Posted on 01/05/2002 4:14:44 PM PST by knak
UNITED STATES defence chiefs may have to review their strategy for phase 2 of the war after it emerged that Baghdad could have acquired a radar system capable of detecting America's multi-billion-pound fleet of stealth bombers.
The radar is believed to be the same Czech-built type used by Serb forces to shoot down a US F117 Nighthawk stealth bomber and seriously damage another during the war in Kosovo in 1999.
US intelligence chiefs believe that Iraqi generals attempted to buy a system for £176 million from the Czech Republic in 1997 but the deal collapsed after it was exposed by the CIA.
The Telegraph, however, has learnt that after the closure of the Czech defence company Tesla-Pardubice in 1998, two of its Tamara radar systems, which Iraq wanted to acquire, "disappeared", and might have been acquired by rogue arms traders working for Baghdad.
A former employee of the company said last night: "Tesla-Pardubice closed in 1998. It had two radar systems that had not been sold but they have disappeared. Nobody knows where they are."
Rob Hewson, the editor of Jane's Air Launched Weapons, said the weight of circumstantial evidence indicated that Iraq had probably acquired a radar system capable of "seeing" stealth bombers.
He said: "The Pentagon is faced with the prospect that Iraq may have a system that can see stealth bombers and they are very, very worried."
The disclosure is likely to affect the next stages of the war against terrorism and influence whether the US decides to carry out a full-scale attack against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Last week it emerged that stocks of US air-launched cruise missiles had been virtually exhausted after attacks on Kosovo and Sudan, further hampering Pentagon plans for an attack against Iraq.
The B2 stealth bomber and the F117 stealth fighter both played vital roles in the Kosovan and Afghan wars and, together with the mass use of cruise missiles, they are part of a crucial first phase of US attack plans.
Such is the sensitivity surrounding stealth aircraft that even the mere suggestion that an enemy power may have the capability to detect or shoot one down is enough to ground the 20-strong fleet.
A spokesman for the US Department of Defence, said: "It stands to reason that Iraq would want to get its hands on a radar system capable of detecting stealth bombers.
" In the Gulf war, it was the early F117 attacks that put most of their air defence systems out of commission. But we don't know whether they have such a system at the moment."
The Czech radar system uses passive detection to pick up electronic emissions from stealth aircraft.
A spokesman for the Czech Embassy confirmed that when the company went bankrupt in 1998 it still had at least two Tamara systems, but he refused to comment on whether they had disappeared.
The B2 stealth aircraft is painted with a substance that absorbs radar waves, producing an image on a radar screen the size of a large marble. The Serb forces, however, demonstrated what can be achieved by being able to detect stealth aircraft.
During the Kosovo conflict, the Serbs are believed to have plugged powerful computers into their air-defence radar system that help to reveal the flight paths from the faint stealth radar signatures.
When a stealth bomber was suspected to be flying through their area they saturated the sky with missile and heavy machine-gun fire and managed to shoot one down.
Osama bin Laden has been named Iraq's Man of The Year, according to the official Iraqi press, because of the way in which he has "raised the image of Islam and defied the might of the USA".
I remember that 200 Al-Qaeda members were in Iraq for training purposes. They may still be there now. It is true that Al-Qaeda recruited from Hezbullah, especially its Mid-East Chief, Mugnieh(sp?). However, Al-Qaeda is not Shi'ite operation, it is mainly Sunni Wahabi operation. Wahabi made a sport out of killing Shi'ites. To Wahabis, both Saddam and Shi'ites are vermins to be vanquished in the end. But, right now, they have to cooperate. And Saddam has more advanced weaponery than Iranians. Besides, having Iran as major sponsor is almost balsphemy for Bin Laden. minor ally of convenience, yes.
I really doubt that Iran has more backing of Al-Qaeda than Saddam. If you have a link, let me know. So far, I did not see anything except your words. Do you believe that the report of Al-Qaeda members in Iraq last July was a fabrication ?
As for dismantling Saudi and Iraq, I talked about what should be done, not what will be done. There is another way to kill Saudi regime and Iraq together. That is to flood oil market with Russian and CIS oils so that oil price goes down below $20. This will either bankrupt or squeeze Saudis and Iraq. We will see how events will unfold. You cannot be 100% certain that nothing will happen to Saudis. After all, it appeared that Washington will never accept Russia as a partner. But the situation changed and now Russian and America are allies. All those criticism and high-minded condemnation of Chechen war, crackdown on oligarch as stifling of free speech were gone completely.
During a last several days, I found in WSJ two articles about Saudis. One was an editorial which says "seize Saudi oil fields and distribute its revenue equitabley". The other was about "Ishmaili Shi'ite sect" who are persecuted under Wahabis. These are very inflammatory articles to show up in major news paper like WSJ. For a strategic ally like Saudi, these kind of articles do not show up. This is more than garden variety human rights abuse article. So it may still happen in certain way. After all, all West needs are oil fields in eastern provinces, not Mecca or Medina. As I said in previous post, if Syria and Iraq and Wahabi Jihadists works together, Saudi is not the same regime it used to be as far as the West concerns. As for Iran, Shi'ite Islam obviously has limitations in projecting its influence. That was even clear during Khomeini era. I am not sure how you can claim that they have major influence in Bin Laden organization. Besides, they appeared to be more interested in spoils after smoke clears of major West-Arab conflict. They may hide Bin Laden for their own interest. But, if Bin Laden is with Shi'ites too long, muslim charities in Saudi Arabia cannot raise money for him any more publicly or clandestinely.
Besides "The Pentagon" is a building. It can't get "very, very worried".
Where did the Telegraph get that info from? The lunch ladies in the Pentagon cafeteria?
It would be interesting to know exactly where in Iraq that training of Al Qaeda fighters was reported to take place. Saddam doesn't control all of Iraq. If he was training 200 AL Qaeda fighters, he'd be watching them like a hawk. The Northern and Southern "no-fly" zones set up by the US & Britain and which have been bombed for three years by US & British planes are areas that Saddam obviously cannot control. The Shiites [or Sh'ia] in the Southern "no-fly" zone, aided by Iran, are fundamentalists who have been fighting Saddam for years. See:
The place is called Salman Pak, 25km south of Baghdad on Tigris River just above 33deg parallel. So it is outside No-Fly zone. click here more details.
As for Al-Qaeda and Iraq cooperation, you provide this speculation by some scholar as credible proof against it ? It is more possible that they are cooperating or Saddam is helping Al-Qaeda while some Iraq operative want to remove Saddam with Al-Qaeda help. Either way, it is more likely that Saddam is helping Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda is going along now. Even if Bin Laden hates Saddam for being Kfir, why undermine Sunni power in Bhagdad by helping Shi'ites in Iraq and Iran ? What prevents Iran and Shi'ites from trying to taking Bhagdad and the rest of Iraq ? At least Saddam is from Sunni Islam. He has weapons other countries do not have. You cannot continue Jihad with boxcutters and pen knives forever.
It is true that Iran and al-Qaeda both were involved in Balkan operation. That can be acceptable to many Saudi's. But destroying Iraqi regime with Iran's help is patently unacceptable to many Saudis because they hate Shi'ites,too. Why destroy a regime which can be quite useful in terms of weapons and organizations ? Wahabis using Shi'ites to destroying indolent Sunnis is a contradiction itself. Wahab himself invaded Karbala and killed many Shi'ites in 19th centry. Wahabi's view of Shi'ites are no different from Pope's view of Martin Luther after 30 years' war. Pope would rather take lazy Catholics rather than pious protestants.
Best designator would be the A-19, since it really should have been the -19 something or other and A indicates "attack" which is just another term for a (relatively) light bomber.
I knew you would make issue out of INC. Here is another article which have other sources.
Difference bet you and me is that I think Saudi and Iraq both guilty and you think that Iraq never guilty because U.S. gov hates it. I do not exonerate Saudis, I want both of them attacked on the same level. But you continually view my opinion as exeonerating Saudis. What this Admin will do against Iraq will not change my view. I see them both guilty. But you seem to have anti-government reflex in the wrong place. Since this goverment wants to attack Iraq, you must believe the opposite as much as possible, even resorting to the argument that Al-Qaeda is helping Iran to overthrow Saddam. While the opposite of gov line is true frequently, it is not always so. Any info which has slight touch of INC is all bogus. This reminds me of NYT attitude about any info about N. Korea via S. Korean intelligence. NYT believed that all these infos are doctored, fabricated, and bogus. It turned out that they want to hear only certain information such as Kim Jong-Il is a closet reformer and a suave intelligent gentleman. Too bad, he is even more intrasigent than his father. It appears that you have the same problem. You want to hear only particular views on Iraq. Besides, your understanding of Sunni(Wahabi) and Shia is flawed. Wahabi does not want Shiite Muslims only Sunnis. Shia is one of main heretical sect in Wahabi's view. And in Islam, there is no division bet politics and religion.
Apparently, you skipped the paragraph mentioning two Mukhabarat defectors. I can grant you that CIA info will be unreliable w.r.t. Iraq. But your omission of defector story tells me something about your bias. You always have to pick the most unreliable source out of the whole list. That is why I claimed you are biased. Keep going if this is what you like. I can engage you for a next several month if I can be alive that long.
What about Saddam's biological and chemical weapons ? And learning how to operate them ? Same for plutonium based bomb which will spew radioactive dusts in wide area ? Do you think that Saddam have only tanks and grenades ? As for 9/11, Saddam had enough means to train them or finance part of that operation. Saddam is not broke. His restricted oil revenue is still enough to bankroll several programs. Your claim that Saddam has no means is truly laughable, along with your old claim that Bin Laden wanted to topple Saddam with Iran and Shi'te help. You may be good at collecting articles but your interpretation is arbitrary to suit your bias. I will keep reading articles you post. But as for your opinion, I will take it with large grain of salt. You do not have any angle other than U.S. gov corruption and meddling (almost 100%). The problem is that you see them everywhere even if there is no definite connection. You once try to argue that N.K. nuke deal is purely for enriching Bush family. That was typical. Just to create a whole missile crisis to sell one measly reactor. I am sure there is faster and easier way to sell it. My previous NYT analogy is correct, in my view. You want to see what you want to see. People can discard previous ideologies but they cannot grow out of old mentalities.
Your assertion, which I repreat, that Al-Qaeda is conspiring with Iranians and Shi'ite Iraqis to topple Saddam can be a serious case of tunnel vision. You went at great length to discredit all reports which indicate that Al-Qaeda is cooperating with Iraq to challenge U.S., implying that Iraq has no connection with Bin Laden and even more importantly 9/11 attack. So this is where my suspicion on your bias turned up. People without things to argue do resort to bias charge frequently. That does not mean that people accused of bias are all innocent. If I say CNN had a great deal of liberal bias and still do, am I making a baseless charge ? I do not think so.
As for N. Korea nuke reactor, I never ran into your article where you said anything other than Bush people's involvement to snare some tidy profits. You only had one angle to the story, no geopolitical angle of any serious kind. I would have listened if you suggested anything like whether the confrontation over nuke is useful for sustaining divided Korea, which will provide continuing foothold to Korea. You tend to argue all movements in N.K. nuke issue in terms of Bush cronies' business motive, so far.
You can continue claim your innocence. But, as far as I know, your dismissal of Iraqi links, even using phrase like "Iraq does not have means .." is going too far. Iraq has means. Many weaponery which can be used effectively in terrorism and a lot of experience with production, maintenance, and operating them. You know they field-tested chemical weapons long time ago. And we had reports that Al-Qaeda contingent were at Salman Pak. I doubt that they were excavating Sumerian ruins and deciphering cuneiform tablets.
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.