Bush and Blair agree terms for Iraq attack

Tony Blair has privately told George Bush that Britain will support an American attack on Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to accept resumed UN weapons inspections.

President Bush's "understanding", based on conversations with the prime minister, is that he can count on Mr Blair, according to well-placed Bush administration officials.

The agreement between the leaders comes as diplomatic, military and intelligence sources revealed details of a new plan for the invasion of Iraq, which could take place sooner than had previously been presumed.

The plan involves a slimmed-down force of around 50,000 troops, which could be deployed within a matter of days.

It had been widely assumed that the US could not deploy sufficient numbers of troops needed for the task before the end of this year at the earliest.

Now senior officials are saying a sudden military strike could be launched as soon as October.

Boeing and other US companies are working round the clock, producing satellite-guided "smart" bombs that would be used in huge air strikes to accompany any ground invasion.

Although no plan of attack has yet been finalised, Mr Blair has already offered "in principle" to lend full British military and diplomatic backing for an assault.

Mr Blair insists in public that no decision has been made about British involvement in any US military attack on Iraq. "We are not at the point of decision yet," he told a Downing Street press conference on Thursday.

A Washington source familiar with administration thinking said that while it was accurate to say Mr Bush had not yet decided how or when to attack Iraq, the president was considering his options in the belief Mr Blair would go along with the US.

Two options have been widely discussed in Washington. One would involve inserting Iraqi defectors, backed by 5,000 US troops and "precision" air strikes. The plan was once dismissed by General Anthony Zinni, America's Middle East envoy, as a recipe for a "Bay of Goats" disaster, comparable to the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba.

The second option, which would require at least a three-month build-up, is the US military's central command standard war plan, involving 250,000 troops and heavy armour. Britain, it is suggested, would contribute 30,000 troops, an armoured division backed up by air and sea support.

A new third option now being considered is for a sudden strike, involving no more than 50,000 troops who would bypass the Iraqi army and make straight for Baghdad.

With thousands of US troops already deployed in Kuwait and Qatar, such a plan could be executed quickly, officials say.

Though a sudden attack combining air power and ground forces would still involve huge risks, it would have the advantage of avoiding mounting opposition to military action against Iraq in such countries as Saudi Arabia and Jordan - whose bases the US might not need - as well as wrongfooting Saddam Hussein, officials say.

British military sources describe this third option as "high risk" but with a "high payoff" were it to succeed.

The US officials say Mr Bush has also obtained agreement in principle for support from France in conversations with President Jacques Chirac.

Mr Blair is understood to have told Mr Bush that British support is contingent on the completion of a genuine effort to persuade Iraq to readmit weapons inspectors.

Mr Blair has also insisted that Mr Bush offer a "full explanation" in public of his reasons for going to war and that a "major effort" be made to win over sceptical public opinion. "Blair wants him to make the case," a source said.

Part of the Blair-Bush understanding was that evidence that Iraq presented an urgent threat through its alleged attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction would be published in London.

The source said Britain and the US were jointly opposed to seeking a new UN security council resolution to justify an attack on Iraq. Both countries will adopt the position that action is allowable under existing UN resolutions.

Mr Blair indicated on Thursday that the weapons inspections talks, which Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, has suspended indefinitely after an unsuccessful Vienna meeting this month, would fail - thus increasing the likelihood of an attack.

Pulling another "October Surprise" in order to help us in the election seems wrong to me.

On the other hand, attacking in October because that is when we can and must seems right to me.

I guess it will play out based on how well Bush convinces the American people that the attack was necessary.

My mind should be clear on this -- Saddam must go, as soon as we are ready. But I've seen too many dogs wagging (abuse of power by Clinton for political gain), and heard too many anti-Bushims from my mostly liberal family and relatives. This will not go down well with them.

I pray that Saddam, and the liberals, lose big time.

Actually, we'll be doing both. And we'll be starting before the election.

Phase I will be the insertion of a large force of elite troops, led by the SAS, of course, and the Deltas. Don't be surprised if overall command of the Special Warfare section of this operation passes to an experienced SAS officer.

The object of the exercise will be to conduct a large scale guerrilla/sabotage operation using mobile Special warfare troops. This phase of the operation will be designed to keep Saddam and the Republican Guard off balance, chasing phantoms with armored brigades.

But it will be a hard go for the Iraqis even though they will have overwhelming superiority in armor during the opening month of the war. That's because the U.S., British, Turkish, and Israeli Air Forces will be operating a ground attack/air superiority role throughout the first phase of the campaign. The air campaign will focus on traditional targets-SAMs, SCUDs, WMD plants and stores, C3I assets (command, control, and communications), the new Chinese fiber optic system that controls the national SAM network (which will be uncovered and cut to ribbons by the SW guys), and Saddam's Winnebago, in which the Iraqi Fuhrer will be hightailing it from one side of Iraq to the other.

This phase is designed to keep Iraq's collective head down while the Main Force units build up in Turkey and Kuwait.

Phase II will open up with an armored drive through Kurdistan on Baghdad itself. Blandishments and bribes will be given to Iraqi commanders who surrender, and Iraqi regulars will be treated with courtesy and respect, so that other units might get the idea that surrender is a viable option. Those Iraqi commanders who back the right horse will have a place in the new Federal Republic of Iraq. The present contents of their Swiss bank accounts will be guaranteed by the CIA and the U.S. Treasury. Cooperative Repblican Guard commanders and members of the Inner Circle who turn traitor on Saddam will be given new identities and money so that they don't have to get hauled up before some War Crimes kangaroo court.

Meanwhile, the armored spearhead will advance in two directions: through Kurdistan and a Marine expeditionary force will advance up the Tigris/Euphrates valley. Basra will be invested rather quickly as the local Shia rise up in rebellion. Mosul and other cities in Kurdistan will fall as whole Iraqi divisions surrender en masse.

The loyalist troops will hunker down around Baghdad awaiting the final stand. During this period, some ambitious young officer will put a bullet in Saddam's brain.

And all will agree that it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. And once the secret files of the Mukhabarat are opened, we shall see just how wrapped up Iraq and the Al Qaeda were with each other.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

The attack will most likely come before the Nov. election just to make little al gore mad!!!!

I was actually thinking the opposite. It seems that as the months since 9/11 roll by the media is becoming more openly vocal in it's criticism of the Bush administration. There may be concern that starting the Iraq offensive while the mop-up in Afghanistan lingers may create a groundswell of media critisim and coverage that hurts the republicans right before the election. I thought the safer bet was to wait until after the election.

Of course, this is only if the political ramifications of the decision are allowed to drive the timing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.