CNSNews.com March 11, 2003
Prelude to War: Coalition Warplanes Hit Iraqi Sites
By Lawrence Morahan
The Pentagon (CNSNews.com) - In a prelude to a possible U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, coalition warplanes are stepping up attacks on Saddam Hussein's air defense system and on his forces' ability to effectively defend themselves in an attack, analysts and officials said Monday.
During the weekend, coalition aircraft fired precision-guided weapons at five unmanned, underground military communications sites located about 60 miles southeast of Baghdad.
The coalition targeted the sites after Iraqi forces launched a surface-to-air missile Sunday at coalition aircraft supporting Operation Southern Watch, officials said.
The facilities at An Numinayah were specifically tied into Iraq's air defense system, but coalition forces are stepping up attacks on Iraq's ground defenses as well, reported Lt. Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.
"In the last four to six weeks or so, we have also targeted surface-to-surface missile systems because of the threat that they pose to our troops and to Kuwaitis.
"But for the most part, most of the Southern Watch strikes have been directed at pieces of Iraq's air defense system, which do threaten aircraft," he said.
Retired Lt. Col. Piers Wood, director of Military Insights at GlobalSecurity.org, said the coalition will conduct as many air attacks as it can get away with under the constraints set up by the United Nations for Northern Watch and Southern Watch.
"They're going to hit ground targets, and they're going to hit anti-aircraft, but they're going to hit other support ground targets as well," he said.
The United States has likely deployed Special Forces behind Iraqi lines to locate and identify targets, Wood added.
"It seems perfectly plausible to me to expect that Special Operating Forces are on the ground and that UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and intelligence-collection devices are overhead, and air strikes are taking place with a view to affect...some kind of possible war, but not something you would call war," he said.
Gen. Tommy Franks, who would command U.S. forces in an invasion of Iraq, said last week that his troops were ready. "And military commanders usually don't say that unless they're truly ready," said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies with the Cato Institute.
"Now, we're saying that legitimate targets include targets that could threaten troops, not just aircraft.
"They've been hitting these ground targets in the no-fly zones, so both north and south Iraq have got to be pretty soft at this point, which means that this whole 'shock and awe strategy' will work in the initial phases of the war," Pena said.
About 230,000 U.S. troops currently are in the region, and another 60,000 are on their way.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday there was a strong chance that a majority of the U.N. Security Council would vote in favor of a U.S.-sponsored resolution authorizing war against Iraq. However, France and Russia, both permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Monday promised to veto any resolution establishing a March 17 ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to disarm.
If the Security Council rejects the resolution, the Bush administration could send word for weapons inspectors, journalists and others to get out of Iraq before an invasion is launched by the weekend, analysts predicted. And at this late date, even if Saddam Hussein stepped down, the United States would still have to go into Iraq, Pena said.
"The false hope that the rest of the international community is holding out is that Saddam will disarm. And even if you assume that he does, that's not good enough for President Bush. He's made it pretty clear - Saddam can't stay in power," he said.
Even if the United States gets its way with the U.N. vote - which could happen as early as Tuesday - that's not enough time for Saddam to comply, even if he wanted to, Pena said.
"All of this is just a way for the United States to go to war one way or the other.
"Either we go to war because the U.N. gives us the approval to go to war or we go to war because the president says, 'Well, you guys aren't living up to your responsibilities,'" he said.
"The war itself - not that war is a trivial thing that should be looked on lightly - is probably the easy part of the problem. It's the occupation, the democratization and reshaping the Middle East that's the big problem," Pena said.
Copyright © 2003, Cybercast News Service.
