U.S. may give up on U.N. war vote

USA Today ^ | Stardate: 0303.14 | John Diamond and Susan Page

[kcvl]

Rift Over Iraq Grows

Associated Press 03/14/2003


NITED NATIONS - With time running out, the Security Council was unable to reach agreement Thursday on a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing war in Iraq. A majority of members said they couldn't or wouldn't support the measure.

Mexico, Chile and Pakistan - three countries Washington was counting on for support - said they were unable to back the resolution in its current form and were working on a counterproposal that would not immediately trigger war.

But others declared the diplomacy dead, saying there was no way the United States and Britain could muster the necessary votes they need or avoid a veto from France and possibly Russia.

"This is not going to fly," said Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Yingfan suggested the two English-speaking allies withdraw the resolution they submitted together with Spain.

"To me it's clear, they just don't have the votes," he said.

France, China, Russia, Germany and several other council members oppose the resolution because it would automatically authorize force if Saddam Hussein failed to disarm by Monday. Britain had sought to alleviate those fears by transferring the ultimatum to a side paper that wouldn't be voted on.

But France saw the move as a ploy.

"We will say no to any resolution that authorizes the use of force," French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said at the end of a tense council meeting.

The United States began the week with the expectation of a vote Tuesday, but it was clear late Thursday that intensive diplomatic efforts weren't producing the support it needed.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte didn't call for a vote today, and diplomats doubted one would be called for Saturday.

In Washington, U.S. officials said President Bush could drop the resolution in the face of a veto and fight Iraq without Security Council authorization.

Several top administration officials said a growing number of advisers believe the resolution is doomed, and they want the president to cut his losses and withdraw it. Others hold out hope for the measure.

The officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, agreed that a key is whether British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants Bush to give diplomacy another weekend.

Blair, who is facing a massive revolt inside his own party because of his pro-U.S. stand on Iraq, desperately needs U.N. authorization in order to sell a war at home.

Negroponte left the 4½-hour council meeting Thursday saying that "time is running out." In light of Britain's efforts, he said Washington was prepared to "go the extra mile as far as seeing if we can reach some kind of basis for understanding within the council."

Ambassadors said informal consultations would continue today and possibly through the weekend. But privately they held out little hope for a breakthrough. Several said they were saddened and frustrated by the divisions.

Six uncommitted nations - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan - tried Thursday to bridge the deep divide.

Just a day before, White House officials claimed that some of the six swing nations were supporting the resolution. But those countries made their positions clear Thursday.

In Santiago, Chile, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement after the council meeting ended in New York, saying: "Should a vote come tomorrow, we will not support it; we will reject it."

With France threatening to veto the resolution and the Bush administration weighing whether to abandon it, the six countries said they weren't interested in discussing a British proposal that would require Saddam to fulfill six disarmament requirements in a short time.

Instead, they were talking about a list of tasks Saddam could complete within what its proponents said was a realistic time frame to prove Iraq's commitment to disarmament. At the end of that period the council would meet to determine whether Iraq had complied or not, council diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity. There would be no automatic trigger for war.

By contrast, the British proposal would give Saddam a maximum of 10 days to produce weapons he claims Iraq doesn't possess.

Hoping to entice support, Britain offered to abandon the March 17 ultimatum if members approved its list of disarmament tests for Saddam. The resolution would then implicitly threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if the country failed to comply.

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was studying the possibility of a summit of world leaders who are "searching for a compromise to get us out of this crisis." He said such a summit, with leaders not necessarily on the Security Council, was suggested by Brazil.

Annan met privately Wednesday and Thursday with ambassadors from all 15 nations on the council in an effort to bring the sides together.

[CedarDave]

Heard somewhere yesterday (FR, Fox or MSNBC) that there still were 20-30 offshore. Anyone have anything definitive??

[xzins]

How public a call do you think will be made for the UN inspectors to leave?Ari Fleischer was asked exactly this question last week. He said the US WOULD give a call for inspectors and journalists to leave. I think I remember something about 72 hours. I don't recall if that was from him or the journalist.

Can we start without asking them to leave? I don't think so because they just might be at areas we want to take out with the initial cruise missile surprise. After all, as ineffective as they've been, they have found a few sites that we would've wanted to bomb.

Doesn't that eliminate the element of surprise?Yes. In my opinion.

What about the new reports of Iraq's first strike against our troops in Kuwait? The US option is to have a pre-war that takes out any iraqi units capable of effective attack against our troops.

Wouldn't our calling on inspectors to leave signal Iraq to start?It could. If Iraq attacks us, then we no longer have ANY issues to worry about with the security council OR the just war theory. Diplomatically, it wouldn't be the worst thing.

Good questions. What do you think of the responses?

[MizSterious]

My memory of this might not be correct, but I thought the first Gulf War began, and then a few hours later the presidential address was delivered. Anyone know if I'm right about this? I'm wondering because it occurs to me that perhaps we'll attack first, and do the speech later.

[tbpiper]

My guess is that the artillery in soutern iraq and the scuds in western iraq will get vaporized at the start.

[kcvl]

Posted on Fri, Mar. 14, 2003

U.S. plans to crush resistance

By JUAN O. TAMAYO and DREW BROWN

Military leaders hope Iraqis give up quickly

Kuwait The American war plan for Iraq is designed to be so devastatingly swift and fierce that Iraqi troops will have no chance to react, will surrender en masse and, hopefully, will turn against Saddam Hussein.

In the first hours of conflict, British and U.S. Marine forces are expected to seize the southern city of Basra, 29 miles from the Kuwaiti border. From there, planners hope TV images of jubilant "liberated" Iraqis will shatter the morale of Iraqi soldiers elsewhere.

Meanwhile, about 150,000 U.S. and British troops would secure oil fields and weapons of mass destruction, capture Saddam's hometown of Tikrit and then take Baghdad after a dash through muddy Mesopotamia or the Iraqi desert to the west.

U.S. commanders describe the strategy as "shock and awe," a modern blitzkrieg; they decline to give details for publication, citing operational security.

But no classified information is needed to sketch the broad outlines of the campaign or the military objectives that must be met if the campaign is to succeed. Those objectives include:

• Capturing Basra in the south and Tikrit in northern Iraq. Both have special psychological significance to Iraqi rulers and their opponents, analysts believe.

• Securing oil fields in southern and northern Iraq. They are the source of Iraq's wealth and must be protected, both from sabotage by Iraqi troops and from seizures by other Saddam opponents. U.S. planners hope the money they generate in a post-Saddam world would help pay for rebuilding Iraq.

• Controlling the port of Um Qasr, the gateway for most of Iraq's food imports and possible landing site for follow-on U.S. occupation troops.

• Taking Baghdad. Unless Saddam surrenders or is killed or forced out by rivals within his government, U.S. troops will have to capture Baghdad. It will be the first time since World War II that U.S. combat forces will have entered so large an enemy capital.

Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who led the 24th Infantry Division in the 1991 Gulf War, estimates a conflict would last three weeks and cause "moderate" U.S. casualties. "I fully expect we'll have to kill 15,000 Iraqi soldiers before it's over," he said.

WAR BUILDUP

The war is under way in the skies and on the ground. U.S. and British warplanes months ago began stepping up their attacks on Iraqi air defenses and communications as part of their patrols of U.N. "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq.

Less visibly, U.S. and other special forces have been carrying out clandestine operations deep inside Iraq, surveying roads, bridges and airfields; hunting for hidden missiles and chemical and biological weapons; making contact with opposition groups; and tracking Iraqi leaders.

AIR WAR

As in the first Gulf War, stealth warplane and cruise missile attacks would start the decisive phase of the conflict, targeting command bunkers, Saddam's palaces, communications hubs and anti-aircraft batteries.

But installations such as power grids, bridges and oil refineries might not be as heavily hit as they were in the 1991 war, both to ease Iraq's postwar reconstruction and to devote more bombs to weakening elite Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units -- Saddam's most effective troops -- and keeping them from retreating to Baghdad for a final stand.

GROUND WAR

The ground war would likely begin "within hours of the first air bombs to intensify the shock," said James Dunnigan, the author of books on military strategy.

If Turkey refuses to grant permission to use its territory, the main ground attacks all would have to be launched from Kuwait, where about 110,000 U.S. Army and Marine troops and 40,000 British and Australian troops with 550 main battle tanks and thousands of other armored vehicles have been preparing for war.

SECURING BASRA

The first obstacle to be passed is a 20-foot ditch dug along the Iraqi side of the 150-mile Kuwait-Iraq border. Private contractors have cut holes in the electrified fence on Kuwait's side and moved up bridging equipment, according to U.N. peacekeepers there.

British troops and Marines would first make a dash for Basra, 29 miles from Kuwait. The city is populated by Shiite Muslims who revolted in 1991 but were crushed by Saddam's largely Sunni regime.

The British troops and Marines are likely to encounter a 1,500-man Iraqi army unit reported to be near the north-south highway that runs from Kuwait to Basra. They probably would be decimated in what analysts say would be a message to other Iraqi soldiers to surrender or die.

If the assault on Basra went well, planners hope that Shiite crowds would greet British and U.S. forces as liberators and that commercial news crews accompanying the military would capture the joyous crowds on broadcasts. It isn't clear how Iraqis could watch television if the country's electrical grid were knocked out early, as some analysts expect.

TARGETING TIKRIT

Another early target would be Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, though such an attack would be complicated by a Turkish refusal to allow U.S. forces to be based there. The 4th Infantry's tanks are on ships off the Turkish coast, and most of its troops are at Fort Hood, Texas, waiting to be flown either to Turkey or to Kuwait.

Capturing Tikrit would be a psychological blow to Saddam. Unlike Basra, "we have no friends there, but once it falls, Saddam and many of his key people have lost their hometown," Dunnigan said.

Seizing Tikrit also could be critical to capturing Saddam. He is reported to have a "super bunker" in the area, and the city has been fortified in recent days.

If, as some U.S. officials expect, Turkey reversed itself and let U.S. forces attack from Turkish territory, the Army's 4th Infantry Division would follow the fast-moving 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment toward Tikrit and Iraq's oil fields from the north.

CAPTURING OIL FIELDS

One of their missions would be to seize the oil fields near Kirkuk, estimated to hold up to 20 percent of the world's reserves, and Mosul, north of Baghdad, before Saddam's troops sabotage them or they are seized by Kurdish and Turkoman rebels or Turkish troops.

Without Turkish bases, U.S. helicopter or paratroop assaults might be required to secure the northern oil fields and seize airfields that could be used to bring in more U.S. troops, armor and artillery.

A smaller U.S. force is expected to head for the small valley controlled by a radical Islamic group called Ansar al Islam, which U.S. officials say is allied with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group. U.S. planners want to destroy Ansar before its members could mount terrorist attacks on invading U.S. troops -- possibly using chemical weapons.

In the south, U.S. Marines and Army mechanized units have been assigned to quickly seize the Rumailah and Majnoon oil fields west and north of Basra.

FINDING WEAPONS

Other strikes would take place simultaneously throughout the country. Army Rangers and other special operations troops would hunt for Scud missiles and chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in western Iraq, from where Saddam launched missiles at Israel in 1991, McCaffrey said.

"Moving light forces by helicopter and heavier transports, especially C-130 cargo planes, you can be on the ground .‘.‘. in Iraq within hours," Dunnigan said.

Marine amphibious units aboard ships in the Persian Gulf also might secure the port of Um Qasr, the gateway for 60 percent of Iraq's food imports.

GOING FOR BAGHDAD

There are three Iraqi army divisions near the southern cities Al Nasiriyah, Al Amarah, and Al Samawa, which would have to be passed as U.S. forces drove toward Baghdad, where they would face six Republican Guard divisions based around the capital and one Special Republican Guard Brigade within the city.

U.S. troops have at least two paths to Baghdad:

• A shorter but muddy route up the Mesopotamia region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers

• A longer desert route along the west bank of the Euphrates.

"The U.S. Marines, with .‘.‘. a lot of amphibious equipment, will use that stuff to go up the Tigris and Euphrates toward Baghdad," Dunnigan said. But the Army is likely to stay largely in the desert to the west because its Abrams battle tanks would not fare well in Mesopotamia's mud, he said.

ASSAULT ON BAGHDAD

Once at Baghdad, the U.S. forces would begin their first assault on a large urban area since the Vietnam War, when Marines spent six weeks in 1968 recapturing the city of Hue from the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese soldiers. By the end of that campaign, Hue lay in ruins.

Air Force and Navy warplanes probably would bomb any Iraqi troops outside Baghdad who tried to move toward the city, analysts said, preventing them from melting into the population and taking shelter in civilian areas.

Baghdad's civilians would be the target of an information campaign by broadcast and by leaflet drops, urging them to flee the city for safety outside.

The U.S. plans to establish safe-conduct corridors out of Baghdad -- corridors that will lead through checkpoints to ensure all are disarmed and that no soldiers are hiding among the civilians. Their destination would be refugee camps.

The military probably wouldn't wait until the city was emptied. One U.S. military commander has publicly said U.S. forces will drive into the heart of Baghdad along several corridors in a quick attack.

But the going will be slower than the earlier combat, analysts predict, and some U.S. commanders expect casualties to rise sharply once the U.S. troops lose the advantage of superior air power and tanks that kill the enemy at distances of up to three miles. Even so, commanders think they can conquer Iraq in three weeks.

MUST SURRENDER

As the fighting diminishes, U.S. troops could be forced into the position of protecting Saddam's surviving officials from mobs and perhaps even find themselves working alongside Iraqi soldiers who switched sides.

"Someone is going to have to run the drivers' licenses office, to help find the chemical warheads, and patrol the streets," a western diplomat said.

But first the Iraqis would have to surrender.

"Capitulation better be foremost in their minds," said one U.S. officer who asked to remain anonymous. "If not, we've got some bad stuff planned for them."

[tbpiper]

Actually, it would be Sunday for us. Kuwait is 8 hours ahead of us. I keep a separate clock on Kuwaiti time for personal reasons.

[kcvl]

Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell will make remarks in the White House Rose Garden at 10 a.m. Friday to discuss prospects for Middle East peace.

"He will discuss the road map to peace in the Middle East," Fleischer said, referring to a long-delayed plan for creation of a Palestinian state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24737-2003Mar14.html

[First Amendment]

the British proposals are not constructive and do not resolve the key problem, which he says is preventing the use of force against Baghdad.

Idiots and those who have chosen the dark side always reveal themselves by their words. So the KEY PROBLEM is not that Saddam is an evil tyrant who supports and promotes terrorism and WMD, the key problem is using force against him! I would throw up if I didn't hate it so much.

[ImpBill]

I fear you may be correct. GW may have just reached and is about to pass his "read my lips" moment. Time will tell. He has staked everything on going in and winning quickly. I think it will be done, but if it isn't we can stick a fork in him for 2004. I think he realizes that and is making decisions based upon America's needs and his oath of office and not his future political career.

I pray he is successful. Not for future politics, but for the future PERIOD.

[marktuoni]

Thanks for the answers. I agree, especially with regards to Hussein starting this and eliminating a lot of problems.

Perhaps the President should make a "inspectors should leave" pronouncement MORE than 72 hours before "go" time, and let Hussein sweat a little. Perhaps that would be adequate provocation??

[kcvl]

War resolution faces uphill battle

By Tom Raum
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush makes threats, then backs away from them. He endorses a deadline, then abandons it. The administration’s start-and-stop diplomacy in courting U.N. support against Iraq reflects how far U.S. stock has fallen in rallying international opinion.

Still lacking the votes for its resolution, the White House abruptly changed tactics again on Thursday, indicating it was willing to delay a showdown until next week in hopes of winning more support. That would render moot the March 17 deadline the resolution has for Iraqi compliance on disarmament.

Despite Bush’s insistence on a vote and his challenge a week ago to Security Council members "to show their cards and let the world know where they stand," the administration has been delaying the vote all week.

Furthermore, Secretary of State Colin Powell opened the door Thursday to ditching the resolution entirely, telling a House Appropriations subcommittee that the options are "to go for a vote and not to go for a vote."

Despite all the jockeying, the United States has been unable to make a persuasive case to gain the nine votes needed to pass the resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. Even if it does muster the nine, threatened vetoes by France and Russia could torpedo the resolution.

The administration’s prestige in the international community has eroded markedly since it won the council’s 15-0 endorsement in November for the resolution that sent weapons inspectors to Baghdad and threatened "serious consequences" if the Iraqis didn’t cooperate.

The administration insists that Saddam continues to violate demands to disarm while playing for more time. But public sentiment worldwide clearly favors giving the inspectors more time, and that is reflected in the hardening position of Security Council members lined up against the United States.

Critics accuse Bush and some on his national security team of heavy-handed tactics and clumsy diplomacy, including the president’s insistence that he doesn’t need U.N. "permission" to use force against Saddam.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s dismissive comments in January about France and Germany as part of "Old Europe" helped stiffen opposition in Paris and Berlin to the U.S. position. And Rumsfeld’s expression of doubt this week about British military participation in a war with Iraq caused new problems for Bush’s staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Rumsfeld’s comments, making it sound like Britain’s help was not needed, were immediately seized on by Blair’s opponents.

"I believe we have approached this process cloaked in hubris rather than humility," Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, senior Democrat on the Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, told Powell. "I believe it will take years to rebuild our relationships with many of our major allies and our stature in the global community."

Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who was chairman of the House International Relations Committee during the first Persian Gulf War, said such talk by the president and Rumsfeld may play well at home but "has a very negative ring in the international community," suggesting U.S. "arrogance and insensitivity."

Hamilton, the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, attributed the confused appearance of the administration’s recent maneuvering to "crunch time for the diplomats, and they’re scrambling to get votes."

The administration’s shifting diplomacy underscored its frustration at being unable to seal the deal at the United Nations while more than 225,000 U.S. troops are poised in the region, ready to advance.

"The administration I think has come to the conclusion that the longer this process drags on diplomatically, the harder it is to build a coalition to go to war, not easier," said Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton’s national security adviser, suggested "the French, the Russians and the Chinese are farther away from us than they were a month ago."

Powell, in his congressional appearance, conceded deep differences remain with the Security Council. But he gave no ground, suggesting, "The day of reckoning is fast approaching." And, he insisted, "The United States is not isolated on this issue."

Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.

[marktuoni]

Bush always seems strongest right after he has been seriously underestimated. He has pulled the same routine time and again, usually to the dismay of the left in OUR country.

I still hope, foolishly perhaps, that yet again, in the weeks to come, I'll be amazed at the man's political prowess.

[Semper Paratus]

My guess is that the artillery in soutern iraq and the scuds in western iraq will get vaporized at the start.

I hope they get vaporized the nanosecond after the canvas is taken off the stack of shells.

[mhking]

"Two-minute Warning" as it were...

[ClancyJ]

All a bunch of nonsense.

Notice how Saddam is completely silent in all of this. The U.N. just annilated their own power in controlling anything Saddam does. In fact, I think Saddam's agent at the U.N. is Chirac. Wonder how much Chirac is getting for his efforts to protect Saddam?

[ClancyJ]

I was hoping Bush meant what he said...guess not

And just what was Bush to do to MAKE them cooperate? Bush is not at fault here - look at Chirac, look at the liberals in England, look at the minor players refusing to stand with America. We are seeing their cards.

My complaint is that we are allowing a debating society to be given the status of a world police force that does not prevent the criminals of the world from their actions but prevents the innocents from protecting themselves from the dictators and terrorists.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[Bush and Blair appeared to have concluded that going to war without a follow-up to last fall's U.N. demand that Iraq disarm would be better than doing so after losing a vote in the Security Council on a new resolution.]

Well, Duh.

[xzins]

Bush had said in his news conference last Friday that he wanted to have a vote....get all the cards on the table.

That's changed. Now it's better just to get it done.

Apparently, the security council wasn't going to allow a vote on anything, ever.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

You don't take points off the board, ever.