A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| US hastens War against Iraq |
|---|
| yunus |
| 07/19/02 at 21:26:46 |
| Has anyone seen recent polls on whether Americans support such an attack? For best daily antiwar news go to http://www.antiwar.com. Also see http://www.iraqwar.org/ and the article THE SEVEN BIG LIES ABOUT IRAQ > http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20020718-124132-5174r > > Pentagon hawks hasten Iraq attack > By Martin Sieff > UPI Senior News Analyst > >From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk > Published 7/18/2002 1:21 PM > > WASHINGTON, July 18 (UPI) -- When will the Bush administration launch U.S. > armed forces against Iraq in a bid to topple President Saddam Hussein? Bet > on this year rather than next and sooner rather than later. > > The conventional wisdom in Washington in recent months has been that no such > attack is likely until well into next year. Of course, that may well be the > case. Several detailed articles have appeared in major U.S. newspapers > citing senior, unnamed Department of Defense officials as saying that this > is their understanding. > > These reports may be accurate, or they may be the American version of > masrilovka -- the old Soviet term for strategic disinformation to misdirect > an enemy. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who championed > the actual creation of an explicit information unit in the Pentagon that > would spread misleading stories as well as accurate ones, is known to have a > passion for such things. > > What is remarkable is that, if they are the latter, it is one of the leading > hawks pushing for a pre-emptive offensive war against Iraq who may have > blown the whistle on it. > > Speaking on a PBS network documentary about Iraq last week, Richard Perle, > the former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration who > is also immensely influential with civilian Pentagon hawks in the current > administration one, confidently predicted that when President George W. Bush > gives his State of the Union message next year he would have "good news" to > give the American people about Iraq. > > For almost all the American people, the best news they could be given about > Iraq would be that they did not have to go to war against it. But that > clearly was not what Perle was thinking at all. By "good news" about Iraq he > mean the elimination of Saddam and his government by the U.S. armed forces. > > There are quite a number of straws in the wind to suggest that Perle, who > enjoys immense influence with and access to Feith and to Undersecretary of > Defense Paul Wolfowitz, knows what he is talking about. > > First, the British government, the only major European ally that is > enthusiastically supporting the Bush administration in its determination to > bring down Saddam by direct military means, is quietly acting as if a war > will come this fall or winter rather than not until next year. > > British security sources have confirmed that significant contingents of > British troops are being quietly withdrawn from peacekeeping forces in > Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo. The only reason this could be happening > simultaneously at this time, they said, was in preparation for the expected > operations against Iraq. > > Also, these sources confirmed, Britain's Royal Air Force is practicing > low-level precision bombing strike missions that they expect to have to > undertake against Iraq. > > UPI veteran foreign correspondent and Middle East expert Claude Salhani, who > covered the 1991 Gulf War from the front lines, also believes that the > combination of seasonal physical conditions in the Middle East and political > factors back in the United States point to a full-scale offensive against > Iraq this fall, rather than later next year. > > "If they go in, they will have a very short window of opportunity -- after > the desert heat, before the rains in the mountains and before the U.S. > elections," Salhani says. > > The baking heat in the Arabian Desert and Fertile Crescent almost never > eases before October, especially in these days of global warming. But if > significant U.S. forces go in through Turkey and Kurdistan in the north of > Iraq, as seems increasingly likely, the usual winter heavy rains could > significantly deplete the effectiveness of U.S. air support and also turn > mountain roads and tracks into mud, slowing down heavy, tracked vehicles. > > As to the November midterm congressional elections, political leaders always > react with outrage to the very idea that military operations are ever timed, > or rushed, to conform to any such partisan and selfish domestic political > considerations. But for an administration that has deliberately made its > alleged effectiveness and resolution in the war on international terror its > central appeal, the desire to have good news from Iraq, or at least progress > on any anti-terror front, by November is obvious. > > It is also striking that some of the U.S. media coverage making the case > that the offensive will not be launched until next year, based key arguments > on claims that Department of Defense civilian policymakers had been forced > to slow down their hell-bent and ambitious timetable because senior Army > military officers had said they needed more time in planning. > > But this Pentagon civilian leadership led by Defense Secretary Donald > Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz has been deliberately more contemptuous and unheeding > of the concerns of infantry and armor experts in the regular Army than any > other since the dark days of Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War more > than 35 years ago. > > Well-placed armed forces officers serving in the Pentagon have told UPI that > the leaders of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Special Forces are enthusiastic > about undertaking operations against Iraq. Special Forces commanders in > particular believe they can rapidly replicate their lightning and virtually > casualty free operations in Afghanistan, these officers said. > > However, senior Army and Marine officers do not share these gung ho > attitudes and believe that operations against Iraq will require at least > 200,000 regular troops and possibly more, and will need to be planned and > conducted very carefully, these sources said. > > There is no question about which side of the debate Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, > Feith and their colleagues come out on. > > A recent article in the New Yorker magazine traced the way in which Rumsfeld > had humiliated and isolated current Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, > a regular Army infantry expert, and appointed as his vice chief of staff and > future successor Lt. Gen. John Keane, a Special Forces enthusiast. > > It therefore appears unlikely that he and his civilian colleagues would > actually heed such cautious advice from professional Army officers when it > conflicts with what their more eager-beaver Special Forces enthusiasts are > telling them. > > This analysis is obviously not carved in stone. The attack on Iraq may not > come until next year or it may not come at all. Or all the factors we have > listed above may tqrn out to be more deliberate disinformation fed to the > unsuspecting press. But don't rule it out either. When ambitious men with > dreams of glory are in a hurry, subtlety often gets left behind as often as > prudence or plain common sense. |
| 07/19/02 at 21:36:17 |
| yunus |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |