Posted on 03/29/2002 7:32:47 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON, Mar 29, 2002 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- The United States is upgrading its ability to spearhead a war in the Persian Gulf from countries other than Saudi Arabia, the general who would command any attack against Iraq said Friday.
Still, the Arab world's recent showing of support for Iraq has put new pressure on President Bush to find a non-military way to deal with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
U.S. forces have been increased in recent months in Kuwait, the tiny country bordering Iraq, U.S. defense officials disclosed Friday, and additional ground troops could be on the way.
That provides both valuable training and "a hedge against miscalculation," Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, said at a Pentagon briefing in a clear reference to Iraq.
Adding the U.S. forces sends Iraq a warning not to begin any aggressive actions against its neighbors while the U.S. military is focused on Afghanistan, said one defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Franks denied the United States was positioning troops or equipment for possible military action against Iraq. He has received no order to plan for war, he said.
But the general made clear he's working to ensure the United States could run a war in the Gulf, even if allies such as Saudi Arabia refused to allow operations on their soil.
"Let me put it this way. We are increasing or improving our command and control capacity in all of my region," Franks said.
Asked if equipment was being moved from Saudi Arabia to a Qatar base, Franks said: "I would not be at all surprised if we are changing the location of some of the assets that we have. We want to be sure that we have redundant communications inside the region."
The general said he has no plans to move a key U.S. air operations command center, now in Saudi Arabia. American officials have used it to operate the air war over Afghanistan and would, in ideal circumstances, run any air war over Iraq from there, military analysts say.
But Franks added: "That does not say that I don't have plans to replicate it someplace."
The Bush administration accuses Iraq of developing weapons of mass destruction and sponsoring terrorists, and says options are being considered ranging from diplomatic efforts to push Saddam to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors to possible military action.
Saudi Arabia, a longtime U.S. ally, has made clear that America should not invade Iraq, and that if Bush decides to go ahead, U.S. troops could not operate from Saudi soil - at least publicly.
In a rebuff to Bush's Iraq stance, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah on Thursday embraced a top Iraqi official in front of other leaders at an Arab summit, signaling a reconciliation for the first time since the 1991 Gulf War.
Abdullah is to visit Bush at the president's Texas ranch next month.
The Arab countries also issued a statement Thursday saying that any attack on Iraq would be considered a threat to the security of all Arab countries. And Iraq made conciliatory gestures toward Kuwait, the southern neighbor it invaded in 1990 to trigger the Gulf War. The Kuwaiti government reacted cautiously.
Arab countries friendly to America apparently worry their governments would face widespread internal unrest if the United States attacked Iraq while the Israeli-Palestinian crisis raged.
"It shows (Iraq) cannot be Afghanistan II," Robert Pelletreau, a former assistant secretary of state and ex-U.S. ambassador to Egypt, said of the show of Arab support for Iraq.
"It's going to be much more difficult to gather international support for an action against Iraq," Pelletreau said. Yet, it's unlikely the Bush administration will back off its Iraq policy, he said.
State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said Friday that Saddam is a "serious threat to the Iraqi people, to Iraq's neighbors," and said the Bush administration would keep all options open.
Judith Kipper, a Middle East analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said she doesn't believe the United States intends to attack Iraq any time soon.
Franks, the general who would head any Gulf military action, said moving of equipment from Saudi Arabia had begun a year and a half ago.
Until Vice President Dick Cheney's recent visit to the Mideast, however, the United States had not even acknowledged the existence of the Qatar base in the desert outside the capital, Doha. The huge U.S. installation, which offers long runways, is marked only by a handwritten "Army Camp" sign.
By SALLY BUZBEE Associated Press Writer
Copyright 2002 Associated Press, All rights reserved
The House of Saud, Kuwait, and the other "friendly", peace-loving nations, can pick the USA or the "Axis of Evil". There is no "no man's land" left in the world, including Europe. There is no middle ground. If they choose war against the USA, God help them, because there will be no refuge for them in this world.
This does not mean that the USA will send forth imperial armies to conquer the world. It does mean that the USA will exercise its prerogative to attack its enemies, and the enemy's fellow travelers, when and where needed to protect its citizens, and minimize losses to its military forces.
If that means rolling tanks over Riyadh, and liberating any peace loving Saudi's who might exist from the House of Saud, so be it. Standing between the USA and Iraq, Syria, or others in the expanding "Axis" is unheathly, and they will reap the consequences of such a choice. If "victory" requires economically isolating and blockading socialist European countries such as France, who insist on impeding our war effort (thus guaranteeing more American deaths), then we do that. We reward our friends, bring terror and death to our enemies, and if need be, punish our enemy's friends. We fight to win, and we play for "keeps".
If the USA must conquer territory in the execution of the war, in my book, that land becomes a territory of the USA for eternity. We don't seek "tribute" in war, but we should exact a price for American blood and treasure. Enemy lands that we must spill American blood to conquer become new territory of the USA. We did not want this war, we did not start this war, and we did not in any way cause this war, but we will win it. We must win it, because we have no "big brother" who will save us if we fail. There are very few nations in this world who would not enjoy the demise of the USA, the rape, pillage, and death of her citizens, should the USA fail to defend her citizens.
To those who read this and think I'm a nutcase, I recommend you reevaluate the ease with which a million US citizens can be killed with:
A politically correct foreign policy by irresponsibly naive "I feel SO good about me" liberals is no longer survivable! The consequence of failure in this war will make life in the USA hell forever.
Of course we should work with the Arab countries, and any other nation that will support our self-defense without timidity or deception. Roll over them otherwise.
And oh, by the way, CIC, DOD, and Congress, please don't forget to bring about four or five mothballed Carrier Battle Groups, a half-million Soldiers, several heavy mechanized divisions, USAF air wings, and other "cold war" assets and resources back on line. We're going to need them sooner than later, for our minimum defense.
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.