Iraq:  Troops Will Abandon Hussein, Exiles Say

A major U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would not be necessary because the Iraqi military would not support President Saddam Hussein, several Iraqi exiles said yesterday during a conference of exiles in London.

“Morale is at a disastrous level, and the troops are sick of continuous war,” said former Major General Najib al-Salhi.  “Saddam will find himself surrounded by a few hundred soldiers.  The United States appears to be preparing all options, such as land war, covert operations, special forces … It will not need all of this” (Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Reuters/Yahoo.com, July 14).

“The army will defect, even those closest to Saddam,” former Col. Hamed al-Ziadi said.

Iraq’s former head of psychological warfare Brig. Gen. Saad al-Ubaidi, however, said ousting Hussein might be more difficult.

“Most Iraqi officers hate Saddam, but he remains very strong,” he said.  “Even if you make a joke with a friend about Saddam, they will kill you” (John Burns, New York Times, July 14).

Instead of launching a large-scale military campaign against Iraq, the United States should focus on removing President Saddam Hussein from power, many exiles said (see GSN, July 11).

“Any campaign must be limited to toppling Saddam.  The army will not defend him and neither will the Republican Guard,” al-Salhi said.  “The United States will not find support inside or outside Iraq for an offensive that would harm civilians, destroy infrastructure and target troops not defending the regime.”

Some of the opposition leaders also expressed concern that the United States and United Kingdom might help persuade Iraqis to revolt against Hussein but then abandon them as at the end of the Gulf War  (Kim Sengupta, London Independent, July 15).

Exiles Call on Iraqi Military

Several Iraqi opposition leaders focused attention on persuading Iraqi military officers to prepare for a U.S.-led attempt to force Hussein from power.

“We are sending a message to the Iraqi military that there is life for them after Saddam, that they must not fear change,” said Ahmed Chalabi, head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (see GSN, Feb. 12).  “We want them to know that when the moment comes for a military move to bring about a change of regime, they should either join us or stay home” (Burns, New York Times).

The meeting attendees agreed yesterday to establish a military council in exile devoted to overthrowing Hussein.  The 15-man council, which will include former senior military officials representing a range of backgrounds, will focus on replacing Hussein with a democratic government, according to the Financial Times (Jimmy Burns, Financial Times, July 14).

Between Large and Small Offensive

Meanwhile, some U.S. strategists are considering an option between a large-scale invasion of 250,000 troops and a small-scale campaign involving air strikes and local opposition forces, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, July 8).  The middle-ground approach would use between 50,000 and 75,000 troops — far fewer than the 500,000 U.S. troops used in the Gulf War, a defense official said.

Advocates for the midsized force said that the United States no longer needs a larger force due to technological advancements.

“The smaller force should be sufficient because the U.S. military is an order of magnitude better than it was 10 years ago,” said Daniel Goure, a senior analyst at the Lexington Institute.  The Iraqi military, on the other hand, is “an order of magnitude worse,” he said (Jaffe, Wall Street Journal).

Would Hussein Use Weapons of Mass Destruction?

At the conference, al-Salhi dismissed concerns that Hussein might use chemical or biological weapons (see GSN, June 21).  Iraq lacks the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction, he said (Reuters/New York Times).

Former Iraqi intelligence chief Wafiq al-Sammarrai, however, said a large-scale U.S. land war against Iraq would leave Hussein with no option other than using weapons of mass destruction.

“The U.S. should know that Saddam will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction on American military groupings.  Diplomacy is the only choice for the United States,” he said, adding that if diplomacy fails, the United States should attempt an intelligence operation aimed only against the regime (Sengupta, London Independent).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Pentagon Plan Focuses on Pre-Emption, High-Tech Tools

Classified Pentagon guidelines for the U.S. military over the next five years focus on improving abilities to respond to WMD threats, to carry out pre-emptive strikes and to fight Afghanistan-style conflicts, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday (see GSN, May 8).

The guidelines, contained in an annually updated report called Defense Planning Guidance, call on officials to focus spending on five areas:  intelligence, cyberwarfare, airstrike capabilities, military systems in space and counterterrorism and combating WMD threats, the Times reported.

The report shifts previous military strategy, reflecting recent statements by U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that emphasize the need to attack potential enemies before they can strike at U.S. forces or territory, according to the Times (see GSN, June 7; John Hendren, Los Angeles Times, July 13).

Launching “unwarned” strikes against U.S. enemies is the main tool for responding to potential threats, according to the report.  It focuses on a more “interventionist, proactive strategy,” defense analyst William Arkin wrote in the Times.  The plan “envisions the U.S. military as a global strike force capable of unilateral action anywhere, any time, with minimal risk to American lives,” Arkin wrote.

Pre-Emptive Strike Tools

The Pentagon report calls for developing certain weapons and intelligence capabilities that would enhance the military’s ability to launch first strikes.  For example, the report recommends developing by 2009 a Mach 10 hypersonic missile that could travel 600 nautical miles in 15 minutes or less, providing capability to hit mobile missiles such as the Iraqi Scud shortly after launch and before the launcher could move (see GSN, July 8).

The plan also calls for deploying 12 unmanned combat aircraft that could drop a variety of weapons by 2012.  It calls for accelerating development of nuclear-armed earth penetrators that could infiltrate deeply buried bunkers in three rogue countries simultaneously (see GSN, March 29).  It also recommends developing laser and microwave weapons capable of attacking underground targets (William Arkin, Los Angeles Times, July 14).

The guidelines state the need for improved intelligence to warn of growing crises, to identify targets and to monitor military campaigns (Hendren, Los Angeles Times).

Missile Defense

Although the plan’s focus on pre-emptive attacks overshadows the Bush administration’s earlier emphasis on anti-missile defenses, the plan still supports continuing missile defense development, Arkin wrote.  It calls for continuing other current efforts to protect the United States, particularly from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Criticism

Although the Pentagon plan embraces Rumsfeld’s idea of military transformation, it could actually slow the transformation process, Arkin wrote.  The relationship that Rumsfeld and his close advisers have with military officers is not good, he added.

Another problem is that the plan emphasizes pre-emptive intervention in countries such as Afghanistan but does not provide a way out, Arkin said.  The plan indicates a belief that the campaign in Afghanistan was successful and could serve as a model for future military efforts, but it ignores the political difficulties that have followed the Taliban’s overthrow, he wrote (Arkin, Los Angeles Times).

Some other defense analysts expressed concern that the Pentagon document reflects a belief in “push-button warfare” that involves few U.S. casualties. 

“It’s this concept that we can sit in our air-conditioned bunkers and push buttons,” said Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution.

“That leads to the absurd decision to fight a Kosovo war without a ground component.  It leads to relying on insurgents and precision strikes to overthrow [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein].  It’s absurd to think that that’s the way we ought to fight warfare in each and every circumstance,” Daalder said.

“Wars are still fought and won in the old-fashioned way:  by killing more of the others than they kill of you.  And by taking territories,” he added (Hendren, Los Angeles Times).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP