| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US hits roadblock in push to war |
| 2003-03-04 |
| America admitted yesterday that the war due to begin as early as next week might have to be put back by at least a month because of Turkey's refusal to allow US ground troops to deploy there. Fer Gawd's Sake. We can't hit Iraq effectively with what we have in the south? The surprise rejection by the parliament in Ankara made the planning "more complicated", Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said. Some military analysts predicted that an attack of the speed and decisiveness President George Bush wants might have to be delayed until late March or even early April. "Speed" and "delay" are mutually exclusive. The United States sounded more determined than ever yesterday to use force to disarm and topple Saddam Hussein. Mr Fleischer again derided Iraq's destruction of six more al-Samoud 2 missiles, and Baghdad's last-ditch moves to account for missing chemical and biological agents. "Iraq is not co-operating ... they continue to fundamentally not disarm," he said. How long does it take to destroy 100 missiles? Another carrier group, the Nimitz, left America last night to join five other carriers either in the Gulf region or on the way. The Pentagon issued deployment orders for 70,000 men of the 1st Cavalry division from Fort Hood, Texas, equipped for heavy ground combat. Nearly 250,000 American and British troops are now believed to be in the region. Though some officials in Washington still cling to the hope that the Ankara parliament, which reconvenes today, will reconsider its decision, Pentagon planners are considering whether to activate a "Plan B" for an invasion. Thus far, the dozen heavy cargo ships carrying equipment for the 4th Infantry Division have not been rerouted from just off the Turkish coast where they have been waiting to unload. But if there is no change of heart in Ankara, the whole plan for a second front bearing down on Baghdad from the north will have to be redrawn. So long, Turkey, nice knowin' ya. Under the rejected deal, up to 62,000 men would have been sent to bases in eastern Turkey, poised to launch a massive operation southwards. Now, any such force would be more a holding one than offensive, its size unlikely to exceed 20,000, according to analysts. That's if we get anyone at all in from Turkey. Officials maintain this would suffice to cover the immediate objectives of protecting against any Iraqi thrust against the Kurds, to secure the oilfields around Kirkuk and Mosul, and tie down some Republican Guard units who would otherwise be directed south. But the American force would not be enough for a big strike. Although the campaign may be delayed, there is no indication it will be halted. Yesterday the British Government announced it had given the United States permission to base 14 B-52 bombers at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. The first wave of the long-range bombers arrived yesterday in an echo of the first Gulf War in 1991, when 60 missions were flown from the base. Tony Blair was accused of concealing from the public the fact that a new Gulf War had already begun. Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said the "opening shots of the second Gulf War" had been fired. Anti-war Labour MPs claimed that war had begun by stealth. Doug Henderson, a former armed forces minister, said the increased activity in the no-fly zones was a "slide into war". Alice Mahon suggested that war had been started through the "back door". Actually Bernie, we started shooting months ago. Good thing you're the Shadow Defence Secretary. Although Downing Street denied any change of policy, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told the Commons: "There is no doubt that our forces have been undertaking more frequent patrols involving a broader range of aircraft in the no-fly zones." "Other than bombing anything in sight that we feel is a threat, there's been no change in policy." |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 One of the big arguments used against further inspection was that 100 guys could not find anything in a place the size of Califonia. Well, we got 250000 guys sitting on the border of this California sized place. Should be able to put them wherever we want without much trouble. Like 250000 guys driving from Kuwait to Basra to Bagdad would be sort of a major traffic jam. So I guess we'll start by spreading them around to the north and south and all over in a hurry. We are talking about California here, a little more square geographically and without Disneyworld. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-04 21:40:58 |
| #15 Obviously you never haggled over a carpet in a Turkish bazaar. When the negotiations seem to fail the client pretends to walk out and the dealer will run after him and drag him back into the store to finalize the deal. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-04 16:24:09 |
| #14 Ah, the Turks. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-03-04 15:56:18 |
| #13 Another 10 billions may help. Should be cheaper than Plan B |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-04 15:40:58 |
| #12 It fascinates me how many people assume that: (1) the Pentagon doesn't have Plan B worked out, (2) the troops and equipment waiting on ships off Turkey are necessary to commence the hostilities, (3) there is no disinformation flying around from our side, (4) GWB is really hanging on the UNSC vote, (5) the war couldn't start tonight, and (6) I give a sh*t what Martin Sheen or Harry Bellafonte think about ANYTHING. In the last four days the B-2s and B-52s have left the U.S. and the Patriot missiles have been taken out from under wraps in Israel. Yeah, we're going to wait another month. Right. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-04 15:38:14 |
| #11 Murat, you are at least half right. For the US/UK strategic plan to succeed, two things *must* be (militarily) obtained: 1) Control over the oil fields. If the fields are set ablaze then "control" cannot be gained until the fires are extinguished and the equipment restored, which sets back all future plans; 2) Saddam's head, whether attached to the rest of him or not. |
| Posted by: jrosevear 2003-03-04 08:57:36 |
| #10 AWW, I think the planners will risk another voting, I read some articles of retired generals who are stating they would pull out their hair with losing Turkey as a logistic base. The one way or another I think there will be created a compromise ensuring a Turkish vote on this matter at the end of the tug-of-war. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-04 08:42:47 |
| #9 As Murat notes there may be a new vote next week but does the US wait for this vote or change it's plan now? What if the vote is a no again - the US will have wasted another week. To Becky's point it does seem odd that the military/political powers weren't prepared for a no vote by Turkey. I'm no warmonger but let's get rolling already. Delay is only causing more obstacles/problems. My hope is that a) we really don't know what the military is planning, and b) the large buildup and slow pace mean that not just Iraq will be dealt with. |
| Posted by: AWW 2003-03-04 08:08:10 |
| #8 The main advantage of an invasion from Turkey is that it gives the best chance of capturing territory before Saddam can damage infrastructure or set off chem/bio weapons. If Turkey is out, the biggest potential losers/victims are civilians in N. Iraq. Is saving those lives and infrastructure worth playing another round in the Turkish legislature? Probably. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-03-04 07:30:58 |
| #7 The main advantage of an invasion from Turkey is that it gives the best chance of capturing territory before Saddam can damage infrastructure or set off chem/bio weapons. If Turkey is out, the biggest potential losers/victims are civilians in N. Iraq. Is saving those lives and infrastructure worth playing another round in the Turkish legislature? Probably. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-03-04 07:30:58 |
| #6 I'm glad they are stepping back and taking a deep breath. The planners relied too heavily, too long on the Turks. Somebody should have given plan B a dress rehersal two weeks ago - or maybe they did and she wasn't ready for prime time. Now they can put the A team on plan B and make it plan A. heh heh... sorry! |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-04 07:05:53 |
| #5 RW - I don't think the real part or deal is Bagdad neither, the real challange would be to secure the oilwels before they have been set ablaze, the US planners are not that dumb, they'll use Shia and kurd forces to do the street battles. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-04 06:35:24 |
| #4 The desert has to be taken before summer begins, every one knows that. But that is where there is least amount of resistance. That part shouldn't take more than a month. The real deal is Baghdad: hard to know what the mil planners have in mind. But there's still some time available. My guess is that March madness will be a time for the yappa yappa BS at the UN, s'more diplo manoeuvring, more pleasantries exchanged, but by April everything will be in place. Then it's a go. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-04 05:29:54 |
| #3 I predict there will be no new motion by the Turkish government until March 10, after that US troops stationing will with high probability allowed. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-03-04 04:20:23 |
| #2 The longer we wait, the more opportunities for other "allies" to get cold feet, the closer Saddam is to a working nuke, the closer North Korea is to reprocessing their plutonium (we need to be done with Saddam before that crisis comes to a head). Not to mention the jittery won't-move-till-we-win economy. Let's roll. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-03-04 01:45:48 |
| #1 How long does it take to destroy 100 missiles? Wonderful. Could it have been done in November? |
| Posted by: carl 2003-03-04 00:30:12 |