Paras will make lightning assault on Baghdad airport

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | March 9, 2003 | Sean Rayment and Julian Coman

[MadIvan]

With you at the first, with you to the last.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[KantianBurke]

how will they be reinforced if trouble occurs? How far away are the republican guard units?

[dighton]

Beyond any shadow of doubt, either this is true or it isn't.

[anniegetyourgun]

Very interesting.

[Cagey]

The revelation was buried deep in the latest 173-page report from United Nations weapons inspectors, declassified only late on Friday.

From our pals at the UN.

[steveegg]

I know this was published on your side of the pond by a reputable newspaper (at least if my memory of British publishers hasn't failed me), but either the British version of the Office of Strategic Information is working overtime shovelling or somebody there fouled up.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Paras will make lightning assault on Baghdad airport

At first I thought you had misspelled "Paris." Then, I looked at the context and realized that this was about attacking, not surrendering.

[The KG9 Kid]

I would imagine that they mean SAS 'Sabre' squadrons, rather than Paras, but we'll see.

[demlosers]

Go For Broke!

[tet68]

Paratroopers or heliborne troops will then assault the airfield, jumping from just 250 ft.

Wonder if they are going to give them parachutes?
Or maybe these are Ghurkas!

More disinfo and the press lapps it up.

[Owen]

Folks,

When you look in the dictionary under the word "resolve" there is a picture of GW Bush.

When you look in the dictionary under the word "stalwart", yup, that's Tony Blair.

Do not ever think we have not noticed who we can rely on and who we cannot. Thank you, England.

Owen

[xzins]

This will not happen.

We take airports we want to use or that we want to deny use of.

We don't need to deny use of Baghdad airport because we'll have air superiority. To deny use we must be able to hold in the face of opposition until reinforcement arrives.

We won't be taking the airport because we won't be landing in downtown Baghdad until we subdue Baghdad.

I really don't think this article makes sense.

[steveegg]

"Office of Strategic Information" (Masters edition) ping

[Dog Gone]

Jumping from 250 feet? I doubt that, unless we want a lot of dead men. There's no margin of error.

[oceanview]

all we need is a debacle, 24-48 hours into this thing, and the whole effort will collapse. we don't need a slaughter of our troops, and prisoners taken. why capture an airport 24 hours into this, when it can be essentially rendered useless for flight operations by Iraq if necessary?

[TADSLOS]

Good Hunting!

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Masters edition, LOL

[John Jorsett]

I wonder what the Iraqis think about all these leaks about our battle plans? I'm betting that we could publish the entire invasion blueprint and they'd think it was a lie.

[demlosers]

An agresesive plan doesn't have to be this Op. I don't think its true.