either diplomacy or covert operations to dislodge Saddam Hussein or force him to open up to United Nations inspectors hunting for weapons of mass destruction. The emergence of a detailed concept for a military attack on Iraq also suggests that Mr. Bush's new approach to solving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians may be part of a shift in focus toward preparations for an Iraq campaign. Mr. Bush was briefed on the state of war planning on June 19 by the top general in the American central command, Tommy R. Franks. Five days later, the president delivered his long awaited Middle East policy address, calling on Palestinians to jettison their leader, Yasir Arafat, and warning that otherwise they can expect little in the way of support or assistance from the United States. Effectively, that stalled the American mediation effort in the Middle East, a state of affairs reflecting the broad view of Mr. Bush's more conservative advisers, among them Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not present a strategic threat to American interests in the Middle East — but Iraq's interest in developing weapons of mass destruction does. The evidence that Mr. Hussein still possesses such weapons remains murky — particularly in the view of America's European allies, most of whom have argued strongly against a new war on Iraq. In the United States and its principal Middle East ally, Israel, however, a number of senior officials — including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak — believe that a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq could be fashioned into some form of democracy. In this view, an Iraq under new governance could become a new Western ally, helping to reduce American dependency on bases in Saudi Arabia, to secure Israel's eastern flank and act as a wedge between Iran and Syria, two of the most active sponsors of terrorism. The obstacles, risks and costs to such a strategy remain largely unaddressed by the Bush administration, and its planning for any eventual war is tightly wrapped in secrecy. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, the administration's leading advocate for the centrality of Iraq in American strategic planning in the Middle East, was host this week to Iraqi opposition leaders, according to opposition officials, and received a bleak report from them on the chaotic state of opposition forces in Iraq. Nonetheless, the Pentagon is pursuing efforts to unite the Iraqi opposition so that it might play the same kind of adjunct role of intelligence collection, target identification and combat that anti-Taliban partisans played in the Afghan campaign. According to the opposition officials, the meeting was attended by representatives from the State Department's and C.I.A.'s task forces on Iraq, along with American military officials. Kurdish leaders in Northern Iraq are riven by internal disputes and have yet to come to any agreement with the C.I.A. to allow American intelligence officers, Special Forces trainers or diplomats to set up camp there and begin preparations for a new campaign against Mr. Hussein. In April, Kurdish and other Iraqi opposition officials said that Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, the principal Kurdish leaders, traveled to Frankfurt, and then to a C.I.A. training base in southern Virginia. There, the opposition officials said, their leaders were told that the United States had decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein and was seeking to send C.I.A. teams to train Kurdish fighters in how to work with United States forces much as Afghan fighters helped United States forces against the Taliban. A spokesman for the C.I.A. declined comment. For now, Kurdish leaders appear reluctant to sign on to American war planning unless they get strong guarantees that the Bush administration plans to go all the way to Baghdad. They also want Kurdish cities protected from the kind of onslaught that Mr. Hussein unleashed during the Clinton administration's failed attempt to dislodge Mr. Hussein, a failure that forced the C.I.A. to evacuate thousands of partisans from Iraq at a cost of more than $100 million, according administration officials. On the diplomatic front, a number of moderate Arab leaders have advised the White House in recent months that if President Bush hopes to build a consensus for removing Mr. Hussein by force, the best way to achieve that goal is to first achieve an Israeli- Palestinian breakthrough. These leaders said that any peace agreement must address Palestinian aspirations for statehood, which in turn would undermine Arab radicals who have stoked anti-Americanism in the region and threatened the stability of moderate Arab governments that are America's allies. At their March summit meeting in Beirut, Arab leaders offered Israel recognition and peace in return for withdrawal from lands it seized in 1967. They also took a strong position on Iraq, calling on Mr. Hussein to open his borders to inspections, but — in a pointed warning to Washington — stated that an attack on Iraq would threaten the national security interests of all Arab states. Many of the moderate Arab states have expressed a willingness to assist in Mr. Hussein's removal if he does not accept the kind of intrusive inspections needed to reassure the world that he does not possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or the means to produce or deliver them, nor will he ever have them. But when Mr. Cheney toured Middle East capitals in March to discuss American plans to topple Mr. Hussein, his efforts made little headway in light of Mr. Sharon's military campaign in the West Bank. Still, Mr. Bush can count on some support from other allies — like Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain — whose positions have shifted over the last year. Even Russia, with its longstanding military relationship with Iraq during Soviet times and its heavy investment in Iraq's oil sector, has signed on to the notion that Mr. Hussein has just one final chance to live up to the obligations given at the end of the Persian Gulf war to disarm and submit to long-term monitoring |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |