Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Monday, September 02, 2002
War on Iraq Could Drain US Anti-terror Campaign: Report
As the Bush administration intensifies talk about toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, US military officials are concerned that launching a war against Baghdad could divert resources from the ongoing anti-terror campaign, the Washington Post reported Sunday.
As the Bush administration intensifies talk about toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, US military officials are concerned that launching a war against Baghdad could divert resources from the ongoing anti-terror campaign, the Washington Post reported Sunday.
Military officers warn that a major campaign in the Middle East would place a serious drain on intelligence gathering and Special Forces units, two central components of the military's efforts to hunt down al Qaeda and Taliban members in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the report said.
With Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader, and his lieutenants are still at large, some military officials worry that the administration may be shifting the focus to Iraq too soon.
"I'd prefer later than sooner," said a senior officer involved in the Pentagon's deliberations. "Can you imagine how it would look if we go to war against Iraq and there's another terrorist attack in the United States at the same time? People will wonder what we're doing."
Defense officials said that spy satellites, reconnaissance aircraft and other intelligence resources employed in Afghanistan would have to be concentrated even more heavily on the Gulf region if President George W. Bush decides to attack Iraq. Additionally, Special Forces members who have linguistic or other expertise in the region would likely be diverted to an Iraqi campaign.
Despite the increasingly forceful language used by senior administration officials, military planners say that, barring a provocation by Iraq, no attack on Iraq is likely until January at the earliest, the report said.
The officials note that the administration must complete military planning, move troops and equipment into place, negotiate basing and overflight agreements with regional allies, and consult with Congress before it could launch a war.
Some administration advisers have suggested that an invasion of Iraq could be mounted using a force much smaller than the more than 200,000 ground troops called for in larger options under consideration. But senior military officers familiar with the planning expect that arguments for a bigger force will prevail to ensure adequate troops for dealing with such worst-case situations as a prolonged battle to seize Baghdad.
During a visit last week to a Marine base in California, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld shunned a question on how long a war in the Gulf would take and whether a protracted conflict would overtax the military.
In a broad review of defense policy conducted last year, the Bush administration changed a long-standing requirement on the part of the Pentagon that it be able to fight two major regional wars simultaneously.
The new guideline mandated that the armed forces be structured so they could secure a "decisive victory" in only one conflict at a time, even as U.S. commanders were directed to continue planning for the possibility of operating "in two theaters in overlapping timeframes."
Almost one year after the US launched the military campaign in Afghanistan, the war remains a significant drain on military resources, the report said. More than 7,000 troops are stationed in Afghanistan, 2,200 Marines permanently positioned in the northern Arabian Sea and a Navy carrier battle group floating in the region.
In an interview with the Post, retired Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, who stepped down last autumn as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he worried that a war on Iraq would divert attention from the war against terrorism.