Global Policy Forum

Ministers Favor Siege of Baghdad

Print

By Patrick Wintour and Ewen MacAskill

Guardian
December 17, 2002

The British government is opposing a military strategy in Iraq of fighting for Baghdad street by street in favour of winning control of the more vulnerable north and south of the country, according to Whitehall sources.


A pincer movement from the Kurdish-controlled north and the Shia south would undermine the political authority of the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, hopefully leading to the internal collapse of his government. This siege option is being discussed in Whitehall.

Ministers concede they have had to wait until relatively late for a coherent military strategy from the US, but appear to be convinced that an all-out ground war against Baghdad or a foreign occupation was no longer a frontrunner. They are fervently opposed to the idea of hand-to-hand fighting to win control of the capital, a city with a population of 5 million.

Cabinet sources also deny they are under pressure to make a definitive decision on the timing of any military offensive at this stage. They insist that the US and Britain could conduct a war in the heat of the summer or later, denying there is a deadline to act by spring.

Reports at the weekend suggested defence chiefs have been demanding a decision from Tony Blair on war in the next 10 days so that a British armoured division can be sent to the frontline, probably Kuwait. It might take six to eight weeks to deploy an armoured division there.

But ministers are aware that the military's desire to send troops as a precaution does not sit well with the state of British domestic politics.

Different parts of Whitehall have been making contradictory predictions about the likelihood of war.

The Ministry of Defence has been hinting off the record about war early next year, in February or March.

The MoD has been speculating about various scenarios, including concentrating on air power. "Accuracy is much better now than in 1991 [the last Gulf war]. We can take out anything that moves," a defence source said.

But the Foreign Office has been briefing that peace is still possible and that the UN weapons inspectors have to be given an opportunity to check out the claims in the declaration made by Iraq, in which it denied having any weapons of mass destruction left.

A Downing Street source, echoing the Foreign Office line, said: "It could be late next year before anything, if at all, happens."

In Washington, there are similar divisions. The US state department said the US president, George Bush, was prepared to be patient and allow the weapons inspectors to complete their work.

The Iraqis produced a declaration on their weapons of mass destruction on December 7 in line with the demands set by the UN security council. Whitehall officials have said the dossier is disappointing and contains gaps, but one minister close to the process said there was not yet a single damaging piece of information that could be described as representing a material breach of UN resolution 1441 on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

One minister said the government was still looking for what is described as a lucky break - a defector or a piece of information, perhaps from someone close to the Iraqi border.

Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, is expected to give his preliminary assessment of the declaration on Thursday when the five permanent members of the security council are to give their opinion on the assessment.

Although ministers are willing to countenance a war on Iraq conducted by the US and Britain, without explicit United Nations support, the strong preference remains to win the backing of the UN.

They believe President Bush has at least in the case of Iraq warmed towards the multilateralist cause, including the support he is winning for his approach from western political leaders at summits such as the recent Nato gathering.


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.