HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
Milan Rai
March
20, 2003
The
latest news about the US war plan confirms that this war is not for the
liberation of Iraq. The war is designed to precipitate a coup. 'General Richard
Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said recently: "If asked
to go into conflict in Iraq, what you'd like to do is have it be a short
conflict. The best way to do that would be to have such a shock on the system
that the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end was
inevitable." '
Harlan
Ullman, former US Navy pilot, who co-wrote the book Shock and Awe: 'During the
last Gulf war, the allies launched 325 cruise and precision-guided bombs on the
first day of a 40-day air campaign-now they are talking about 3,000 in 48
hours.' US Air Force B-2s, F-1117As, B-52s, F-15Es and RAF Tornados will be in
the first wave: 'Their targets in the first hours have been chosen to lessen
destruction of Iraq's infrastructure but maximise the destruction of Saddam
Hussein's family, military and political machine.' '
B-52
bombers flying out of Diego Garcia and B-2 stealth bombers will attack the
barracks and bases of the elite Republican Guard and government offices....
Amid
the noise and horror of this initial onslaught, US Delta Force teams are likely
to be dropped into Baghdad if US intelligence identifies Saddam's hideout. If
the president cannot be found the Delta Force teams will work under cover of
the bombardment to capture key military and political figures and to try to
demoralise and disrupt Saddam's power base.' (Sunday Times, 16 Mar., p. 8) '
By
the time Iraqis see the dawn at the end of the first night, their country's
military and political infrastructure is likely to have been shattered, say
analysts. Key leaders will have disappeared, entire military units will have
been obliterated, power supplies will have been shut down but the visible
damage will be surprisingly small, according to the attack plan... '
The
plan is for the massive armoured column [of the US Army 5th Corps] to use the
vast open spaces in Iraq's Western Desert to spped to the outskirts of Baghdad
within three days. The column is likely to stop outside the city of Karbala
while American airborne units secure the numerous bridges around Baghdad,
sealing off the city. 'If by this time Saddam is still resisting, military
planners have factored in a short political pause to allow his capitulation. If
no white flag is seen, the assault on Baghdad will begin... At this stage, the
political imperative to keep civilian casualties to a minimum will have to be
put to one side. The attack on Baghdad will use overwhelming force.' (Sunday
Times, 16 Mar., p.9)
The
'short political pause' is a euphemism. The truth was revealed by the Daily
Telegraph: 'Allied plan gives Iraqis chance to topple Saddam'. Patrick Bishop,
Telegraph reporter in Kuwait, was briefed by a senior British officer: 'The war
in Iraq is expected to be a two-stage operation with a pause to allow time for
Saddam Hussein to be toppled by his own people...
Troops
[invading from the south] are under orders to do everything to minimise
military casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure in order to
consolidate good-will and apply further pressure on the Baghdad regime to turn
on Saddam and remove the need for an attack on the capital. 'A senior British
army officer said: "No one's going to go charging into Baghdad. Fighting
in urban areas is a hugely risky business."
If
the regime does not fall under the shock of the initial assault, a stand-off
around Baghdad is "a very likely scenario." 'The advancing forces
will look for every opportunity to bypass Iraqi formations and arrange local
ceasefires and to demonstrate their goodwill towards civilians...
"It's
a more subtle approach. It all comes down to the end state, which is achieving
regime change. Bringing the Iraqi people on board is a very good way to do
that." 'Capturing the huge and easily exploited southern Iraqi oil fields
is seen as another key element in the Allied plan to force Saddam out...
[The
source said:] "If you can get [them] intact that's a huge psychological
message to flash to Baghdad. Sixty per cent of the oil comes from the
south." 'Allied planning appears heavily weighted towards an incremental
strategy that applies mounting pressure and allows time for Saddam's henchmen
to decide their self-interest lies in risking a move against him. "This is
all about getting someone to tip him over," said the source. 'Once at the
gates of the capital there is no intention to fall in with Saddam's declared
plan for a bloody showdown in the streets of Baghdad. Allied troops are likely
to hold back and wait for the collapse of the regime.'
(Telegraph,
15 Mar., p. 10) But they won't wait forever. And at that stage, 'the political
imperative to keep civilian casualties to a minimum will have to be put to one
side. The attack on Baghdad will use overwhelming force.' (Sunday Times, 16
Mar., p.9)
President
Bush said in his ultimatum on 17 Mar., 'All the decades of deceit and cruelty
have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48
hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.' http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/2
0030317-7.html
The
exile option has been a standing offer from the US for some months. US Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a congressional committee in Dec., 'One choice
he [Saddam Hussein] has is to take his family and key leaders and seek asylum
elsewhere. Surely one of the 180-plus countries would take his regime-possibly
Belarus.' (Sunday Times, 29 Dec. 2002, p. 18)
Rumsfeld
repeated his offer in Jan.: 'To avoid a war, I would, personally, recommend
that some provision be made so that the senior leadership and their families
could be provided haven in some other country. I think that would be a fair
trade to avoid a war.' (Telegraph, 20 Jan., p. 1)
It is of the utmost importance to understand
what Rumsfeld was saying so clearly: the Iraqi 'regime' which the US is
confronting consists of 'the senior leadership' of Iraq, and their immediate
families. 'Regime change' means in reality 'leadership change'. The political
and military system-the real 'regime' in Iraq-can remain the same, so long as
Saddam's inner circle leaves power.
President
Bush's offer to forego war if Saddam Hussein and his family goes into exile is
a re- confirmation at the highest level that this is not a war for disarmament or
for real political change in Iraq: this is a war against Saddam Hussein. This
is not a war. This is the most costly, dangerous and reckless assassination
attempt in world history.
'Until
now, most other countries believed that the Bush administration was mainly
pursuing a strategy of "force on mind"-a combination of tough talk
and a theatrical military buildup that would place unbearable psychological
pressure on Saddam's regime. Operation Force on Mind is what the Brits are calling
their Army buildup in the Gulf.' (Newsweek, 3 Feb., p. 18) '
Senior
members of the Iraqi regime are "preparing their bolt-holes" in the
conviction that Saddam Hussein is doomed, but are unlikely to risk staging a
coup until a war begins, Whitehall sources said yesterday. America and Britain
have long hoped that the build-up to war might break the regime without the
need for military action... The British assessment is that a coup is unlikely
before a war, but it is possible once hostilities begin.' (Telegraph, 21 Feb.,
p. 17)
Under
the headline 'US seeking to foment the mother of all coups': 'Donald Rumsfeld,
the US secretary of defence, recently said that the senior leadership of Iraq
could indeed be given immunity from prosecution. The hope is that this would
either convince the Iraqi leader to seek exile or provoke his removal.' 'A coup
would be a dream solution to many of those involved in the Iraq drama, despite
the US administration's insistence that one of its objectives is to sow the
seeds of democratic change in Iraq.' (FT, 12 Feb., p. 8)
'The
desired end state is key to determining the way the military phase is tackled.
There appears to be a political consensus to preserve Iraq as a single
entity... To US planners the simplest way to keep Iraq together after a war may
be to use the current Iraqi security forces, but under new management. This
would need a very specific direction: that the security apparatus be disabled
but not destroyed during conflict. This is not an easy military option.' (Sir
Timothy Garden, former Air Marshal, Royal College of Defence Studies,
ex-Director of Royal Institute for International Affairs, Times, 25 Feb., p.
14) (For more on these topics, and the background in 1991, please see Chapters
VII and VIII in War Plan Iraq.)
Thomas
Friedman, Diplomatic Correspondent of the New York Times, explained on 7 July
1991 that the sanctions regime was designed to provoke a military coup within
Iraq to create 'the best of all worlds', 'an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam
Hussein'. A return to the days when Saddam's 'iron fist ... held Iraq together,
much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia.'
The
FT observes: 'Washington's calculation is that a break-up of Iraq would
fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, especially if it
led to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Turkey, a steadfast US ally
with a large Kurd minority, would be destabilised. Iran could exploit the
vacuum.' (1 Feb. 2002, Supplement, p. III.)
Saudi
Arabia has no wish to see a vibrant democracy on its border. Thus the need for
'an iron-fisted Iraqi junta'. Exile or coup, Iraq's weapons will remain the
same; Iraq's army will remain the same; Iraq's political system will remain the
same; Iraq's secret police will remain the same. This is not a war of
liberation. For the people of Iraq, this is just a re-branding exercise.
Milan Rai is
author of War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War (Verso, 2002) and a
member of Active
Resistance to the Roots of War (ARROW). He
is also co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness UK, which has worked for the
lifting of UN sanctions in Iraq.