War Planners begin to speak of risks

Senior Bush administration officials are for the first time openly discussing a subject they have sidestepped during the buildup of forces around Iraq: what could go wrong, and not only during an attack but also in the aftermath of an invasion.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has a four- to five-page, typewritten catalog of risks that senior aides say he keeps in his desk drawer. He refers to it constantly, updating it with his own ideas and suggestions from senior military commanders, and discussing it with President Bush.

His list includes a "concern about Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction against his own people and blaming it on us, which would fit a pattern," Mr. Rumsfeld said. He said the document also noted "that he could do what he did to the Kuwaiti oil fields and explode them, detonate, in a way that lost that important revenue for the Iraqi people."

That item is of particular concern to administration officials' postwar planning because they are counting on Iraqi oil revenues to help pay for rebuilding the nation.

Although administration officials are no doubt concerned about the ultimate number of American casualties, they have declined to discuss the issue and it is not known how that risk figures in Mr. Rumsfeld's list.

If there is one thing that haunts administration planners it is the thought of a protracted conflict, which could lead to increased casualties. "How long will this go on?" one senior administration official asked. "Three days, three weeks, three months, three years?" Even some of this official's aides winced as they contemplated the last time frame on that list.

The Rumsfeld document also warns of Mr. Hussein hiding his weapons in mosques or hospitals or cultural sites, and using his citizenry or captured foreign journalists as human shields. The risks, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "run the gamut from concerns about some of the neighboring states being attacked, concerns about the use of weapons of mass destruction against those states or against our forces in or out of Iraq."

A senior Bush administration official confirmed that a number of uncertainties remained even after months of internal studies, advance planning and the insertion of Central Intelligence Agency officers and Special Operations forces into some corners of Iraq.

"We still do not know how U.S. forces will be received," the senior official said. "Will it be cheers, jeers or shots? And the fact is, we won't know until we get there."

In an administration that strives to sound bold and optimistic — especially when discussing the political, economic and military power of America — such cautionary notes from the White House, the Pentagon and intelligence officials may well have a political purpose. Following the military maxim that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, the administration may feel it is better to warn the American public of these dangers in advance.

According to his aides, President Bush has to prepare the country for what one senior official calls "the very real possibility that this will not look like Afghanistan," a military victory that came with greater speed than any had predicted, and with fewer casualties.

If Mr. Bush decides to begin military action without explicit United Nations approval, other nations may well withhold support for what promises to be the far more complex operation of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq while preventing religious and political score-settling and seeking out well-hidden weapons stores before others find them, not to speak of continuing the war on terror.

"There is a lot to keep us awake at night," one senior administration official said.

As America's intelligence assets focus on Iraq, senior officials worry they may be less thorough in tracking threats to the nation elsewhere.

Just last week on Capitol Hill, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said that his ability to detect the spread of nuclear weapons or missiles around the world was being "stretched thin," and he said that some parts of the world, including South Asia, Russia and China, had less coverage than he would like.

The article says that administration officials have declined to discuss projected American casualties. Don't we have the right to that kind of info BEFORE we go in?

Then we hear that the administration is haunted by the possibility that this could be a protracted conflict. As the mother of all boys (ages 18, 16, and 12) that kind of haunts me too. Are we really all that convinced that containment won't work with this guy?

The article says that administration officials have declined to discuss projected American casualties. Don't we have the right to that kind of info BEFORE we go in?

No, you don't have a "right" to that information - or any other military strategy information.

Are we really all that convinced that containment won't work with this guy?

It hasn't worked since your youngest was born.

I don't know where the N.Y.Slimes reporters have been for the past few months. On the phone with the DNC I suppose. This is not "new" by any means. Casualty discussions and how the war may go have been repeatedly discussed. I've seen reports in the media. They are, as you guess, all over the place.

Sidestepped?

I don't recall FDR making a speech to the nation saying how many body bags he ordered before World War II.

I've read a fair amount of military history, and I can't imagine ANY leader dwelling on such matters before going into battle. Everyone is aware of such matters, but it's not something you dwell on.

If the editors of the New York Times are willing to put on uniforms and go into war with the troops, maybe they might have some right to raise such questions.

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.