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

Skip to comments.

Secret US plan for Iraq war
The Observer (U.K.) ^ | 12/02/2001 | Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver

Posted on 12/01/2001 4:24:48 PM PST by Pokey78

America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqi opposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt.

President George W. Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that could begin within months.

The plan, opposed by Tony Blair and other European Union leaders, threatens to blow apart the increasingly shaky international consensus behind the US-led 'war on terrorism'.

It envisages a combined operation with US bombers targeting key military installations while US forces assist opposition groups in the North and South of the country in a stage-managed uprising. One version of the plan would have US forces fighting on the ground.

Despite US suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 11 September attacks, the trigger for any attack, sources say, would be the anticipated refusal of Iraq to resubmit to inspections for weapons of mass destruction under the United Nations sanctions imposed after the Gulf war.

According to the sources, the planning is being undertaken under the auspices of a the US Central Command at McDill air force base in Tampa, Florida, commanded by General Tommy Franks, who is leading the war against Afghanistan.

Another key player is understood to be former CIA director James Woolsey. Sources say Woolsey was sent to London by the hawkish Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, soon after 11 September to ask Iraqi opposition groups if they would participate in an uprising if there was US military support.

The New York Times yesterday quoted a senior administration official who admitted that Bush's aides were looking at options that involved strengthening groups that opposed Saddam. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, said that action against Iraq was not imminent, but would come at a 'place and time of our choosing'.

Washington has been told by its allies that evidence it has presented of an Iraqi link to 11 September is at best circumstantial. However, US proponents of extending the war believe they can make the case for hitting Saddam's regime over its plan to produce weapons of mass destruction.

A European diplomat said last week: 'In the past week the Americans have shut up about Iraqi links to 11 September and have been talking a lot more about their weapons programme.'

The US is believed to be planning to exploit existing UN resolutions on Iraqi weapons programmes to set the action off.

Under the pre-existing 'red lines' for military action against Iraq - set down by Washington and London after the Gulf War - evidence of any credible threat from weapons of mass destruction would be regarded as sufficient to launch military strikes along the lines of Operation Desert Fox in 1998, when allied planes made large-scale strikes against suspected Iraqi weapons complexes.

Opposition by Blair and French President Jacques Chirac may not be enough to dissuade the Americans. One European military source who recently returned from General Franks's headquarters in Florida said: 'The Americans are walking on water. They think they can do anything at the moment and there is bloody nothing Tony [Blair] can do about it.'

Bush is said to have issued instructions about the proposals, which are now at a detailed stage, to his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, three weeks ago. But Pentagon sources say that a plan for attacking Iraq was developed by the time Bush's order was sent to the Pentagon, drawn up by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, chairman of the joint chiefs General Richard Myers, and Franks.

The plan is to work with a combination of three political forces: Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq, radical Sunni Muslim groups in and around Baghdad, and, most controversially, the Shia opposition in the south.

The most adventurous ingredient in the anti-Iraqi proposal is the use of US ground troops, Pentagon sources say. 'Significant numbers' of ground troops could also be called on in the early stages of any rebellion to guard oil fields around the Shia port of Basra in southern Iraq.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Pokey78
"The Observer has learnt."

What the h!#ll??

Regarding Iraq : LET'S ROLL!!

41 posted on 12/01/2001 7:04:37 PM PST by Vigilantcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OwenKellogg
I had to laugh at this also how SECRET are the plans when they are posted on the internet. This is hilarious.
42 posted on 12/01/2001 7:58:02 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OwenKellogg
I had to laugh at this also how SECRET are the plans when they are posted on the internet. This is hilarious.
43 posted on 12/01/2001 7:59:18 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CreekerFreeper
Ooooooh. Tough guy. About like Pee Wee Herman.
44 posted on 12/01/2001 8:01:43 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I propose that we institute our nuclear weapons reduction policy by dropping all of the surplus on Baghdad--fully armed, of course.
45 posted on 12/01/2001 8:06:24 PM PST by calmseas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Well it was a secret
46 posted on 12/01/2001 8:10:47 PM PST by classygreeneyedblonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Vast Right Wing
Hard lesson emerging for the Europeans is that while we have saved them from themselves for a century or more, we are not obliged to. The corollary is that they suppose that because saving them is sometimes in our interests, and being saved is in theirs, our interests and theirs are more convergent than they actually are. The Cold War of our immediate recollection is probably over; Europe could give us little except some advanced bases for that one, but those bases were of some considerable value. More and more they have less and less to offer. Humiliating to be so irrelevant.
47 posted on 12/01/2001 8:13:55 PM PST by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mrb1960
DON'T POST MILITARY INFORMATION HERE

The main point they wished to make in the newspaper article is that the international consensus is coming apart. This point is in error 2 ways. First, America is free to conduct the war as it sees fit. Second, there never was an international consensus.

The real question is which terrorist group of global reach [TGOGR] will be struck and destroyed next. Everyone has the list.

48 posted on 12/01/2001 8:15:44 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: classygreeneyedblonde
Do you really think an anti-American leftist paper like the British Observer/Guardian is going to get their hands on authentic American Military plans and blab them all over the world, when there are anti-American leftist papers right here like the New York Times with 1000 times more contacts in this government and who would sell Maureen Dowd into prostitution for a look at those plans?
50 posted on 12/01/2001 8:18:35 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This is gonna happen, I think. El Presidente doesn't want to go down in history as the 21st Century Herbert Hoover. War is a marvelous distraction from a depression. We will win militarily (assuming the Russians and Chinese stay out), but once the "dogs of war" are on the loose, all sorts of unintended consequences can erupt, including a last-ditch WMD attack on Israel by an Iraq going down in flames.
51 posted on 12/01/2001 8:18:46 PM PST by longleaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I wouldn't put anything past the left
52 posted on 12/01/2001 8:31:19 PM PST by classygreeneyedblonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
Haven't I heard this sort of thing before, about how shaky the coalition is and how Tony Blair opposes US plans? What are they, a broken record?

A coalition of one.

It could be quite effective.

53 posted on 12/01/2001 8:46:28 PM PST by Faraday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Faraday
I think you're on to something.
54 posted on 12/01/2001 8:58:39 PM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Well, I guess I OFFEND. Tell you what let's all commit SEDITION? There were others on that thread that objected to that. I merely am expressing an opinion about what is U.S. law on seditious/treasonous activity in times of war. I guess I'll be banned for expressing something not in lock-step with the rulers of FreeRepublic.
55 posted on 12/01/2001 8:59:21 PM PST by CreekerFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: CreekerFreeper
Your previous post reminded me of something out of an old Nazi movie. Glad to see you softening up a little, Herr Kreeker.
56 posted on 12/01/2001 9:03:00 PM PST by codeword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: a merkin; Chapita
If they ban FR then IMHO they are all socialist liberal Clintonista supporters no doubt still recounting the Floriduhhhh ballots and won't be missed from society or FR sites.......

Your 100% correct Chapita, Piss on em...... Stay Safe !

57 posted on 12/01/2001 9:03:14 PM PST by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: codeword
ZEIG HEIL, FREEPER. LOL
58 posted on 12/01/2001 9:05:55 PM PST by CreekerFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
Your 100% correct Chapita, Piss on em......

All this fascination with water sports....Kinda makes me wonder. Are there some preeverts on this thread? :)

59 posted on 12/01/2001 9:07:33 PM PST by codeword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
I say, that just for the general good of mankind, Saddam Hussein should be deposed, whether he was involved in September 11 or not.

Where in the Constitution does it say America has to use its military to depose foreign leaders "for the good of mankind?" Messing about in the internal politics of another country can't even rightfully be done "for the good of Americans." There is a principle called national sovereignty that I hold dear. The more that principle is ignored, the greater the danger to our own sovereignty someday.

60 posted on 12/01/2001 9:11:15 PM PST by wildconservatism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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