|
18 March 2003
BLITZ-COUP
Latest Confirmation That This Is A War For 'Regime Stabilisation
And
Leadership Change'
WAR PLAN IRAQ Update Number
16
SHOCK, AWE AND COUP D'ETAT
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)
TWO STAGE WAR
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)
THE EXILE OPTION
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/2003/03/20030317-7.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.
FORCE ON MIND
'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 END STATE
'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.
BOOK
War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Why We Shouldn't Launch Another War
Against Iraq by Milan Rai
'An excellent weapon for all those opposed to Bush's war'.
Tariq Ali
'Excellent'. Alice Mahon MP
'Required reading for anyone concerned
about the risk of war'. Professor Paul Rogers, Bradford
School of Peace Studies
'Timely and important'. Hilary
Wainwright
£10 plus £1.80 p&p.
Please make cheques to ARROW Publications, and send with your
address to 29 Gensing Rd, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN38
0HE.
ARROW
^ back
to the top
|
