Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Could Be Ready for War in Iraq This Year
Yahoo News ^ | 10/10/02 | Charles Aldinger - Reuters

Posted on 10/10/2002 8:23:39 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

US Could Be Ready for War in Iraq This Year
Thu Oct 10,10:33 AM ET

By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military could be prepared for war with Iraq as soon as December even though President Bush (news - web sites) has not decided whether to pull the trigger on Baghdad, according to U.S. officials and analysts.

Photo
Reuters Photo

Experts in and out of government said five U.S. aircraft carriers with 350 warplanes could be off Iraq before year's end if ordered and tens of thousands of troops could be sent much more quickly than the six-months build-up to the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).

"We are not now on a war footing," stressed one of the U.S. officials, who asked not to be identified, in interviews with Reuters. "But this isn't 1991. We have tanks, lots of stuff in the region waiting for drivers and shooters."

"If there's a fight, winter would be better," a senior military officer said, referring to major discomfort that U.S. -- and perhaps British and other strike troops -- would suffer if forced to don bulky biological-chemical warfare protective suits in Iraq's summer desert heat.

A contrasting background of cold ground would also help heat-seeking missiles and bombs to find warm targets from anti-aircraft missile emplacements to tanks.

Even as the Bush administration presses the United Nations (news - web sites) and U.S. Congress to give strict disarmament deadlines to Baghdad, the White House and Pentagon (news - web sites) expect that President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), who Washington accuses of developing chemical, biological and nuclear arms, will trigger a war by eventually halting unfettered U.N. arms inspections.

While the Pentagon is counting on major military help from Britain and other European and Gulf allies, officials said U.S. military preparations had been accelerated since August, including plans to send up to three aircraft carriers from bases in California and Japan if ordered.

POWERFUL PUNCH FROM CARRIERS

They could join the carriers Abraham Lincoln in the Gulf and the George Washington, now in the Mediterranean. Five battle groups would include several dozen cruisers and destroyers armed with long-range cruise missiles.

The carrier jets would join nearly 300 U.S. aircraft already in the region at bases from Turkey to a British airfield on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The U.S. officials confirmed a New York Times report that some elite Special Operations forces have been told to separate temporarily from the military and join up with clandestine CIA (news - web sites) paramilitary units for any early "shadow" campaign against Saddam and his top supporters.

British newspapers have reported that Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s government is ready to offer at least 20,000 troops and dozens of warplanes to the war effort. And the Jerusalem Post reported last week that Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer predicted an American attack on Iraq by late November.

While media reports of U.S. war plans have varied widely from the use of 50,000 to 200,000-plus troops, officials and private experts have said an invasion would lean heavily on air power and not require the massive U.S.-led assault of 500,000 troops used to drive Iraqi forces from Kuwait 11 years ago.

"You could start a reasonably good war in December by getting at least a couple of heavy divisions (about 40,000 troops) into the region," said former Assistant Defense Secretary Larry Korb, now with the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

"You could start bombing them and initially send troops in from the south and see what happened. That could be accelerated, but if the Iraqi military quickly collapses from air strikes, it's going to take about 100,000 troops to hold down the country," Korb added.

FINAL BUILD-UP HARD TO HIDE

He and other analysts stressed that any unscheduled movement of carriers could not be kept secret and would signal a final build-up.

Bush, they said, would also have to use emergency powers to call tens of thousands of part-time U.S. military reserve and National Guard troops to active duty ahead of any action.

There are 60,000 such "weekend warriors" on active duty from a major call-up for the war on terrorism declared after last year's attacks on America. But many more would be needed for tasks from fighting and refueling attack planes to providing intelligence and directing traffic.

The U.S. Central Command, which would oversee fighting in Iraq, openly reported last month that it would move 600 members of its key headquarters staff from Florida to Qatar near Iraq for an exercise in November and was considering making that shift permanent.

Central Command chief Army Gen. Tommy Franks will take part in what is scheduled to be a three-week deployment to modern Al Udeid Air Base near Doha in friendly Qatar for command post exercise "Internal Look."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has flatly refused to discuss any war plans and denounced detailed media reports on military options being studied by Bush to end Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and perhaps oust Saddam.

But he suggested to reporters who traveled with him to a NATO (news - web sites) meeting in Warsaw last month that any invasion of Iraq would directly target Baghdad's "dictatorial, repressive" government while attempting to spare the Iraqi people.

The Washington Post reported that massive U.S. air strikes and simultaneous ground attacks could concentrate on "regime targets" such as Saddam's palaces, bodyguards, bunkers and hometown power center of Tikrit.

There are more than 250 U.S. attack jets based in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey and being used to patrol "no-fly" Zones over northern and southern Iraq. The Saudis have indicated that jets based on their territory could not be used for an invasion of Iraq unless it was fully supported by the United Nations.

But a large number of warplanes could be flown out of al Udeid in Qatar, and the United States is discussing with Britain permission to build shelters for bat-wing B-2 stealth bombers on Diego Garcia.



TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Government; Israel; Politics/Elections; Russia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bush; iraq; letsroll; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Trust but Verify
.....Where are you?....

In a corner sulking and trying despertately to remove the blood stains of Vietnam dead from his hands and the constant stench of guilt for urging the war to be lost.

41 posted on 10/13/2002 8:35:48 AM PDT by bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: clodhopper
In otherwards be held hostage to a vague presumption, you fool.

We will feign a posture of indecision and confusion, then strke Hussein and decapitate the regime. No way we will allow the UN to go on in this charade which has weakened this country of our for way too long. ALL BLUFFS WILL BE CALLED. I will be on this board when we are victorious, and you are not (on this board)

42 posted on 10/13/2002 8:39:03 AM PDT by Helms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: clodhopper
No,you don't get it newbie.Go back to Du where the uninformed and the unwilling cower in the shadows.Look at what has happened in Bali the last 24 hours and then tell us radical islam doesn't need to be addressed.I don't know where you live but,if islam is left unchecked than jihad is coming to a location near you also.There goal is to consume the world,by there own teachings.Grow up,open your eyes and join the fight.
43 posted on 10/13/2002 8:45:13 AM PDT by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: clodhopper
You are just like the lefties in this country. NO plan of your own except to attack those with a plan. Funny how Blair seemed quite popular as long as he was appeasing the enemy within and without. Now that he has taken up with a strong American President, rather than the weak, pathetic one of the 90's, you are against him. Simpleton.

Britain is a breeding ground for Islamists. All of Europe is for that matter. Go ahead, see if you can appease them out of their fanatical views. Try to 'understand' their grievances. If we could all just get along! Ha!

44 posted on 10/13/2002 8:46:41 AM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
BTW, great screen name. Describes you to a T.
45 posted on 10/13/2002 8:47:24 AM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bert
Yeah.

Deployment of the V Corps and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force staffs gives average Joes like me the first signal how Bush is going to fight the war.

V Corps is based in Heidelberg, Germany. That's a better than even bet we're going to pull 1st Armored Division and the 1st Mechanized division out of Germany to fight the Iraq campaign, joined by the 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored, and 1st Brigade, of the Big Red One, which are based at Ft. Riley. I'd bet at least one of the those divisions does not return to Germany after the campaign and probably both. FU Gerhard Schroeder.

The Marine 1st Expeditionary Force consists of the 1st, 5th and 7th Marines based at Camp Pendleton and the 3rd Marine Air Wing based at El Toro. From one to three Marine regiments and elements of the 3rd Marine Air Wing will form the Marine contingent.

That tells us the Administration doesn't think the Chinese or North Koreans will try anything in the next year.

I think the DOD has leaked the supposed war plan to fool the Iraqis. Putting 2 and 2 together, the supposed plan is for V Corps, including the two Germany-based divisions, an armored cavalry regiment, and at least one and possibly two British armored brigades (including the 7th Desert Rats, forming the 1st British Armored Division), and possibly a French light armored brigade to advance on Baghdad out of Kuwait and for the Marines to cut off and secure the southern oil fields, Basra and the Shatt al Arab. The 101st Air Assault Division will land directly on air fields being prepared in northern Iraq, secure the northern oil fields and Kurdistan and advance on Baghdad from the North, possibly assisted by the Turks, who will occupy Kurdistan. The 75th Rangers Regiment, the 5th Special Forces Group, and probably a second Special Forces group and a couple of British SAS troops will secure Scud launching centers in western Iraq, possibly assisted by the Jordanians, and then advance on Baghdad, securing the western flank. If urban combat is required, the Marines and Special Ops Forces will support the Iraqi Army and the air forces.

They're going to bomb the hell out of Saddam's command and control and "palaces." From 5 to 10 Air Force wings, 5 Navy air wings/carrier battle groups, 1 British carrier battle group, the 3rd Marine air wing, possibly a French squadron, and elements of an Italian squadron.

Yes, at the last minute there's a good chance the French will join the fighting.

If Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield have the cujones and feel the U.S. Armed Forces are up to it, they could try a "coup de main" -- a blitzkreig involving landing the 101st Air Assault Division and possibly a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division directly on the outskirts of Baghdad, while V Corps blows out of Kuwait, flanks be damned. Spec ops and the paras would prepare and secure the landing fields after the Air Force and Navy blast Saddam. This could be the last brigade-size airborne combat assault in history.



46 posted on 10/13/2002 11:06:50 AM PDT by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Principled
The only idiots and doofuses (it's spelled "doofus", by the way) on this forum are the ones who can't make a coherent argument and think that they've made a point by acting like a spoiled child.

As to my argument, if we're going to war to protect innocents, then I'll give it a fair hearing. If we're going to war to enforce UN dictates, then I'll reject it every time, "Principled". Simple as that.

47 posted on 10/13/2002 11:51:32 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
Wow!! Thanks for your comprehensive report.

It is bookmarked for posterity....

48 posted on 10/13/2002 12:35:43 PM PDT by bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: clodhopper
So how many screen names you got here, newbie?

How does it feel to shill for mass murderers and the enemies of the United States?
49 posted on 10/13/2002 12:47:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: inquest
As to my argument, if we're going to war to protect innocents, then I'll give it a fair hearing.

But inquest, you already asserted otherwise. Changing one's mind when convenient is what a spoiled child would do, eh?

50 posted on 10/13/2002 5:23:35 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Principled
I haven't changed my mind at all. I've only said that there are valid reasons for going to war, and there are invalid reasons. The poster I was responding to raised a manifestly invalid reason.
51 posted on 10/14/2002 6:52:21 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

Comment #54 Removed by Moderator

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: clodhopper
But you're obviously ashamed of where you live since you won't say. And you should be.
56 posted on 10/14/2002 9:11:05 AM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: clodhopper
...decrease terrorism by giving Sharon a boot up the ass instead of kissing it!

At least Sharon has the cajones to tell the Jihadis the only thing they understand..."kill our people, and we will kill you."

57 posted on 10/14/2002 11:32:30 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: clodhopper
You have no sense of proportion at all in your partisan hatred for Israel.

Why should an Israeli not be able to visit the most holy site in the world for a Jew?

Does one man visiting a holy site somehow justify the murderous assault on innocent men, women and children perpetrated by the Jihadists?

Not to most reasonable people.

But then of course I must remember, I'm talking to you.
60 posted on 10/17/2002 8:23:33 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson