Posted on 06/20/2002 2:53:46 PM PDT by Axion
Iraqi Arms-Buying Spree Geared Toward Quick, Heavy Impact Summary
20 June 2002
Facing a likely U.S. attack as well as an arms shortage, Iraq is scrambling to procure the kinds of weapons systems that would reduce Washington's strategic advantage. This includes air-defense missiles, guidance equipment for surface-to-surface missiles and upgrades for ground forces' weapons. The U.S.-enforced arms embargo will preclude Iraq from getting enough new weapons to stop a U.S. offensive, but several surprises may await U.S. forces if a war does break out.
Analysis
According to media reports, Iraqi opposition sources have said that a delegation led by Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Hikmat al-Azzawi that went to Ukraine this week is likely shopping for weapons. This follows other recent media reports about Iraqi arms purchases as well as the alleged smuggling of components for weapons of mass destruction.
The credibility of many of these reports is suspect to some degree. But using government and business sources in states traditionally suspected of helping Iraq to re-arm, STRATFOR has concluded at this point that Iraq is procuring weapons systems -- such as advanced conventional weapons rather than nuclear capabilities -- that would more immediately affect the outcome of a war with the United States. It is specifically seeking to enhance its air-defense capabilities, improve its ground-to-ground missiles and upgrade major battlefield weapons systems for ground forces.
The U.S.-enforced arms embargo against Iraq will preclude Baghdad from getting enough weapons to sufficiently repulse a U.S. attack. But in the event of a war, U.S. forces will face several surprises, such as new Iraqi weapons its army has not yet used.
Despite continuing debate within the Bush administration, an attack on Iraq to replace President Saddam Hussein is still in the planning stages. A possible attempt by Saddam to put his son Qusai in charge would complicate and possibly delay the U.S. offensive, but not stave it off.
So while Iraq is still trying to enlist international and regional support to counter Washington's plans, it expects and is making preparations for a U.S. offensive. Baghdad's war options include inflicting irreparable losses to American forces, extending the war for an indefinite time -- bogging U.S. forces down -- and dragging Israel and other Arab states into the battle.
For any of these to work, Iraq needs better weapons. Baghdad likely wishes it had an existing WMD program, but it does not. Chemical and biological weapons would cause severe damage to U.S. troops, but would also end Baghdad's hopes of getting other Arab states to side against Washington. Either way, such weapons would not stop U.S. bombs and missiles and might even cause the Bush administration to sanction the use of nuclear weapons.
So as in the Gulf War, conventional arms will decide the fate of the battle. Once again the United States has overwhelming superiority. But Iraq still sees a chance to acquire and use weapons systems that would inflict enough losses on U.S. forces to reduce Washington's advantage and make a victory for Baghdad possible.
The Iraqi military command believes that the above goal can be achieved if three tasks are accomplished: air defenses are significantly enhanced to seriously reduce U.S. air superiority, surface-to-surface missiles can reliably hit targets outside Iraq and the Iraqi army has effective weapons to destroy significant numbers of the U.S. soldiers and materiel on the battlefield.
Rather than a nuclear program that may never become operational, these three capabilities could make a difference in a future war. This is why Baghdad gives a priority in its arms-buying efforts to advanced conventional capabilities, not WMD-related exports.
The Iraqi command believes U.S. ground forces will not be able to advance in Iraq if deprived of the powerful air support they enjoy. U.S. planes and missiles on their own also can bomb Iraq with impunity -- so far only unmanned aircraft have been shot down by Iraqis after the end of Gulf War. This is why Baghdad is busy shopping for any equipment that could enhance its comparatively weak air defenses.
Pressure from Washington already dissuades even countries not allied with the United States from selling air-defense missiles with longer ranges to Baghdad. But the main blow to Iraq's hopes was recently dealt by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who following his deepening alliance with Washington post-Sept. 11 refused to give Baghdad Russian-made S-400 and improved S-300 air-defense systems. Missiles from these middle-range systems are able to hit up to eight out of 10 targets, including cruise missiles.
Unable to get new air-defense missiles, Iraq is trying hard to buy new radars, mainly the Ukraine-made Kolchuga radar. This middle-range radar is probably the best of its kind, compact enough to be hidden in a jeep and able to locate virtually any target in air and at sea at a range of 60 miles even if it has stealth technology protection. It can also be located only by satellite intelligence.
However, the results of a special U.N. investigation requested by Ukraine show that the government has never supplied Kolchuga or other armaments or military products to Iraq. It is not known what state or organization is accusing Ukraine of selling arms to Iraq, but the U.S. State Department formally warned Kiev April 29 that the United States would take appropriate action if it found that Ukraine had sold the radars to Iraq, Agence France-Presse reports.
And though U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said May 15 that Washington has no proof that Ukraine sold arms or high-tech military equipment to Baghdad, it will remain suspicious. For its part the Ukraine government is too afraid of antagonizing Washington to sell such systems to Baghdad; since last spring it has banned Ukrainian arms producers, except one tank-maker, from selling their production abroad. However, it is still possible that some Ukrainian arms ended up in Iraq through a chain of third countries.
Baghdad is also trying to improve the precision of its Scud and possibly other surface-to-surface missiles. First, for Iraq to ever stand a chance militarily against the United States, it has to hit U.S. forces and ships outside Iraq and hit them hard.
In the Gulf War, the only time Iraq was able to do this was when a Scud missile hit a U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 18 soldiers. Iraq has made it a priority to get the guidance systems for Scuds and other ground missiles from abroad. It also wants to make its missiles harder to hit by advanced U.S. and Israeli air defenses by acquiring some decoy and other protection systems.
Again, there is no proof that any state is helping Iraq to improve these capabilities. But STRATFOR sources in Europe say that Iraqi representatives have been contacting various private research firms and production companies throughout the Continent.
Second, if a war starts, Iraq would like to hit Israel much harder than it was able to do 10 years ago. Baghdad's goal is two-fold here: to do serious damage to Israel and to draw the Jewish state into the war, which among other things would likely bring Arab states into an alliance with Iraq.
Third, the ability to reliably hit targets outside the country may help deter some of Iraq's neighbors from joining Washington's war coalition and allowing U.S. troops to use their territories to strike Iraq. Although the U.S. government may use threats and incentives to maintain cooperation from many Arab governments, this, on top of their already strong reservations about a U.S. campaign against Iraq, may not be enough to overcome fear of Iraqi strikes. Finally, if Iraq resorts to using chemical weapons, it would still need better surface-to-surface missiles to deliver chemical warheads against highly protected U.S. and Israeli military targets.
Iraq is also shopping abroad for major conventional systems that might strengthen its battlefield ground-forces capabilities against Washington. Given that Russia has stopped providing Iraq with spare parts for its Soviet-made weapons, Iraqi emissaries buy them from nations that legally receive these parts from Moscow, such as former communist countries and former Soviet allies in the Third World.
This is true not only for spare parts but also for relatively modern weapons. For example, UK-based The Times June 10 cited Western intelligence reports stating that Iraq is importing tanks originally bought by Syria from Bulgaria. In this case these could be either T-72 or T-80 tanks, with the latter a credible battlefield weapon able to fight American Abrams tanks.
Iraq's main focus in acquiring battlefield systems is on getting modern tanks, long-range artillery pieces, anti-tank missiles and grenade launchers, as well as ammunition and spare parts for all of the above.
Although the exact status of Iraqi WMD capabilities remains unknown, this is also true for its modern conventional abilities. Barring a major intelligence breakthrough, only a war will show what Baghdad has been able to acquire from abroad and successfully deploy. The use of new air-defense missiles and radars could significantly raise the number of American aircraft and cruise missiles shot down.
Some new tanks, artillery and especially grenade launchers would likely help Iraqi soldiers inflict serious damage on U.S. ground forces in close combat. And it remains to be seen whether Baghdad has improved the precision and defensibility of its surface-to-surface missiles enough to destroy a significant number of American military targets in the Middle East.
Cheers Tony
Like Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is not a nation like Iraq, it is more a collection of tribes, many whose main loyalty was to there tribal leader, the Taliban and know us have bought that loyalty.
Iraq is different, yes it has three distinct population bases, but they are Arabs, and Arabs are fiercely nationilistic.
If we can not set up a pro western regieme in the small window of oppertunity after the collapse of Saddams regieme, there will be a major vaccume that will be filled by other groups many militant Islamists, at the moment kept down by Saddam.
At worst we could end up with a three way civil war with our troops in the middle.
And dont forget the impact this will have on the other Arab nations and Iran, while many will be glad to see the back of Saddam, they would not want to be swamped with Iraqi refugees. Also there is the question of tacit support, Iran may decide to covertly if not overtly support one or more of the Iraqi factions.
Does that mean America would have to fight Iran as well, while she could take over Iran militarly there is still the occupation afterwards to contend with.
Last point, and very important, the Afganistan people had been fighting for many years. Many were ready to stop which is why so many welcomed the Taliban in the first place, they wanted a time of peace and stability.
The same can not be said of Iraq and Iran.
Cheers Tony
Doesn't make a lot of sense:
Substantial sums of hard currency provided to Saddam Hussein from the sale of Iraqi oil allowed under United Nations sanctions have been laundered through banks around the world by a Russian Mafiya boss described in an MI5 report as "one of the world's top criminals." Despite that, Israel continues to allow Semyon Yukovich Mogilevich to travel openly on one of its passports. . .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683006/posts?page=9
Maybe we can make their equipment look so bad that they will lose some future orders.
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.