U.S. planning early attack?

The Hindu ^ | March 11, 2003 | Atul Aneja

[grimalkin]

MANAMA March 11. Faced with serious diplomatic setbacks in the last one week, the United States may be considering launching an attack against Iraq, mainly on its own steam, soon.

According to diplomatic sources, the U.S. maybe losing patience with diplomacy for obtaining the United Nations' sanction for an attack.

Two crucial developments have taken place recently that could persuade Washington that it should consider attacking Iraq quickly, even if the U.N. does not endorse the use of force, sources say.

First, there are clear signs that France and Russia may not hesitate to veto a fresh "war" resolution on Iraq, as envisaged by Britain and U.S., that gives the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, an extremely narrow time-line to surrender all his weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. route for an attack on Iraq, therefore, stands virtually blocked.

Second, Britain, Washington's staunchest ally, has begun to show nervousness, by suggesting that the proposed new resolution can be modified to include an extended time-line for Mr. Hussein to comply.

This reworked resolution could also give Iraq the option in disarming, not all at once, but in phases. Sources pointed out that a possible postponement of an attack, that a modified resolution entails, is unlikely to suit the Bush administration.

With the possibility of sandstorms starting to kick up in the Arabian desert towards the end of March, a further postponement of an attack could put off military action to the end of this year. That, in turn, would mean exercising the politically distasteful choice of withdrawing or rotating the nearly 300,000-strong U.S. forces that have been deployed in the Persian Gulf.

It is extremely unlikely that the Bush administration, dominated by hardliners, will accept a loss of face over Iraq.

Signalling that its commitment to occupy Iraq using force has not wavered, U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea have been reportedly ordered to go on combat readiness from Tuesday afternoon.

Despite the large deployments, U.S. military planners were expected to work on the contingency of going to war in case the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was hampered by his Labour party ranks from contributing nearly 40,000 troops to the war effort.

[byteback]

Attack whenever Chirac decides to open his yap on the floor of the UN.

[spokeshave]

some good news finally

[SamAdams76]

There is simply no feasible way to "put off" this war for six more months. Neither is it feasible to conduct the war in the heat of summer. Therefore, tighten your seatbelts. It's about to get underway.

[NeonKnight]

Yeah, sure....

[rwfromkansas]

give me a break.....nice thought though.

[Paleo Conservative]

Attack whenever Chirac decides to open his yap on the floor of the UN.

What do we attack? Iraq, France, the UN, or all three?

[clintonh8r]

March 17...March 18....30 more days...10 more days...45 more days...second resolution...two phase second resolution...one more chance...one last chance...one more last chance...just one more last chance before the next last chance...Canadian proposal...French veto...rebuffed by Turkey....no smoking gun...making great progress...willingly cooperating...very encouraged...disarm...regime change...containment...no blood for oil...not in my name...

Tellya what, will somebdy just ping me to the SADDAM OVERTHROWN, US TROOPS TAKE BAGHDAD thread when it happens. This is driving me crazy. Oh, yeah...and ping me to the ESTRADA SWORN IN thread when that one happens, too....

[JoeSixPack1]

With the possibility of sandstorms starting to kick up in the Arabian desert towards the end of March, .......

A worthy statement in a dialogue of rhetoric.

[FreeCanuckistan]

If the US postpones invading Iraq, it will be the "phony war" of our time.

The time is now, the time was yesterday....just as it was 12 yrs ago.

Waiting is suicide.

[grimalkin]

LOL. I agree. I just like to peek at what the press is saying from time to time. They seem to be all over the map... meaning they have no clue. I have to back off after awhile because it starts to pi** me off.

[SauronOfMordor]

This is an all-volunteer military. Keep 300,000 troops sitting in the desert for a year while politicians chat, and the US re-enlistment rate will approach zero

[Dog Gone]

It's going to be just like this for at least another week. Look for massive numbers of Freepers to swear that they'll never vote for Bush again if the war doesn't start within the next 10 minutes. Over and over again.

They've already forgotten the cold, steely eyes of our Commander-in-Chief from last Thursday.

[HardStarboard]

>>>What do we attack? Iraq, France, the UN, or all three? <<<

All three.

Iraq will take a couple of Divisions and an aircraft carrier or two.

France will require a sqad of Rangers.

The UN - one good US female soldier walking through the the place telling them to "clear out now"!

[cmsgop]

It's going to be just like this for at least another week. Look for massive numbers of Freepers to swear that they'll never vote for Bush again if the war doesn't start within the next 10 minutes. Over and over again.

LMAO!!!!

No Kidding!!!.......ATTACK OF THE FLIP-FLOPPING FREEPERS!!!!™

[RKM]

I've been getting real antsy as well. Just think how the Iraqis' are feeling this whole time. Bush has brass (bells). Rove knows everything is riding on this. All the flip-floppers should get ready for a spectacle. The adults are in charge now. In the end I think this will go better than most are expecting.

[TSgt]

France will require a sqad of Rangers.

You're giving France's military WAY too much credit... I'm thinking more along the lines of a Boy Scout troop.

[cmsgop]

I agree....

[Constitutional Patriot]

"What do we attack? Iraq, France, the UN, or all three?"

Iran?

[arthurus]

At this point, just how can any attack on Iraq be characterized as "early" ?