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.
Chapitas a good man, and IMHO he's correct on his solution to the problem ........
AMEN
President Bush is serious about protecting our citizens, and those of our allies, from the terror of Iraqi WMD.
What the f*** are you talking about? I had to leave a few stores because they were so crowded today. Recession my ass.
I know that acknowledging this would completely dismantle your carefully constructed religion of isolationism (yes, it is a religion to you as evidenced by your compelte devotion and obsession to the concept to the exclusion of all other possible realities), but you are most certainly starting to look like a complete, irrational fool for the sake of your simplistic beliefs and misguided desire to continue hiding in your closet.
This worked well against the taliban so lets try it on Saddamned.
The Turks?
Of course,like terrorist KLA they share your values????
Why is that,my friend,that America braggs all the time about liberty,freedom and human rights,and,at the same time,hates everyone who tries to think with his/her own brain and be indenpendent???You have a monopoly on freedom,or what?
Such a nice example of Christian solidarity:USA and Turks!Go for it!
And,one more thing:one of the most important tasks on this ,alleged ,war against "Evil Sadam" is to "secure Iraqi oil filds,first!
Amongst decent people it is called : robbery or theft!
Hussein has shown a willingness to use biogical weapons on his own people...what's to stop him from doing that to squash any uprising from within?
not even a chance of replay. this we'll win quickly, in terms of toppling. whether what remains will be stable or liquid will be seen. i believe it will be very popular in iraq and thus successful, even if a few radical elements launch wimp shots. but what else can we do? the threat there won't go away unless we take it out, they've already declared their intentions through their actions.
of course the liberal media (what a phrase) is going to nay-say and counter-hype, but this is to be expected. GWB is the most forceful leader we have had in decades.
Would you like to take care of this this personally?
yes
i'm tired of this. &I'm not a nazi youth, history has taught me how dangerous blind faith can be. but "might for right" is something we say in my classes, and our cause now is no passing right.
common sense knows the threats we face now are more insidious than the aggregate good that sticking absolutely to democratic principles might bring. it's time to re-examine the idea that giving away freedoms is a bad idea in every circumstance. nevermind j.s. mill. i say, we'll preserve our sovereignty by sacrificing now. i will fight to regain liberties lost, but i'm willing to give away some now to stay alive.
(sarcasm) we must rid ourselves of the bacillus threat we face overseas. (/sarcasm)
someone please tell me how i'm wrong.
i'm tired of this. &I'm not a nazi youth, history has taught me how dangerous blind faith can be. but "might for right" is something we say in my classes, and our cause now is no passing right.
common sense knows the threats we face now are more insidious than the aggregate good that sticking absolutely to democratic principles might bring. it's time to re-examine the idea that giving away freedoms is a bad idea in every circumstance. nevermind j.s. mill. i say, we'll preserve our sovereignty by sacrificing now. i will fight to regain liberties lost, but i'm willing to give away some now to stay alive.
(sarcasm) we must rid ourselves of the bacillus threat we face overseas. (/sarcasm)
someone please tell me how i'm wrong.
by the way, i'm paulsy, not laura. i'm posting these things from laura's account accidentally.
Yes, I don't doubt that. And I don't doubt who it will be used on: Israel. Nor do I doubt why the U.S. would be dragged in to defend Israel. The key question to ask is, "who benefits" from U.S. intervention. All answers point toward Tel Aviv.
Open your eyes and quit being so stubbornly naive. Your SDI isn't here and it won't be B4 Saddam, who wants you dead, tries something.
I'm proud of my stubborn nature. I won't bend where others in the past have. SDI can be here if we have the will to make it happen. In the meantime, pulling America out of the Middle East will buy us time and get us off the Arab radar screen.
Saddam never had to be our enemy. We were the ones that decided to play globocop in his dispute with Kuwait. Had we not given him our ultimatums and attacked him, it would have been business as usual, Iraq would not have seen the U.S. as an enemy.
If we had a President tomorrow who made a speech announcing that America has new leadership, a fundamentally different direction than the past, a nationalist government that puts America first and does not seek to intervene in the internal politics or wars of other states, I truly believe the Islamic fundamentalists would refocus their ire toward Israel, where it belongs since they're there in that region, instead of at us. Osama himself stated that in a 1998 ABC News interview with John Miller. I know some might say, "why believe him," but I doubt a terrorist would lie about his political goals--terrorists have to state their demands in order to be effective terrorists. He wants us to leave the Middle East and cut Israel loose. I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd have done it long before 9/11--and 9/11 would never have happened.
Maybe the strategy is already working then.
However, if you look at the overall numbers, you will see that the economy is still shrinking and people are being laid off at rates not seen in 20 years. It seems to me a lot of this buying is being done on credit cards. The phrase "hair of the dog that bit you" comes to mind.
Also, the stores from which the stuff is bought are importing most of it from China and deeply discounting it.
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.