US Senior Military Commanders Defy Bush On Iraq
By David Rennie in Washington
America's most senior military commanders have staged a joint rebellion
against calls for a swift strike against Iraq.
They said United States forces would face appalling casualties as they
fought their way into Baghdad "block by block" if President Bush went ahead
with an early invasion.
Strongly advising Mr Bush to scrap a military confrontation with Saddam
Hussein altogether or at least put off any action until next year, the six
Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed fears that a cornered Iraqi leader would not
hesitate to use biological or chemical weapons.
Their revolt spilled into the open yesterday with a series of co- ordinated
leaks to American newspapers, describing how the Joint Chiefs stood
"shoulder to shoulder" in challenging the wisdom of attacking Saddam.
Earlier this year, public statements by Mr Bush and others led many to
believe a military strike on Iraq appeared inevitable.
However, senior officials are now reported to be focusing more on bringing
about "regime change" through intelligence operations and encouragement of
Iraqi opposition groups - a policy much closer to that pursued by the
Clinton administration.
An official described as being familiar with the thinking of the defence
secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, told the Washington Post:
"There are many ways in which [removing Saddam] could come about, only one
of which is a military campaign in Iraq."
Mr Bush, speaking in Berlin on Thursday , said he had told the German
chancellor, Gerhard Schrder: "I have no war plans on my desk, which is the
truth, and we've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam
Hussein."
Sources said Gen Tommy Franks, the head of United States Central Command,
held a secret briefing at the White House earlier this month, at which he
told the President that ousting Saddam would require at least 200,000 troops.
It was reported earlier this year that if America did decide to send a force
of the size suggested by Gen Franks, Britain would be asked to contribute
some 25,000 men.
An alternative strategy supported by some powerful conservatives in the Bush
administration would see special forces, allied with local opposition
fighters, trying to topple Saddam in a swift operation. Military chiefs
boasted to the Washington Post yesterday that such thoughts had been quashed.
One senior general talked of defusing an "Iraq hysteria" that gripped senior
officials last winter. Another senior officer said: "The civilian leadership
thought they could do it a la Afghanistan, with special forces. I think
they've been dissuaded of that."
However, other sources said that the situation was still "fluid", noting
that Mr Rumsfeld had so far stayed clear of the debate, leaving it up to his
deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the chief of policy, Douglas Feith. Both men are
seen as leading conservatives in favour of action against Iraq.
Mr Rumsfeld refused to be drawn yesterday on whether the United States was
planning for war with Iraq, saying it would be "the dumbest thing" to
comment on future thinking.
"With respect to any one country, we obviously don't get into discussions
about what conceivably could be done," Mr Rumsfeld said. However, he
insisted that the military was able to carry out any mission asked of it.
He was given a public show of support by General Peter Pace, the
vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who said: "Your military is ready today
to execute whatever mission the civilian leadership asks us to do."
Gen Pace declined to discuss his own views on Iraq, saying he and his
colleagues in uniform enjoyed "very robust" dialogue with their civilian
leaders.
Mr Rumsfeld was no more forthcoming when asked whether the United States
military was equipped to open a new front in the war against terror.
"If we had a serious shortage of something, I think it would be rather
stupid to stand up here and announce it to the world, don't you?" Mr
Rumsfeld said.
The Washington Post described a series of secret meetings this spring in the
secure Pentagon facility known as "The Tank", at which the Joint Chiefs
agreed on the serious dangers of an invasion of Iraq.
Principal among these was the fear that Saddam, if faced with losing power,
or even his life, would feel no constraints in using his chemical and
biological weapons.
There have been rumblings for months that the American military is
"overstretched" by the new demands of the war against terrorism.
In addition to the fighting in Afghanistan, which has all but exhausted
stocks of some high-tech weapons, the military faces unprecedented demands
to contribute to the defence of the American homeland.
USA Today newspaper reported the concerns of the Joint Chiefs that special
operations commandos were already stretched thin in Afghanistan, the
Philippines and the Yemen.
The commanders also reportedly noted that - unlike in 1991, during the
operation to liberate Kuwait - neighbouring Arab nations may not offer their
bases and territory to United States forces.
In 1991, such support was vital in helping American commanders fly fuel and
supplies to the forces attacking Iraq, and to refuel air force fighters and
bombers in mid-air.
But the top brass rebellion over Iraq appears to go beyond questions of
supplies and manpower, straying well into the realms of politics.
Sources told the Washington Post that some of the Joint Chiefs expressed
misgivings about the wisdom of toppling Saddam, in the absence of a clear
successor who is any better, worrying that an invasion might result in the
emergence of a more hostile regime.
Gen Franks, who would supervise any battle for Iraq, shared such wider
strategic concerns, one officer said. "Tommy's issue is, a lot of things
have to be in place, and these things are not all military things."
|