First Strike? U.S. Military Concerned Saddam Hussein May Launch First Attack

ABC News ^ | March 13, 2003 | John McWethy

[John H K]

U.S. officials fear that once President Bush signals the U.S. is headed to war, Saddam Hussein will strike pre-emptively, administration sources told ABCNEWS.

But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself. This new level of concern about Iraq is caused by an accumulation of intelligence including troubling new details that focus on three areas:

Specific new evidence indicates that Iraqi activity in the Western desert shows the strong likelihood Scud missiles are hidden there. These missiles could easily reach Israel carrying chemical or biological warheads which could draw Israel into any war.

Detailed new intelligence from the southern Iraqi oil fields shows that many of the 700 wells have now been wired with explosives. These explosives appear to be connected to a central command post, so Saddam could easily set the wells ablaze.

Near the border with Kuwait, where 135,000 U.S. troops are now stationed, recent surveillance indicates Iraqi artillery batteries have been moved dangerously close. The artillery is capable of firing shells filled with poison gas.

The United States is now considering moving against all three of these targets before any war begins in an effort to prevent Saddam from acting first, sources told ABCNEWS.

[John H K]

Went into more detail leading off the Nightly News.

The war DOES start if the US moves against any of these three targets; it's not possible to move against all three "before the war begins."

Boy, would be a diplomatic windfall if Iraq struck first, though.

I don't think any artillery out in the desert along the Kuwaiti border would last very long.

[vbmoneyspender]

But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself.

I am confused. Isn't that the whole point of what we are trying to do?

[judicial meanz]

At this point, Saddam has the strategic and tactical initiative until we commence war operations and launch the attacks.

Thats why this 3rd world UN semantics game needs to end, and we need to act decisively.

[colorado tanker]

Looks like a little target practice for our flyboys.

[jerseygirl]

We definitely need to Remove the threats to our forces-whether or not there is a resolution, a deadline, etc. To wait is too risky, IMO.

[Dog]

You think maybe we are setting up Saddam...we play stupid on the border....get him to fire the first shot.....then BAM!

[11th_VA]

I just saw this on the news as well. Saddam is slick. I think his #1 strategy is to attack Israel. It could unite the ME against the US. This is like watching a high stakes poker game ...

[uncbob]

The United States is now considering moving against all three of these targets before any war begins in an effort to prevent Saddam from acting first, sources told ABCNEWS.

What is this considering BS Just do it

[Jim Noble]

He has to preempt-it's his only move.

But I don't think he believes we're coming yet. When he does, he will launch-as he should.

[jwalsh07]

Launch what?

[jerseygirl]

I agree. The longer we wait, the higher the risk to our people.( I really think Saddam won't resort to chemicals in his initial strikes,,,) I don't think too many citizens would object if Bush announced (after it was completed) that we had decided on a pre-emptive strike to safeguard our troops.

[arthurus]

we play stupid on the border....get him to fire the first shot.

What on earth for ???

We do not need a contrived attack scenario to justify a strike. We just need to do the thing.

[brydic1]

Fox News Poll now indicates that 71% of Americans now believe that the President needs to act now or forget it. The people are sick and tired of our actions in dealing with the UN, while our vulnerable troops sit near the Iraqi border.

[jerseygirl]

I agree whotleheartedly with you, While it might be PC to let Saddam go first, it would be an extreme risk to our forces. Forget the resolutions and take these weapons out ASAP!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[brydic1]

I hear Bush is labeled a "cowboy" by the anti-war crowd. Being a cowboy would be a great improvement over what he has turned into. Bush is not a Texan, he is a tranplanted "wus" from Connecticut. His cowboy act was simply to get votes from conservatives. He is his father's son and is doomed to repeat his father errors.

[jerseygirl]

I hope he's not doomed. He needs to make some critical decisions NOW. The American people will back him up if he acts forcefully and with the best interests of our country at stake.

[pt17]

I am confused. Isn't that the whole point of what we are trying to do?

One might get the impression that the UN has become more important than Saddam's WMD, the economy, the fight for Estrada, etc. Given all the delays and politics, one might, for right or wrong, come to the conclusion that that the WMD threat wasn't as great as was hyped (i.e., if the threat was really that great, the President would have acted to protect us by now). Another theory is that this is all just filling time until the buildup is done. A lessor theory is that this rhetoric and military buildup is all bluff and Saddam and his Eurpoean friends are now calling the President. I guess time will tell; however, I think the President's running out of time. Much more of this and I think the next election will be a real race.

[jrd]

didn"t Clinton sign the deal with the UN world court so our solders can be tried for war crimes if we don't have them on board.

[Robert_Paulson2]

read my lips Junior?