[PEN-L:30253] Will Saddam get the message?

["ken hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In a recent war games exercise Iraq--played by a retired US military
officer- won by a pre-emptive attack on US forces that were massing for an
attack. What if this happens for real? What has Saddam got to lose..?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

US could strike in 3 weeks, some analysts say

Recent strike, arms shipments set the scene

By Robert Schlesinger, Globe Staff, 9/13/2002

ASHINGTON - US forces in the Persian Gulf could be ready to attack Iraq in
as little as three weeks, armed with a prepositioned arsenal bolstered in
recent weeks by a stealthy series of logistical movements, according to
military analysts.



Those analysts point to shipments of tanks and other weaponry to supplement
US equipment already in the region, a recent airstrike against a critical
radar post in Iraq, and the disclosure Wednesday that the US Central
Command, which directs military operations in the region, plans to move
command personnel to an air base in the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar.

Analysts see the temporary transfer as significant because it will put
hundreds of command staff in the potential theater of war.

''It's certainly part of an ongoing process,'' said Anthony Cordesman, a
senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ''This
is much further along than people understand. ... If I were Saddam, I would
frankly start thinking to myself that I'd be very lucky if I now had 60 days
until the US is ready.''

If President Bush gives the order, the required mobilization could be as
short as three weeks for the smaller troop deployment under consideration at
the Pentagon and no longer than two to three months for a larger invasion.

Military planners would still have to deal with a number of logistical and
political issues, including negotiating agreements to fly over or use bases
in neighboring countries. The upcoming Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the
weather in Iraq could also be factors. But the equipment available in the
region gives planners great flexibility.

''Clearly there is some initial effort to get a little more force into the
region, if for no other reason than to provide a bit of insurance and a
margin of safety as we conduct all this suggestive talk about war,'' said
Michael O'Hanlon, a national security analyst with the Brookings
Institution. But O'Hanlon said he doubts that the war preparations are
irrevocable.

US forces have equipment for at least two divisions that is either in the
Gulf region or could be brought there quickly, according to military
specialists. A division typically has 17,000 troops, subdivided into three
brigades. The Army's materiel for a heavy armored division is warehoused in
Kuwait, Qatar, and on the tiny Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia. Equipment
for a division of Marines is stored at Diego Garcia, on a ship that travels
around the Mediterranean, and on another vessel anchored near Saipan in the
South Pacific.

The United States has recently beefed up those forces.

For example, the Pentagon has a longstanding plan to move equipment for
three Army brigades out of Europe, because it has not been needed there
since the end of the Cold War. Enough materiel for one brigade has already
reached Diego Garcia, according to John Pike, director of
GlobalSecurity.org, a research group that tracks troop and equipment
movement. Enough for another brigade, perhaps two, is on its way to the Gulf
region, in cargo ships that the US armed forces recently contracted to carry
heavy equipment there.

Earlier this month, the US government contracted with commercial shipping
companies to move heavy equipment, including tanks, from the United States
to Kuwait for what the Pentagon described as routine exercises. It was the
third such shipment in recent weeks.

Last week, Army Secretary Thomas White announced that the military had moved
other equipment from Qatar to Camp Doha in Kuwait, in what he described as a
routine training exercise.

While White added that the equipment had returned to Qatar, a spokesman for
Army Forces Central Command told the Associated Press that the equipment has
remained there, needed because the Army added roughly 2,000 soldiers in
recent months, augmenting the 1,500 that were already stationed at Doha.

The military's ability to move these forces around with relatively little
notice surprised some analysts. ''If they've in fact done what they've said
they've done, it exceeds what I thought was possible,'' said Owen Cote Jr.,
associate director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

Still other movements are planned. The Washington Post reported yesterday
that the Marines will send to Kuwait later this month a unit trained to
detect nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks, presumably the six-year
old, 350-Marine strong Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force.

US Central Command plans to deploy up to 600 of its command staff from the
Tampa headquarters to Qatar for a one-week exercise in November.

''It would have to be interpreted as an indicator of leaning forward in
preparation for an attack,'' Pike said.

Defense officials are considering two main plans that would involve large
numbers of US troops in a war against Iraq, according to published reports.

One would involve 50,000 to 70,000 troops making a direct drive straight to
Baghdad, avoiding engagements with the bulk of the Iraqi army in an attempt
to deliver a decisive blow to the regime and cause the military to crumble.

The second, which planners call ''Gulf War Lite,'' would involve 200,000 to
250,000 American troops in a traditional full-scale invasion of Iraq,
possibly entering from bordering countries, including Kuwait, Turkey, and
Jordan.

It takes more time for the military to move equipment than troops. Two or
three divisions could be ready to strike Iraq from Kuwait within three
weeks, sufficient forces to execute the smaller-scale attack, according to
Pike and other analysts.

O'Hanlon was more skeptical. ''You need to be able to bail them out if they
get into trouble, and you want to intimidate the Iraqi Army into knowing it
will lose, to minimize resistance and maximize the chances that the army
will itself turn on Saddam,'' he said.

One crucial unknown is whether the Pentagon would send a force of similar
size from Turkey into northern Iraq, and if so, whether any equipment has
been prepositioned for that purpose. That part of Turkey lacks the rail and
road systems necessary to move heavy equipment.

If the administration goes with the larger-scale plan, moving all of the
equipment and troops into place could take two to three months, with the
initial divisions deployed to ward off a preemptive Iraqi attack.

Air power is another critical question. Aircraft carriers could provide much
firepower. Air bases in Turkey, Kuwait, and Qatar could provide the balance.

While the war in Afghanistan depleted the US store of precision-guided
bombs, the military earlier this year stepped up orders, so that the supply
would be back up to strength by this month.

US and British jets are already enforcing no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq and on three dozen occasions this year have struck Iraqi
facilities that threatened those patrols. While that number is in line with
the overall trend in recent years, the recent targets have intrigued some
analysts.

Pike cited a Sept. 5 strike against a complex in western Iraq known as H-3,
which stored chemical weapons at the time of the Gulf War. According to US
intelligence, Iraq has developed drone aircraft capable of delivering
chemical or biological weapons, and H-3 is a potential launching point for
any Iraqi airstrike against Israel. Also, if the United States wished to
conduct special forces operations inside western Iraq or even from Jordan,
neutralizing the base probably opened a blind spot in Iraqi air defenses.

Cote speculated that the H-3 strike last week could be an attempt ''to
eliminate that threat to helicopters flying around there.''

Robert Schlesinger can be reached at schlesinger@xxxxxxxxxx

This story ran on page A35 of the Boston Globe on 9/13/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company