- America's most senior military commanders have staged
a joint rebellion against calls for a swift strike against Iraq.
-
- They said United States forces would face appalling casualties
as they fought their way into Baghdad "block by block" if President
Bush went ahead with an early invasion.
-
- Strongly advising Mr Bush to scrap a military confrontation
with Saddam Hussein altogether or at least put off any action until next
year, the six Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed fears that a cornered Iraqi
leader would not hesitate to use biological or chemical weapons.
-
- Their revolt spilled into the open yesterday with a series
of co-ordinated leaks to American newspapers, describing how the Joint
Chiefs stood "shoulder to shoulder" in challenging the wisdom
of attacking Saddam.
-
- Earlier this year, public statements by Mr Bush and others
led many to believe a military strike on Iraq appeared inevitable.
-
- However, senior officials are now reported to be focusing
more on bringing about "regime change" through intelligence operations
and encouragement of Iraqi opposition groups - a policy much closer to
that pursued by the Clinton administration.
-
- An official described as being familiar with the thinking
of the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, told the Washington Post:
-
- "There are many ways in which [removing Saddam]
could come about, only one of which is a military campaign in Iraq."
-
- Mr Bush, speaking in Berlin on Thursday , said he had
told the German chancellor, Gerhard Schrder: "I have no war plans
on my desk, which is the truth, and we've got to use all means at our disposal
to deal with Saddam Hussein."
-
- Sources said Gen Tommy Franks, the head of United States
Central Command, held a secret briefing at the White House earlier this
month, at which he told the President that ousting Saddam would require
at least 200,000 troops.
-
- It was reported earlier this year that if America did
decide to send a force of the size suggested by Gen Franks, Britain would
be asked to contribute some 25,000 men.
-
- An alternative strategy supported by some powerful conservatives
in the Bush administration would see special forces, allied with local
opposition fighters, trying to topple Saddam in a swift operation. Military
chiefs boasted to the Washington Post yesterday that such thoughts had
been quashed.
-
- One senior general talked of defusing an "Iraq hysteria"
that gripped senior officials last winter. Another senior officer said:
"The civilian leadership thought they could do it a la Afghanistan,
with special forces. I think they've been dissuaded of that."
-
- However, other sources said that the situation was still
"fluid", noting that Mr Rumsfeld had so far stayed clear of the
debate, leaving it up to his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the chief of policy,
Douglas Feith. Both men are seen as leading conservatives in favour of
action against Iraq.
-
- Mr Rumsfeld refused to be drawn yesterday on whether
the United States was planning for war with Iraq, saying it would be "the
dumbest thing" to comment on future thinking.
-
- "With respect to any one country, we obviously don't
get into discussions about what conceivably could be done," Mr Rumsfeld
said. However, he insisted that the military was able to carry out any
mission asked of it.
-
- He was given a public show of support by General Peter
Pace, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who said: "Your military
is ready today to execute whatever mission the civilian leadership asks
us to do."
-
- Gen Pace declined to discuss his own views on Iraq, saying
he and his colleagues in uniform enjoyed "very robust" dialogue
with their civilian leaders.
-
- Mr Rumsfeld was no more forthcoming when asked whether
the United States military was equipped to open a new front in the war
against terror.
-
- "If we had a serious shortage of something, I think
it would be rather stupid to stand up here and announce it to the world,
don't you?" Mr Rumsfeld said.
-
- The Washington Post described a series of secret meetings
this spring in the secure Pentagon facility known as "The Tank",
at which the Joint Chiefs agreed on the serious dangers of an invasion
of Iraq.
-
- Principal among these was the fear that Saddam, if faced
with losing power, or even his life, would feel no constraints in using
his chemical and biological weapons.
-
- There have been rumblings for months that the American
military is "overstretched" by the new demands of the war against
terrorism.
-
- In addition to the fighting in Afghanistan, which has
all but exhausted stocks of some high-tech weapons, the military faces
unprecedented demands to contribute to the defence of the American homeland.
-
- USA Today newspaper reported the concerns of the Joint
Chiefs that special operations commandos were already stretched thin in
Afghanistan, the Philippines and the Yemen.
-
- The commanders also reportedly noted that - unlike in
1991, during the operation to liberate Kuwait - neighbouring Arab nations
may not offer their bases and territory to United States forces.
-
- In 1991, such support was vital in helping American commanders
fly fuel and supplies to the forces attacking Iraq, and to refuel air force
fighters and bombers in mid-air.
-
- But the top brass rebellion over Iraq appears to go beyond
questions of supplies and manpower, straying well into the realms of politics.
-
- Sources told the Washington Post that some of the Joint
Chiefs expressed misgivings about the wisdom of toppling Saddam, in the
absence of a clear successor who is any better, worrying that an invasion
might result in the emergence of a more hostile regime.
-
- Gen Franks, who would supervise any battle for Iraq,
shared such wider strategic concerns, one officer said. "Tommy's issue
is, a lot of things have to be in place, and these things are not all military
things."
-
- © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002.
-
- http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk
|