The Age (Melbourne) January 18, 2003
War
By Marian Wilkinson
By the end of the month, more than 100,000 US troops will be in and around the Persian Gulf, ready for war. Marian Wilkinson investigates whether a strike against Baghdad is inevitable.
Saddam Hussein is a man with so many enemies, one more doing the rounds in Washington this week would seem of little consequence. But the man surrounded by a posse of aides as he darts across the capital - from meetings with congressmen to interviews with television hosts - is on a mission.
Saddam must go.
In the underground car park of the Ronald Reagan Convention Centre, pausing for breath between appointments, Dr Barham Salih takes a moment to consider the big question. Is a strike against Iraq imminent, has the US commitment to a war passed the point of no return? "I think regime change in Iraq is inevitable", Salih says, preferring the euphemism that marks the demise of the Iraqi leader.
He talks from a unique vantage point. As Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government he has come to Washington from northern Iraq, where there are consistent reports of US special forces and CIA operatives preparing for a war against Saddam Hussein. "I hope there will be no military confrontation because I would like to see my country spared destruction and misery, but that could be the triumph of hope over experience", he says.
Salih, like President George Bush, gives the predictable nod in the direction of a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis with little conviction. Like his friends in the Iraqi opposition and the Bush administration, he is expecting war. Just when war might be declared is what Bush and his senior advisors are now considering, says Salih, "but in my opinion, Iraqis yearn for their liberation, and it cannot happen a day sooner".
Just a few hours after Salih gives The Age his assessment of the crisis, over at the Pentagon the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, announces at a press call on Wednesday morning that several hundred US army personnel have arrived at the Taszar Air Base in Hungary. They are to begin training the Iraqi opposition forces who will be placed with US military units going into Iraq, says Myers, "if that were required".
The same morning in Brussels, NATO officials confirm that the US has formally asked for support with bases, refuelling and air support in the event of war with Iraq. That afternoon, another 6000 US marines are shipped out from the West Coast for the Gulf, joining a combined US and British force expected to exceed 100,000 troops by the end of the month. More aircraft carriers may also be on the way. Prime Minister John Howard has already given the green light for up to 2000 Australian personnel to join the US invasion force.
While Howard also stresses he hopes war is avoidable, the massive build-up of forces belies any such assurances.
It is clear the US has no intention of swallowing Iraqi claims that it is complying with last November's UN Security Council resolution to give up its weapons of mass destruction.
That resolution threatened serious consequences if Iraq failed to comply and since it was passed, the Bush administration has moved steadily towards war with Iraq.
Senior officials are now saying that war will be avoided only if Saddam voluntarily goes into exile or is toppled in a coup and neither prospect seems likely. Time magazine, in a startling claim this week, suggested that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt were working on a plan to orchestrate a coup in Iraq in the final days before the US declares war.
Quoting unnamed diplomats, Time claimed the Saudis would push a bizarre proposal for the Security Council resolution, declaring amnesty for the majority of those in the Iraqi Government "if they orchestrate a transition of power in Baghdad".
But barring such a dramatic end to the crisis, Bush and his administration appear determined to topple Saddam by force in the near future. What is still uncertain is how that endgame will be played out.
The US, Britain and Australia have still to convince many at home or abroad that the UN weapons inspection process, begun late last year, is failing. This week saw a showdown between the United Nations and the US over this very issue after the chief weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix, suggested his work could continue until March. Immediately, Bush and his senior officials made it clear this was unacceptable. "Time is running out," the president said, "At some point in time, the United States' patience will run out."
Standing before a sea of reporters at the Pentagon, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld was clearly concerned about the inspections process spilling over to March. Agitated and flapping his hands, he complained that the media just didn't get it. "Life isn't simple. Life is complicated," he said.
UN inspectors would not find Saddam's stash of prohibited weapons, he insisted. Saddam was too skilled in deception. "Wouldn't it be nice if somebody walked up and handed you a chemical or a biological weapon, or physical evidence that they're within 15 minutes of having a nuclear weapon, that would be wonderful?" he said. "It isn't going to happen!"
Rumsfeld was laying out bluntly the US case against Saddam Hussein. The US did not expect the inspectors to find new evidence of Saddam's weapons programs - but this did not exonerate Iraq; rather, it was proof of its guilt.
The central thrust of the US case is that Iraq has failed to turn over to the UN the true record of its weapons programs. The case got some support from Blix when he reported that there were indeed gaps in the declaration Iraq submitted to the Security Council. In particular, Iraq had failed to account for stocks of chemical and biological materials that could be used in prohibited weapons programs.
But the US surprised its allies by then declaring Iraq had committed a "material breach" of the resolution by submitting a misleading declaration. It was a decisive step towards conflict.
On January 9, when UN inspectors again reported to the Security Council, Blix said the inspectors had so far discovered no "smoking guns" in Iraq and praised the increasing "transparency" in the country. But he again noted that Iraq had failed to account for biological and chemical material that it claims has been destroyed.
Then yesterday, UN inspectors in Baghdad announced they had found 12 empty chemical warheads apparently similar to thousands imported by Iraq at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. They were stored in ammunition bunkers built in the late 1990s.
While the inspectors stressed the discovery was not "a smoking gun", it appeared to take both the US and Iraq by surprise. Iraq insisted the warheads were "expired" and they had already been declared, but whether this is so is unclear. The discovery could be used to bolster the US case that Iraq did make a false weapons' declaration.
Under intense pressure from the US this week, Blix was becoming increasingly strident in his calls for Iraq to clarify the gaps in its weapons declaration. On his way to Baghdad, Blix said: "The message that we want to bring to Baghdad is that the situation is very tense and very dangerous and that everybody wants to see a verified and credible disarmament of Iraq".
There were only two options, said Blix: either Iraq was "proactive" in its cooperation or, "the other option is the one we have seen taking shape in the form of an armed action against Iraq".
UN diplomatic sources say the end game is now getting closer. Blix and his colleague, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, are due to report to the Security Council on January 27. In the critical week before that report, Blix needs Iraq to give up new information on its former weapons programs. If it does not, there is no doubt the US will declare Iraq in continuing "material breach" of the Security Council resolution on January 27.
The following day, Bush is due to deliver his State of the Union address and is expected to lay out the case for going to war with Iraq. The Russians have insisted that the Security Council should meet again on January 29 to consider the Blix report and, no doubt, Bush's address. That meeting will be critical.
The US may try to push the Security Council to impose a new deadline for Iraq's compliance and ask the inspectors to report back sometime in February. That meeting is likely to become the US trigger for war.
Europe is lagging behind the US in its enthusiasm for a war. Britain's Tony Blair is the only European leader of note to entertain going to war without a second UN resolution, but is confident that the weapons inspectors will find the evidence required to warrant a second resolution.
Increasingly important now is public opinion. Opposition to the war is growing not only in Europe but also in the US. Reports of an impeding humanitarian disaster in Iraq if war goes ahead is feeding this sentiment. A recent UN document leaked to peace groups predicted that some half a million people would require treatment for direct or indirect injuries if war breaks out. It also predicted the outbreak of diseases in "epidemic if not pandemic proportions", given the already poor health of many Iraqis who have suffered under the sanctions regime.
In both the US and Australia, the public would like UN backing for any war against Iraq.
But this may prove elusive. While the US can make a case over Iraq's false declaration, the lack of a smoking gun - an existing, proven weapons program - could cause France and Russia to baulk at supporting a second resolution backing a war against Iraq. This is unlikely to halt a war. Bush has insisted that he will lead "a coalition of the willing" against Iraq with or without UN backing.
As the political posturing rolls on, disaster relief agencies prepare for the worst.
They are now meeting regularly with the US Government, but many complain they are getting little insight into war plans. Still, they press ahead with contingency planning.
Says Mark Bartolini of the aid agency International Rescue Committee: "One thing our community has decided on is that the threat is so real, we would be derelict in our duty not to prepare."
Marian Wilkinson is The Age's United States correspondent.
TURKEY
PERSONNEL More than 2000 US Air Force troops, mostly at Incirlik air base with around 200 British personnel. US and British forces fly patrols from here to enforce northern Iraq "no fly" zone.
EQUIPMENT At least 60 US aircraft; UK Jaguar ground attack aircraft and airborne tankers.
AT SEA
THE MEDITERRANEAN
* US aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman on site and Britain's flagship aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal, en route. British helicopter carrier HMS Ocean to join the task force at the end of January.
THE PERSIAN GULF
* USS Abraham Lincoln and Constellation aircraft carriers and battle groups now on patrol. Another four US aircraft carriers and support ships are due by the end of January. Navy cargo ships ferrying heavy equipment from US. US Navy hospital ship Comfort en route.
* The USS George Washington, just back in the US from the Gulf, is likely to return to the region.
THE ARABIAN SEA
* A US navy carrier battle group, and US Marines expeditionary group with helicopters and supplies for 1500 Marines.
DJIBOUTI
FORCES 800 US personnel, about half Special Operations forces.
EQUIPMENT Predator unmanned planes operated by CIA.
KUWAIT
PERSONNEL Home of US Army Command with 10,000 personnel; another 3000 from US Air Force enforcing southern "no fly" zone. Special forces units on site. Around 430 British personnel.
EQUIPMENT Two Patriot anti-missile batteries; more than 100 M1 tanks and 60 Bradley Fighting Vehicles; artillery units; 80 US aircraft. UK has 8 Tornado GR4s.
SAUDI ARABIA
PERSONNEL Home of US Air Force Command, 5500 troops.
EQUIPMENT About 75 US aircraft, including surveillance planes. Two Patriot batteries.
BAHRAIN
FORCES Home of US Navy Command, 4200 personnel, plus Air Force crews and another 2200 marines in the region. Small UK presence.
EQUIPMENT US Air Force fighters, bombers and refueling aircraft.
QATAR
FORCES 4000, mostly Air Force and Army. Likely headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM). CENTCOM dispatched 1000 personnel to operate wartime headquarters.
EQUIPMENT Longest runway in the region, and hangars for 100 aircraft. Enough equipment for one army brigade and support units.
UAE
FORCES 500 US troops, mostly Air Force
EQUIPMENT Base of US Air Expeditionary Wing; key deep water ports.
OMAN
FORCES 3000 personnel, mostly Air Force. British special forces believed to be training in area.
EQUIPMENT US building new air base at Masnaah, unconfirmed home to B-1 bombers and refuelling planes.
DIEGO GARCIA
FORCES 1500 US personnel
Equipment: Served as bomber base in Afghan campaign. Special shelters for B-2 stealth bombers. Unconfirmed reports that B-52 and B-2 bombers, and as many as 23 supply ships, may be positioned here and nearby.
ON THE OTHER SIDE
IRAQ
FORCES 350,000 Iraqi ground forces.
EQUIPMENT
* GROUND COMBAT 6000 tanks and other armored vehicles; 2300 artillery pieces, 250 rocket launchers, 40 short-range surface-to-air missiles
* AIRCRAFT About 300 combat aircraft (but one third not operational), 200 helicopters
* MISSILES Up to 40 Al Hussein Scud missiles (390-mile range), unknown number of Al Samoud missiles (90-mile range).
* AIR DEFENCE Surface-to-air missiles, four air defense command centres.
SOURCES: GlobalSecurity.org; US Center for DefenCe Information, The Washington Post; The Guardian, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, Reuters, AP.
Copyright © 2003 Copyright 2003 The Age Company Limited
