War Plan in Iraq Sees Large Force and Quick Strikes

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — President Bush has settled on a war plan for Iraq that would begin with an air campaign shorter than the one for the Persian Gulf war, senior administration officials say. It would feature swift ground actions to seize footholds in the country and strikes to cut off the leadership in Baghdad.

The plan, approved in recent weeks by Mr. Bush well before the Security Council's unanimous vote on Friday to disarm Iraq, calls for massing 200,000 to 250,000 troops for attack by air, land and sea. The offensive would probably begin with a "rolling start" of substantially fewer forces, Pentagon and military officials say.

Mr. Bush, speaking at a news conference on Thursday, did not discuss the secret process for planning a possible war, but he noted that if military action was required to compel Iraq to disarm, the United States and its allies would "move swiftly with force to do the job."

The plan calls for the quick capture of land within Iraq, which would be used as bases to funnel American forces deeper into the country. That approach is intended to relieve some of the diplomatic pressure created by massing troops and initiating attacks from neighboring countries, including Saudi Arabia.

Under the plan, United States and coalition forces could operate out of such forward bases in northern, western and southern Iraq, building on lessons learned in Afghanistan, where the military seized a similar outpost south of Kandahar.

As the Pentagon puts the finishing touches on a plan of attack, White House and State Department officials are discussing what one senior official called a "seamless transition" from attack to a military occupation of parts of the country. It would include efforts to deliver food to Iraqis and to engage them quickly in planning for economic development and eventual democracy in areas that President Saddam Hussein has terrorized.

Meanwhile, Iraqi scientists and local military officials would be encouraged to reveal the location of hidden stores of weapons of mass destruction, a process Mr. Bush publicly encouraged from the Rose Garden on Friday when he told Iraqis that "by helping the process of disarmament, they help their country."

One senior official, drawing on comparisons with the American occupation of Japan in 1945, said, "Our message will be that the faster we find the weapons and arrest Saddam's guys, the faster they get some normalcy."

Mr. Bush, after several war-planning meetings with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of American forces in the gulf, has decided that military action in Iraq would be carried out with the large troop levels that General Franks has consistently advocated. Even so, Mr. Bush can still maintain the formal position that no decision has been reached because he has not yet ordered the nation to war.

Even as the United Nations weapons inspectors prepare to fly to Iraq, the American military is moving into a new phase of positioning logistical forces that military officials say are significant indicators of a movement toward war.

The Army is loading tugboats, forklifts and other cargo-handling equipment onto the Tern, a giant cargo ship in Hampton Roads, Va., that is bound for the gulf to prepare ports for the arrival of tanks and other armored equipment.

But the orders to send those heavy ground forces have not been given. "We have a lot of things teed up to go if the big guys decide to send it," said one senior Defense Department official. "But no green lights yet."

The plan still has some moving parts, senior administration officials said, but it calls for 200,000 to 250,000 troops — several Army and Marine divisions, aircraft carriers and Air Force wings. The only ally expected to contribute significant ground forces is Britain, with several thousand troops expected to participate.

"There were options within the plan, but there has only been one plan," one military officer said. "They have settled on the bulk of it." But the officer said the war plan maintains flexibility over the final deployment of troops in order to cope with a range of Iraqi responses.

The entire troop total may not necessarily be in the region when the offensive begins. The bulk of the force would probably stand ready in case of battlefield setbacks and be poised to occupy parts of Iraq as soon as resistance ends.

Under the plan, the air campaign would be less than the 43 days of the first gulf war, and probably under a month, military officials said.

In the opening hours of the air campaign, Navy and Air Force jets, including B-2 bombers carrying 16 one-ton satellite-guided bombs and B-1 bombers carrying 24 of the same weapons, would attack a range of targets from military headquarters to air defenses. Only 9 percent of the weapons dropped in the gulf war were precision-guided; this time, the figure would be well in excess of 60 percent, allowing more effective bombing with fewer total aircraft, officials say.

The campaign would quickly seek to cut off the country's leadership in Baghdad and a few other important command centers in hopes of causing a rapid collapse of the government, officials said.

As in Afghanistan, Special Operations forces would infiltrate Iraq early in the campaign to designate targets, to destroy sites holding weapons of mass destruction, and to seize other objectives to prevent Mr. Hussein from slowing the American assault by flooding the marshes in southern Iraq or igniting the country's vast oil fields, officials said.

Because the United States wants to help transform Iraq quickly into a liberated nation, the air campaign would be carried out to avoid the major destruction of the gulf war. The campaign would try to avoid destroying important city services and alienating the civilian population, and would also encourage Iraqi troops to defect. The targets of a bombing campaign would be the specific pillars of power holding up Iraq's government, like leadership headquarters and Mr. Hussein's sprawling presidential compounds.

"While we would not want to kill many Iraqi soldiers, if they stupidly fight, we will," a senior military official said.

Pentagon officials say the war plan does not envision a clean break between the end of an air campaign and the opening of a ground offensive, as in the first gulf war. Instead, ground operations would be more likely to be woven into the opening stages of the air war, with the aerial bombardment continuing "as long as we find targets," one official said.

The "inside-out" approach of attacking centers of power first aims to capitalize on the American military's ability to strike at long distances and to maneuver forces rapidly to neutralize a large target. One important aim would be to disrupt Mr. Hussein's ability to order the use of weapons of mass destruction. Another would be to wrest control of Baghdad from Iraqi forces without getting bogged down in block-by-block urban warfare.

But Mr. Hussein has proven to be a vicious adversary, and senior administration officials have mounted a campaign to warn Iraq's military commanders that they will be charged with war crimes if they unleash weapons of mass destruction. This week, Mr. Bush hinted at another concern, that the Iraqi government would purposefully sacrifice its population to stain an American military victory with civilian blood.

"The generals in Iraq must understand clearly there will be consequences for their behavior," Mr. Bush said on Thursday. "Should they choose, if force is necessary, to behave in a way that endangers the lives of their own citizens, as well as citizens in the neighborhood, there will be a consequence. They will be held to account."

Mr. Bush did not say so specifically, but veteran analysts of the Iraqi government say Mr. Hussein is preparing thousands of civilian volunteers to fill "martyrs' brigades" and offer up their lives to bombs and advancing troops even though it is unclear how many would follow through.

Some of these volunteers would hope to slow the American-led offensive by acting as suicide bombers or fighting in neighborhood defense squads, but their true strategic goal would be to generate anti-American feelings in the region.

"There is no consideration about them triumphing over an enemy, but a second definition of victory," said Yossef Bodansky, author of "The High Cost of Peace: How Washington's Middle East Policy Left America Vulnerable to Terrorism." "What Saddam is saying to himself is, `I'll give them real civilian bodies, real civilian blood on Al Jazeera or CNN.' "

The move to war has already raised concerns of terrorist reprisals in the United States, and senior Pentagon officials said they anticipate a mobilization of the National Guard and Reserves equal to or larger than the 265,000 called to active duty in the first gulf war.

Most of these reserve forces would be assigned to guard sites like military installations, civilian power plants and airports, although some would be assigned to guard bases overseas and certain specialties would be required for the Iraqi offensive. Several units have been notified that they may be summoned to duty as early as January.

In another sign of the total force that may be involved in offensive action and post-war occupation of Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld has presented the White House with a plan to inoculate as many as 500,000 service members against smallpox. Mr. Bush has not yet decided on the vaccinations, which could have serious, even fatal, side effects for a small percentage of those receiving the vaccine.

The timetable for a war in Iraq is closely tied to the requirements laid out in the Security Council's resolution and to Mr. Hussein's compliance. The last deadline is Feb. 21, when inspectors are to report their findings to the Security Council. Military planners say the longer nights and moderate weather then are optimal for war.

"The task the international community now faces is to determine what choice Saddam Hussein will make," Mr. Rumsfeld said on Friday. "Has he accepted, finally, that he has no choice left but to disarm, or as before, has he simply made a tactical retreat in the hope of keeping his weapons-of-mass-destruction aspirations alive?"

Unlike 1991, this war is going to be painful. If this "plan" is a correct statement of our intentions, we are landing US soldiers to hold fixed positions--the oilfields, the watercourses to the swamps of Southern Iraq, etc.

Soldiers in fixed positions are sitting ducks for Anthrax and nerve gas attacks, unless our PAC-3 systems are a lot better than the patriot missles from the Gulf war or unless our plan for getting to their mobile launchers is a lot better than in 1991. Saddam knows it is the endgame. So there is little stopping him from giving the launch order.

Once Saddam launches WMD, the grim calculus of WMD's almost requires us to use our own WMD (at least on a limited basis). If we don't, our credibility is at issue--that is, the next guy won't believe we will use them either. The political fallout from that will be huge.

That said, we have to do this now. We will eventually have to go to war with this man, if not today, then in five or ten years. In five years, we will be figuring out how to defend against nuclear attack on our ground troops. We should not expect this to be easy or casualties to be low. The president should prepare the American people for this very real possibility.

First on the target list:

Huge bunker busters will destroy all of Saddam's "palaces" .... and hundreds of other military targets ! The first attack will take about 3 hours from start to finish. B-52's unleash hell from the skies.

Think Bush ought to ignore Rama-damma-ding-dong. This is war.

KAAAABOOOOOOM !

"Mr. Bush did not say so specifically, but veteran analysts of the Iraqi government say Mr. Hussein is preparing thousands of civilian volunteers to fill "martyrs' brigades" and offer up their lives to bombs and advancing troops even though it is unclear how many would follow through."

This must be a muslim tactic, planned by Saddam, and agreed with by Arafat and the Iranian mullahs.

Part of the muslim martry stratergy, of warfare. To be used, only if the scud missiles miss Israel, and if the germ spreading equipment is taken out.

As usual, Saddam will be at the front with his troops (not) and not in the rear, running from hiding place to hiding place.

Oh Allah, protect these brave muslim leaders.

You bring up some valid points, but I think you're making a few incorrect assumptions. I have thought since last year the whole issue of bases and staging areas was overblown because the US will bomb the Iraqis until there is little to no threat within each specific region we aim to occupy and then set up bases (or take over existing bases) once we have waited out Saddam, picked off any weapons that could threaten these areas, and Iraq has fired their remaining Scuds. THEN we move in to occupy and operate from locations within Iraq. I think you'll see the US setting up bases early on in the North and after a few weeks of bombing in the South. I think as we liberate these areas you'll see a pretty sizeable (Iraqi) public support for our arrival - especially in the areas that have been religiously oppressed since Saddam has wielded power.

This strategy keeps large numbers of our troops out of harms way during the most dangerous phase of the war (the beginning), allows us to operate on our own terms with a largely friendly population once we've established safe regions (the middle part of the war) and allows us to close the noose by securing more regions with the hope that the population in the larger cities and Baghdad learn that their leader's rule is collapsing (the end). If the population doesn't chase him and his men into the Vatican embassy, or Kofi broker an escape clause to another country, we would go in.

The only big problems we'd face is if another country entered the fray on Iraq's side unexpectedly (not likely), Saddam used WMD against against US troops, neighbors or Israel (possible), or Saddam set about to kill his own people in the urban centers with WMD or otherwise to blame it on the US (very likely IMO).

Regardless of how this plays out, it's a necessary evil that must be confronted.

Massing 200,000 to 250,000 soldiers ... WHERE?

Saudi Arabia? Nope. Turkey? Nope. Syria? Give me a break. Jordan? Any more than the handful of commandos training there would get Abdullah overthrown. Bahrain? Possibly not, from recent reports. Iran? Heh heh heh.

That pretty much leaves Kuwait and Qatar, and I doubt they're prepared to handle it. Especially with Kuwait, where the U.S. troops would paint a nice nearby red bulls-eye for the Iraqis on the country during the buildup.

How the hell do you invade when you have no land to invade FROM? By hydrofoils from Diego Garcia? (We're renting them from the Australians, but they ain't moving a quarter-million men.) And this is not going across a few dozen miles of English Channel.

How the hell do you invade when you have no land to invade FROM? By hydrofoils from Diego Garcia? (We're renting them from the Australians, but they ain't moving a quarter-million men.) And this is not going across a few dozen miles of English Channel.

Airhead.

Fly most of the groundpounders in from bases in Eurotrashland, CONUS, Turkey, and Diego Garcia.

You do it while the air campaign is underway. This is an expansion of the old AirLand Battle 2000 doctrine, only you do everything at once to keep the Generals guessing. You know what Saddam is going to do, but the object of the exercise is to make an example of the Guard divisions with air bombardment so that the grunts don't have to do hard fighting with the Iraqi "regulars" (who, btw, probably are not paid all that well, if at all...).

"Martyr's Brigades" my ass. Very few Iraqis will want to martyr themselves for Saddam if we make them a generous counteroffer.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

I don't agree with your assessment of this conflict. The US is not going to place troops in fixed positions so biological or chemical weapons can do their work.

Most of the military and citizens of Iraq hate Saddam. My opinion is that the US is going directly for him, his family, and his most loyal generals. If the head of the snake is removed, the snake dies.

We will probably start with a ferocious air campaign against strategic targets (possible chemical warehouses, presidential palaces, republican guard barracks and units). We then cut all supply lines in/out of Baghdad including electricity and water. If Saddam is not finished by then, we wait until the rat sticks his head out. After some time, citizens and captured troops will begin pointing to where Saddam may be hiding.

I've got to wonder that if Saddam uses WMD, will Bush retailiate with tactical nukes. This could turn world opinion heavily against us, but if he doesn't do something, US opinion could turn on Bush.

I agree with you, that no matter what happens, we've got to do this now and not wait. God bless the President and our troops!

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.