Global Policy Forum

Iraq Invasion Plan Revealed

Print
Foreign Report
October 29, 2002

As far as the US administration is concerned, this week is the last to be spent on efforts to put together a new United Nations resolution over Iraq; almost regardless of the outcome, Washington is now polishing up its plans for a military campaign which is still scheduled to begin at some point either before or after Christmas.


Like all US military plans, the blueprint for the war against Saddam Hussein represents a bureaucratic compromise in Washington, and is still subject to last-minute changes. However, certain features are unlikely to change.

As in all recent US-led military campaigns, the war in Iraq will start with a massive air offensive, but with a difference: unlike the war to liberate Kuwait a decade ago, the time difference between the air and ground offensive will be very small, and may be a matter of days rather than weeks.

There are at least three reasons why this is so. First, the Pentagon's planners do not believe that the Iraqi air defences are up to much, and therefore do not require long and extensive air campaign.

Even if Ukraine did supply a new radar system to the Iraqis, as some US officials still suspect, this is not likely to have improved Saddam's air defences by much. Second, there is a political imperative: the campaign is justified as an attempt to destroy the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This requires an immediate attack against illicit laboratories and ammunition plants, by US special forces.

Finally, there is the question of Israel. Although US intelligence services assume that Saddam may have only a handful of missiles capable of being fired and able to hit at Israel, the risk has to be met immediately.

The presence of US ground forces in the western part of Iraq would circumscribe the radius of such missiles and may well limit Saddam's ability to fire them altogether. So, all told, the Iraqis are likely to encounter combined elements of US ground forces almost from the start.

War on three fronts

The US is thinking of three ground insertions on Iraqi territory, at more or less the same time. The considerations are political. A ground force in the north of the country would not only limit Saddam's ability to hit at the Kurds but reassure Turkey that the war would not result in the creation of a Kurdish state; with US troops present, the Kurds are likely to do what they are told.

A presence in the southern part of the country, around the Gulf port of Basra is intended to ensure that the Iraqi Shi'ite centres remain both protected and quiet, and would preclude a surprise Iraqi attack on either Kuwait of Saudi Arabia.

But the biggest US ground presence will be in central Iraq, with the intent of hitting the capital. Tens of thousands of troops are envisaged, operating from roughly three main entry points, which can be secured fairly quickly.

Don't count on a rebellion

Despite public hints in Washington, the US administration is not counting on an internal rebellion against Saddam Hussein, at least, not in the initial phase of the fighting. So, the proxy war the US fought in Afghanistan with the assistance of various rebels will not be applicable in Iraq. However, this does not mean the fighting will be for every scrap of Iraqi territory, or that the US would fight in built up areas, where it risks losing many troops.

Instead, the Pentagon is planning to control large swathes of territory, and incrementally enlarge the area of US control inside Iraq. US troops will avoid entering Baghdad, mainly because this is hardly necessary.

The initial aim would be to split the Iraqi military and capture large quantities of equipment. If the experience of the Gulf War a decade ago is anything to go by, the Iraqi military collapse will come quickly. Once this is accomplished, it does not matter that Saddam remains confined to one palace in Baghdad; the US assumption is that, by then, the Iraqi leader will be overthrown.

And even if he is not, a new government will surely arise in the territory held by the US; this government will provide the kernel for Saddam's replacement regime. If all goes well, the US would not need to place too many soldiers in the Iraqi capital at all, apart from small elements of troops designed to protect the new regime.

What then?

As we reported recently, the US is unlikely to impose an American occupation of Iraq along the lines of the occupation of Japan or Germany at the end of the Second World War. Although such scenarios have been discussed in Washington, they are very much the last, rather than the first solution. The best alternative for the US is to have an Iraqi administration born out of the heat of battle, a government which is prepared to accept the need for disarmament and further UN inspections.

If this happens, the US will turn to the UN and demand a Security Council resolution designed to ensure the country never again engages in any heavy rearmament. Such an approach should allow the US to claim the new Iraqi government is not Washington's poodle, and is under probation. Too optimistic? Perhaps, but not necessarily impossible. The fact remains that the Americans do have a coherent war plan, and it may just work.


More Articles on The Threat of US War Against Iraq
More Articles on Iraq Crisis

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.