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

Skip to comments.

Iraq strike likely to be at short notice (duh alert)
hindustantimes.com ^ | Washington, July 21 2002 | Guardian News Service

Posted on 07/21/2002 1:25:55 PM PDT by AM2000

President George Bush has told US troops to be ready for "pre-emptive military action" against Iraq, as security sources warned that a massive assault against President Saddam Hussein could be likely at "short notice".

Whitehall sources have confirmed that Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided Britain must back a US assault and has ordered defence planners to begin the preparations for a new war in the Gulf.

"President Bush has already made up his mind. This is going to happen. It is a given," said one Whitehall source. "What we are waiting for is to be told the details of how and when and where."

Although Britain has not decided on its level of commitment, defence sources say planners have been told to expect to send 20,000-30,000 troops.

The sources added that British Challenger II main battle tanks and other key armoured fighting vehicles were being pushed through a crash servicing and refit programme.

Blair ordered the preparation of a document that would lay out the justification for attacking Iraq three months ago. Sources say the document has been completed.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: britain; iraq; saddam

1 posted on 07/21/2002 1:25:56 PM PDT by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jeremiah Jr; 2sheep; Dallas; dighton
The sources added that British Challenger II main battle tanks and other key armoured fighting vehicles were being pushed through a crash servicing and refit programme.

Hmmm?

2 posted on 07/21/2002 1:37:03 PM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeremiah Jr; 2sheep
Whitehall sources have confirmed that Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided Britain must back a US assault and has ordered defence planners to begin the preparations for a new war in the Gulf.

King to meet Blair in London

Amman (JT) - His Majesty King Abdullah will next week hold talks with
British Prime Minister Tony Blair in London on steps that can be taken to
advance peace efforts in the Middle East.

King Abdullah will visit London on the second leg of a three-country tour,
which will also take him to France and the United States.

"The focus of the talks will be what can be done to help the Palestinians
end their suffering in the shortterm and ensure the establishment of their
viable state as the pillar of regional peace
," the source told The Jordan
Times.

The source said King Abdullah will meet with President Jacques Chirac in
Paris later this week and will leave for Washington from London the week
after where he will discuss with President George Bush efforts to revive the
Middle East peace process.

Sunday, July 21, 2002

http://www.jordantimes.com/Sun/homenews/homenews1.htm

3 posted on 07/21/2002 1:41:21 PM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
"This is going to happen."

Always good to keep the enemy guessing, eh? Maybe the NYT can get some more details so the Iraquis can reposition their forces to kill more of our young men. Disgraceful.

I do agree that George W is going to try to seize the element of surprise, but how it will be accomplished I hope I don't find out until AFTER the attack.

4 posted on 07/21/2002 1:58:32 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
I hope to spit in your mess kit. Saddamit will be room temp before Chris Matthews has a chance to complain that the President doesn't have authority to attack!

5 posted on 07/21/2002 2:01:52 PM PDT by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal
Wow! Incredible catch! Thanks for posting that.

I've been puzzling over how to launch a ground invasion without giving it away beforehand with the massive logistical buildup. Ie, how do we maintain the element of surprise?

What I've finally come up with (this is just me, but the only thing I can figure) is, in Desert Storm we started by positioning all the troops and equipment, then when everything was in place we began bombing- for what a month?

But do we have to do it that way again? Perhaps if we just started major bombing without the troops being in position and then move the troops in position as quickly as possible once the bombing began? Maybe, we say "We're going to bomb for 60 days straight before we invade". That gives us 60 days to start hauling all our stuff over. Obviously, the troops could be moved quickly. But we already have an infrastructure in place that was not there for Gulf War One (GWO). We learned much from GWO that we had to learn on the spot then. We can apply that knowledge this time. I think we could put a pretty credible invasion force on the ground in 60 days. Particularly if we use assets like these tanks in Jordan. We also have several units worth (I won't specify the sizes) of armor stored in the Middle East that we could likewise do a crash maintenance course on- basically a lot of equipment is already there (I helped in the process of putting it there) and this is the type of situation for which it was intended.

The beauty of this is- Saddam would see us putting our pieces in place but couldn't do jacksh!t because he would be getting the bejesus bombed out of him the whole time. If he tried to move armor to the borders to shore 'em up, B-52s come along and flatten them. Plus in recent weeks we've destroyed some strategic targets of Saddam. About two a week on average. Radar sights, command centers. We're already prepping for something. This could be an option.

6 posted on 07/21/2002 2:10:06 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal; AM2000
Let us hope the Brits can do something with that abysmal SA-80 rifle. Latest government response is that the Marines failed to clean there weapons properly. This in response to NUMEROUS complaints from front-line Marines in Afghanistan who complained the weapon failed to function properly in "...extreme heat,cold, sand and dust."

Typical governmental response, at least to those of us in the military in the '60s. What a mess. That weapon should be scrapped. Adopt the M-16 or the Sig 550-52. It would be criminal to sent young men to war with the current piece of junk! Hell, give 'em back their FN FALs!

7 posted on 07/21/2002 2:14:28 PM PDT by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
The sources added that British Challenger II main battle tanks and other key armoured fighting vehicles were being pushed through a crash servicing and refit programme.

What am I missing here? The transport of main battle tanks is primarily by sealift. Only one can be carried one at a time either by C-5 or C-17. Which is a highly inefficient way to transport an armored division. It begs the question of short notice as it relates to what? The order to begin the 6-month long deployment it took for Gulf War I?

8 posted on 07/21/2002 2:27:07 PM PDT by ctonious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Don't forget the upgraded M1A2 battle tanks we have on "loan" to Saudi Arabia that are better than ours.

I don't know how many there are but it's more than we even own ourselves.
9 posted on 07/21/2002 3:31:27 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
But do we have to do it that way again? Perhaps if we just started major bombing without the troops being in position and then move the troops in position as quickly as possible once the bombing began? Maybe, we say "We're going to bomb for 60 days straight before we invade". That gives us 60 days to start hauling all our stuff over. Obviously, the troops could be moved quickly. But we already have an infrastructure in place that was not there for Gulf War One (GWO). We learned much from GWO that we had to learn on the spot then. We can apply that knowledge this time.

Great reply, PS. I sure like your thinking!!!

10 posted on 07/21/2002 3:49:42 PM PDT by Rightone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rightone
Great reply, PS. I sure like your thinking!!!

LOL! According to the wife- you should be amazed I'm thinking at all! ;-)

BTW, I'm not saying it's going to go down like that- but that's the only way I can really come up with to invade without giving away the element of surprise.

11 posted on 07/21/2002 4:44:57 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AM2000
No shi'ite!
12 posted on 07/21/2002 6:55:18 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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