USA TODAY February 21, 2003
Special report: How the war against Iraq could unfold
By Dave Moniz
WASHINGTON -- Sometime in the next month, Saddam Hussein and his most loyal lieutenants are likely to hear the first chilling sounds of war: the distinctive clicks and whooshing noises smart bombs make as their steering fins make last-second adjustments to put them on target.
An unrelenting volley of satellite- and laser-guided bombs, falling in concert with hundreds of cruise missiles launched from U.S. Navy ships, will blast into military headquarters and the barracks of Saddam's elite troops in and around Baghdad.
At the same time, the lights will go out -- literally -- for military commanders and Saddam's security forces, whose radios, telephones and computers will be zapped by powerful new weapons known as "e-bombs." These bombs use electromagnetic energy to generate crippling power surges.
What follows the barrage of several thousand smart weapons will be the kind of war the United States has never fought on this scale before: a rapid, violent invasion whose main goals aren't to seize territory or destroy a large army. Instead, if all goes according to plan, U.S. forces will kill or capture Saddam and anyone keeping him in power, while leaving Iraq's regular military, its civilians and most cities and towns untouched. If it works, it will be the model for U.S. wars to pre-empt terrorist threats for decades to come. Waging a second Persian Gulf War, military analysts caution, will require both an iron fist and a velvet glove. U.S. forces must use swift and brutal force to neutralize the armed forces, kill or capture Saddam, and stop Iraqis from torching oil wells and unleashing chemical or biological weapons. And, with a surgical touch, U.S. forces must do this without slaughtering Iraqi civilians or crippling a country that will have to be rebuilt and occupied for years to come.
The swift and brutal part of the U.S. invasion plan is all but assured. With little fanfare, the Pentagon and its allies have ringed Iraq with an overwhelming force. Five aircraft carrier battle groups are on station or on their way to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea. Some 800 warplanes are poised aboard ships or at bases within striking distance of Iraq. Troops, tanks and helicopters from U.S. and British units are moving into position in Kuwait, Turkey and elsewhere in the region.
U.S. and Turkish diplomats are still bargaining over whether to allow U.S. troops to attack from Turkey's bases. The denial of the bases, which Pentagon officials consider unlikely, would complicate the attack plan and make it more difficult for American forces to quickly reach oil fields and key areas in northern Iraq.
Although the U.S. and British invasion force of 250,000 will be less than half the size of the 1991 Desert Storm force, it will be far more lethal because of advances in weapons, communications and tactics, military officials say.
The war will likely begin with precision bombing in the dead of the Iraqi night. Tank forces and elite commandos could be in Baghdad 48 to 72 hours after the start of the invasion, military officials and defense analysts say.
Target No. 1: Saddam
Here's a look at how key parts of the invasion might unfold:
* America's most elite commando unit, the Army's shadowy, 360-man Delta Force, will lead the hunt for target No. 1 -- Saddam and his family. Delta Force, based at Fort Bragg, N.C., is so secret that the Pentagon won't admit it exists.
* Special operations units will fan out in an urgent hunt for bunkers where Iraq may have hidden chemical and biological weapons. Assisted by unmanned surveillance planes, commandos will disperse in Iraq's vast western desert to hunt and destroy the handful of mobile Scud missiles experts think Saddam has concealed there -- which they fear he could use to strike at Israel. U.S. troops will race to Iraq's 1,500 oil wells to prevent Saddam from blowing them up in an environmental Armageddon.
* Most of Iraq's 375,000-man regular army will probably be left alone as Army and Marine ground troops and airborne forces sweep toward Baghdad and Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, from bases in Kuwait and Turkey. Military analysts say it's unlikely that Iraq's regular Army, made up of draftees, will choose to defend Saddam.
* U.S. ground forces and bombers will move to destroy any portion of the 100,000-member Republican Guard and the 25,000-man Special Republican Guard that tries to protect Saddam. The Iraqi dictator typically keeps only the Special Republican Guard in Baghdad, but military analysts say Saddam will likely recall the larger Republican Guard units to the capital to draw U.S. forces into difficult urban fighting.
The Pentagon's war plan is designed to take advantage of new weapons and new ways to fight.
The Army's 4th Infantry Division, for example, has installed computer displays in all its tanks and headquarters to show the movements of enemy forces on the battlefield. Armed with a clear picture of where enemy tanks are, U.S. armor can move much faster and more effectively into battle.
Another new twist: The Air Force could unleash a 30,000-pound bomb, known as "Big Blu" ("blu" is military jargon for "bomb live unit"). So large that it can't be carried in any U.S. bomber, the 15-ton weapon has to be hauled aloft in a cargo plane. If dropped near massed Iraqi forces, it could have the same psychological effect as the terrifying B-52 carpet bombing that demoralized Iraqi regular army forces in 1991.
"I think the Iraqis are going to be shocked at how hard they are hit," says Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer who has written frequently on modern warfare.
No parallels for this war
There are no parallels for the kind of war the Pentagon plans to fight.
In 1989, the United States invaded Panama to capture dictator Manuel Noriega and remove him from power. But the Panama invasion -- in a tiny country where the United States already had a large military base -- was simple compared with toppling Iraq's strongman.
This time, U.S. troops will be charged with locating an elusive leader, crushing the remnants of his military, limiting the use of chemical and biological weapons and preventing what could be one of the largest environmental catastrophes in history.
Most defense analysts say a U.S. victory is certain, though they warn it won't come without cost.
The Pentagon won't discuss potential U.S. casualty figures. But Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, predicts the United States could lose anywhere from hundreds to as many as 10,000 troops.
Military analysts say defeating Saddam's military may actually be the easiest goal of the invasion.
"How hard will it be to find Saddam?" asks Dave Grange, a retired Army major general. "Hard. (Capturing) Noriega took a long time" because he fled to the Vatican Embassy and hid for two weeks before surrendering. "Bin Laden is still out there. It's just hard to kill a leader."
Saddam reportedly has several body doubles, seldom sleeps in the same place and is rarely seen in public. He also has had years to prepare escape plans.
Bush officials have said war could be averted if Saddam left Iraq. But once shooting starts, any exile offer would almost certainly expire. Peters, the former Army officer, says exile for Saddam can't be an option in the middle of the war. "We can't allow that," Peters says. "Anything short of Saddam in handcuffs or dead is not a victory."
In recent months, the United States has been waging a relentless campaign to persuade Iraqis to help topple Saddam.
The Pentagon continues to drop leaflets promising Saddam's regular army that it will not be attacked if it sits out the "liberation" of Iraq. The United States has also found and contacted -- in some cases by e-mail -- key commanders who would be responsible for destroying oil wells and using chemical weapons. The message: They risk prosecution for war crimes if they carry out Saddam's orders, a senior Defense Department source says.
Military and civilian sources say Saddam has likely wired Iraq's vast oil fields for destruction. When Iraqi troops were pushed out of Kuwait in 1991, they set fire to dozens of wells, blackening the sky across the Persian Gulf.
Chuck Horner, a retired Air Force general who led the bombing campaign in the Gulf War, says he is hopeful that U.S. propaganda efforts have paid dividends with Iraq's military commanders, many of whom despise Saddam.
"I would hope the Iraqis would see the long-term stupidity of blowing the oil wells. If I were in charge of wiring them, I'd make sure I did a poor job," Horner says.
A stealth buildup
The buildup for this war is different than in 1991, when the United States and its allies built an "iron mountain" of tanks, planes and other equipment in Saudi Arabia and massed half a million troops to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait.
This time, the Pentagon has moved fewer troops and less material into the region, and has tried to disperse them. Troops, bombers and ships are also positioned in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Diego Garcia and Bahrain.
There are two reasons. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is trying to make U.S. forces lighter and more nimble, cutting the equipment they take with them. More importantly, the Pentagon does not want to give Saddam or al-Qaeda terrorists big targets for suicide bombers or chemical and biological weapons.
To help prepare the ground for war, the Pentagon has been dismantling Iraq's air defenses for months under the guise of protecting U.S. and British pilots patrolling "no-fly" zones in southern and northern Iraq, where Iraqi military aircraft aren't allowed to fly.
In recent weeks, Saddam has reportedly moved Republican Guard forces closer to Baghdad. Historically, the Iraqi dictator has kept most of his troops away from the capital for fear they might try to overthrow his government.
His dilemma this time: If he masses his forces, he risks having them destroyed by bombing and tank attacks. If he disperses them across the country, military analysts say, he risks widespread desertion and loss of control.
"Saddam has no good military options," says Barry McCaffrey, a retired Army general who commanded the Army's 24th Infantry Division in the first Gulf War. His best hope, McCaffrey says, is to somehow force the United States to fight brutal street-to-street battles in Baghdad and Tikrit.
The Pentagon, however, hopes to attack the Republican Guard before it can retreat to the capital and inflict heavy casualties on U.S. ground troops.
Nightmare scenarios
Few military analysts think Saddam can win if the United States invades. But there are scenarios that worry Pentagon planners:
* Saddam might try striking Israel with chemical or biological weapons in Scud missiles or by spraying from unmanned aircraft. Or, he might order terrorists with smallpox or anthrax to attack Israel or Arab neighbors.
* He might use "human shields" in Baghdad to create civilian casualties, in a bid to turn world opinion against the United States. Many analysts believe the Pentagon's decision to grant more than 500 reporters access to front-line U.S. troops is designed in part to counter an expected barrage of Iraqi war propaganda alleging atrocities.
* Saddam might choose a scorched-earth policy, blowing up dams, igniting oil fields and dispensing anthrax and other deadly agents in Iraq and elsewhere. U.S. intelligence is convinced Saddam has a chemical and biological arsenal, but isn't sure where he is hiding it.
Most troubling to the Pentagon is the scorched-earth scenario, a senior Defense Department adviser says. The military believes it can prevent most but not all of Saddam's efforts to create chaos inside Iraq or destabilize the Middle East by luring Israel into the conflict.
U.S. war planners have worked to lower the odds of these scenarios. To protect U.S. troops, the Pentagon recently moved virtually all of its Patriot-3 missiles, its most advanced anti-missile device, to Kuwait, a military source says.
And the Bush administration has made it clear that should Saddam use chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces, the Pentagon's response would be devastating. Although administration officials have not ruled out a nuclear response, the United States would likely retaliate with massive conventional bombing, senior Defense officials say.
The Pentagon is banking on a vicious, lightning-quick attack to intimidate many of Saddam's most loyal supporters into giving up. But there are serious risks, some beyond the U.S. military's control.
"There is a 100% chance he will try to use chemical and biological agents," Peters says. "And the sad thing is, he will try to blame it on us and there is a substantial portion of the Arab and Muslim world who will buy into that." Cover storyCover story
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, Color, Dave Merrill, USA TODAY, Source: USA TODAY research (ILLUSTRATION, MAP); PHOTO, Color, Kevork Djansezian, AP; PHOTO, Color, Jack Gruber, USA TODAY; GRAPHIC, Color, Sources: Army Times Publishing Co.; Anthony Cordesman, Center of Strategic and International Studies; Gannett News Service; Globalsecurity.org (MAP); GRAPHIC, Color, Dave Merrill, USA TODAY, Sources: Nathaniel Levine, Army Times Publishing Co.; U.S. Defense Department; Globalsecurity.org (MAP); Getting ready: A soldier in the Army's 3rd Infantry Division undergoes urban warfare training in Kuwait.<>Aboard USS Abraham Lincoln: Aviation ordinance workers move bombs on the flight deck of the carrier, now in the Persian Gulf.<>How the war against Iraq could unfold (graphic)<>Saddam's forces (graphic)<>Where U.S. forces have been deployed in the Mideast (graphic)
Copyright © 2003, Gannett Company, Inc.
