WASHINGTON: As the Bush administration intensifies talk about toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, military officials are confronting what some see as a looming problem: that by launching a war in the Persian Gulf, the administration will divert attention and resources from the military campaign against Al Qaeda and terrorism.
Although Pentagon officials are proceeding to refine plans for a war against Iraq, military officers warn that a major campaign in the Middle East would place a serious drain on intelligence gathering and Special Forces units, two central components of the military’s efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda and Taliban members in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
How to balance these conflicting stresses on US forces is among the key factors being assessed by war planners, and could contribute to the shape and timing of any military campaign against Iraq. At the moment, with Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leader, and his lieutenants still being sought along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere, some military officials worry that the administration may be shifting the focus to Iraq too soon.
Defence officials said that spy satellites, reconnaissance aircraft and other intelligence resources employed in Afghanistan would have to be concentrated even more heavily on the Gulf region if President Bush decides to attack Iraq. Additionally, Special Forces members who speak Arabic and Persian or have other expertize in the region would likely be diverted to an Iraqi campaign.
Despite the increasingly forceful language of Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials, military planners say that, barring a provocation by Iraq, no attack on Iraq is likely until January at the earliest. They note that the administration must complete military planning, move troops and equipment into place, negotiate basing and overflight agreements with regional allies, and consult with Congress before it could launch a war.
As they make the case for action against Iraq, advocates argue that taking on Saddam would not be a diversion from the ‘war on terrorism’, but an essential complement to it. They cite what they say is Iraq’s support of terrorist groups and the threat posed by Saddam’s government as a source of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
Some administration advisers have suggested that an invasion of Iraq could be mounted using a force much smaller than the more than 200,000 ground troops called for in larger options under consideration. But senior military officers familiar with the planning expect that arguments for a bigger force will prevail to ensure adequate troops for dealing with such worst-case situations as a prolonged battle to seize Baghdad.
Whatever doubts the Pentagon’s top-ranked officers harboured earlier about moving against Iraq, they are said to be in agreement now that the United States could fight and win a war against Iraq. Where hesitations persist is over how quickly the campaign should be mounted. There also is continued concern about the absence of friendly nations siding with the United States and the lack of a clear plan for Iraq once Saddam is removed.
Until last year, US policy had required the Pentagon to be able to fight two major regional wars simultaneously. Many defence experts doubted that the armed forces were adequately equipped and manned to accomplish this. In a broad review of defence policy, the Bush administration changed the requirement, mandating that the armed forces be structured so they could secure a “decisive victory” in only one conflict at a time, even as US commanders were directed to continue planning for the possibility of operating “in two theatres in overlapping timeframes.”
With a war against Iraq looming, and counter-terrorist operations under way in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Pentagon appears on the cusp of reaching this limit, or exceeding it.
“I think it would be a three-front war,” said Marine Lt. Gen. E.R. “Buck” Bedard, deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations, who nonetheless expressed confidence that the military was up to the job.
Some of the initial demands on US military forces imposed by the ‘war on terrorism’ have eased in recent months. The numbers of warships and aircraft committed to the 11-month-old operation in Afghanistan have been scaled back, and Pentagon contractors have worked to replenish inventories of “smart” bombs that were used extensively in Afghanistan.
Additionally, the flurry of Pentagon counter-terrorism initiatives last winter that sent military trainers and support teams into the Philippines, Yemen and Georgia has waned. The Philippine and Yemen missions ended this summer, and no new programmes elsewhere have been announced.—Dawn/The Washington Post News Service.