WASHINGTON – The prospect of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacking U.S. troops or allies with weapons of mass destruction is stymieing U.S. military efforts to topple the government of Iraq, according to defense officials and military experts.
U.S. defense officials are calling to include more detailed analyses of the risks posed by Husseinís suspected WMD arsenal in plans for a combined air, land and sea campaign against Iraq (see GSN, July 8)
ìI think the possible use of weapons of mass destruction is a big catch,î said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy think tank.
Such growing concern, both inside and outside the military, has apparently slowed the Bush administrationís momentum for moving ahead with Husseinís ouster and has set the stage for a wider debate about the risks of a military showdown.
Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has said he plans to hold a series of hearings later this summer to debate military preparations. The hearings will place heavy emphasis on risks posed by Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, according to aides.
Battling Against Time
The conventional nature of the military plans – one proposal briefed to President George W. Bush calls for a large-scale invasion using 250,000 troops – has given military experts pause. A very public and lengthy military buildup, they said, would offer ample opportunity for Iraqi forces to use or threaten to use the countryís suspected chemical and biological weapons to deter the United States.
ìOne of the big deficiencies [with the invasion plan] is that it takes too long,î Pike added. ìThere are too many opportunities where WMD can be used. My own assumption is not whether but when and where and to what effectî chemical or biological weapons will be used, Pike said.
One way U.S. plans are being affected by the WMD threat, according to defense officials, is the need for U.S. troops to operate in full nuclear, chemical and biological warfare gear. The period between November and February is considered the best time of year to mount military operations in Iraq because the weather is cooler and therefore more conducive for U.S. troops to wear their cumbersome protective gear.
Saddamís Last Resort?
The threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is not new. It was a central issue during the U.S.-led Gulf War more than a decade ago and a constant concern for U.S. and allied commanders in the region. At the time Hussein was deterred from using weapons of mass destruction out of fear of a massive U.S. retaliation that would result in his removal from power, experts said.
This time, however, the stated goal of any U.S. military campaign will probably be the overthrow of Hussein and his regime. That goes well beyond the goal during the Gulf War of merely removing Iraqi troops from neighboring Kuwait.
ìWeíve given him a heads up, so it is a mortal threat,î said retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander. ìBut once it is clear that deterrence will fail, the question is will [Hussein] lash out against us with all his capability. He might.î
ìFor Iraq, weapons of mass destruction are a last resort,î according to a European diplomat. ìSaddam is not a madman. He didnít use WMD in the Gulf War. But Iím afraid that if the U.S. tries to liquidate him or change his regime, he might have nothing to lose and then resort to their use.î
ìSaddam now needs weapons of mass destruction more than ever,î An Iraqi opposition leader in London said. ìThey are his card, the only thing he can use as a threat against the U.S.î
This week, in a defiant speech marking the 34th anniversary of the revolution that brought his Baíath Party to power, Hussein said the United States and its allies would not be able to overthrow his government and said Iraqis are well equipped to defend against a military assault.
Regenerated Arsenal
Further complicating U.S. war planning is a lack of accurate intelligence about Iraqís weapons programs, defense officials said. U.N. weapons inspectors have not been in Iraq for more than three and a half years, despite repeated attempts to get a full accounting of the countryís weapons of mass destruction.
ìUntil you get the inspectors in, you just donít know,î said a U.S. defense official with access to daily intelligence reports. ìThere is a good chance that he is making a new germ or chemical.î
ìOnly the most naive person could believe that Saddam has not regenerated such programs since he threw the inspectors out,î said retired Navy Adm. Stansfield Turner, former director of the CIA.
Meanwhile, Clark said there is little chance that U.S. air power and special forces would be able to locate all of Iraqís WMD development or storage facilities to render them inoperable during a military assault. That uncertainty is a primary reason why top U.S. military officials are wary about moving forward with a major military invasion.
ìThe broader issue among the senior leadership is what is the threat posed by Iraq,î said a senior defense official who asked not to be identified. ìHow much risk do you want to take?î
Possible Scenarios
Experts have presented at least three scenarios in which Iraqi forces may launch WMD attacks.
One is the possibility that Iraq would bombard U.S. military forces staging in Kuwait with artillery shells carrying chemical weapons. Another scenario includes chemical and biological attacks at every opportunity as U.S.-led forces move north from Kuwait into Iraq. A third possibility is a WMD attack on Israel in an effort to provoke an Israeli response and swing the political situation in the region in Husseinís favor.
The Defense Department is trying to predict how Hussein might react under a variety of attack conditions. Pentagon strategists are currently conducting a series of war games to help measure the risk of chemical or biological attacks as a last ditch effort to deter a U.S. military onslaught.
ìThere is a ëred cellí set up and designed to think and act like the regime,î one defense official said.
Gauging those risks is proving difficult.
ìWhen we were dealing with conventional weapons only, we knew what the risks were,î Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said July 13. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged that there are many potential variables.
ìThe different courses of action all have different risks and costs associated,î he said during a visit yesterday to Turkey, whose military bases would be crucial to any U.S. military operation in neighboring Iraq.
Rapid and Decisive
Some believe that because the WMD threat cannot be fully neutralized, the best solution is to mount a military operation that is quick and decisive, reducing the opportunity for WMD attacks against U.S. and allied troops.
ìThe military operation has to be rapid and decisive so that the period of risk is minimized,î said Pike. He believes that three Army divisions, relying on prepositioned equipment in the region, could be deployed to Kuwait virtually undetected. ìOnce they get there, it shouldnít take much more than a week to get to Baghdad. If it takes longer, the risk of WMD attack rises.î
www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/7/18/3p.htmlE-mail this article