Bloomberg November 22, 2002
U.S. Stepping Up Bombing Attacks Aimed at Iraqi Air Defenses
Washington, Nov. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. and British aircraft
fired today at a communications facility in Iraq, the sixth day of
attacks in a ``no-fly zone'' during the past week, in what may be
part of a stepped-up effort to degrade Iraqi air defenses.
``It's basically gone from weekly to daily,'' John Pike, a
defense analyst with Globalsecurity.org, a research group, said of
the increased pace of U.S. and British strikes in preparation for
a possible conflict.
The United Nations has ordered Iraq to submit to a new round
of inspections for weapons of mass destruction or face ``serious
consequences,'' and President George W. Bush has said the U.S. is
ready to attack if Iraq doesn't comply fully.
U.S. and British jets have been patrolling no-fly zones in
northern and southern Iraq since the end of the Gulf War a decade
ago to enforce UN-ordered limits on Iraqi military activity. The
recent increase in attacks by coalition planes may be the initial
stage of renewed conflict, analysts said.
``They're taking apart the integrated air-defense system so
that Iraq basically does not have a functioning air-defense
system,'' Pike said.
Iraq maintains a formidable air-defense capability, Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said. The Iraqis are ``constantly
trying to improve'' their defenses through advances such as fiber
optic connections, Rumsfeld told reporters in September.
Two Attacks
The allied aircraft today struck unmanned communications
facilities south of Al Amarah, about 165 miles southeast of
Baghdad, after an Iraqi military jet entered the southern zone,
the Pentagon said in a statement.
Aircraft yesterday hit targets near Al Shuaybah, about 245
miles southeast of Baghdad, and near Al Tallil, about 170 miles
southeast of the capital, after Iraq moved radar devices into the
southern zone, the Pentagon said.
The Pentagon downplayed the recent increase. One spokesman
said the number of responses by U.S. and British planes varies
from week to week, and another suggested any increase may be due
to stepped-up preparations for war by Iraq.
``The Iraqis have been pretty aggressive'' in repositioning
their military equipment,'' said Marine Lieutenant Colonel David
Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.
Navy Commander Frank Merriman, a spokesman for Central
Command, the Pentagon division responsible for the southern no-fly
zone in Iraq, said he didn't regard it as a significant pattern.
``It's not a long-term, escalating trend,'' he said.
Iraqi `Provocations'
Still, Lapan said today's incident marked the sixth day of a
coalition attack on Iraqi forces since last Friday. It was the
63rd day so far this year in which an attack took place.
It also follows Rumsfeld's acknowledgement on Sept. 16 that
he had ordered a more aggressive response to Iraq ``provocations''
in the no-fly zones.
``We're there implementing UN resolutions, and the idea that
our planes go out and get shot at with impunity bothers me,''
Rumsfeld said.
Rumsfeld said that day U.S. planes would begin targeting
communications buildings and other fixed targets in Iraq when
patrols over the no-fly zones were challenged.
The U.S. defines provocations to include Iraqi military
forces aiming radar at coalition planes or flying or moving
equipment on the ground within the restricted zones. The Iraqi
actions outnumber U.S. or British responses by a margin of about
10-to-one, with more than 205 counted since Sept. 16, said Navy
Lieutenant Daniel Hetlage, a Pentagon spokesman.
That marked a change from the previous administration, which
felt the Pentagon was taking too many risks by chasing after
unimportant Iraqi military targets, said Anthony Cordesman, a
military analyst with the Center for Strategic and International
Studies.
``At the time of the Clinton administration, it was concluded
that if you flew sort of daily attack sorties in response against
low-value targets, you kept risking airplanes for no purpose,''
said Cordesman, a former Pentagon director of intelligence
assessment. ``You weren't achieving any destruction.''
--Paul Basken in Washington (202) 624-1827 or
pbasken@bloomberg.net with reporting by Tony Capaccio. Editor:
McQuillan.
© Copyright 2002 bloomberg
