Two big challenges complicate Iraq attack

As American forces gear up for a possible invasion of Iraq, two wild cards are deeply troubling to senior US defense and military officials: President Saddam Hussein's potential to stage a counterattack with biological or chemical weapons, as well as his ability to retain the loyalty of the Iraqi Army and civilian population.

Indeed, two central elements driving US war-planning strategy appear to be how to neutralize the risk of a chemical or biological strike on US forces or neighboring states, while also quickly paralyzing the core Iraqi leadership and encouraging widespread defections by Iraqi troops and commanders, official statements suggest.

As a result, a US campaign would likely be one of "rapid decisive operations." It would combine intense, focused airstrikes to eliminate Iraqi air defenses and other critical military targets, along with swift insertion of US and allied Special Operations Forces. Elite forces spearheading the ground operation would play a crucial role in hunting down Iraqi leaders, working with internal opposition, and finding the arsenal and delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They would be followed by a medium-sized invasion force of some 100,000 US troops, analysts and officials say.

Initial airstrikes would aim to destroy the air defenses Iraq has modernized in recent years with fiber optics. Already, US and British warplanes are launching frequent strikes to degrade higher-value, fixed Iraqi air defenses in a tactical shift ordered in recent months by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Strikes are also likely on Mr. Hussein's headquarters, including presidential palaces, and on communications nodes that could allow the Iraqi leader to rally forces, according to former military commanders.

At the same time, airstrikes – likely assisted early on by US commandos on the ground – would seek to thwart a possible WMD attack by targeting delivery systems such as Scud-type missiles and other short-range missiles and related infrastructure.

"The first thing you would do is try to attack whatever infrastructure associated with WMD you could," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers told a Senate committee last Thursday, adding that "weapons of mass destruction would be a horrible thing to have on the battlefield."

Attacking delivery systems is crucial, Pentagon officials and experts say, because once a chemical or biological weapon is launched – likely in baseball-sized bombs either on a missile or aboard an aircraft or low-flying unmanned drone – shooting it down is highly problematic. If hit, the bombs are likely to disperse their lethal contents on troops or populations below, especially if intercepted at lower altitudes with an insufficient blast, says James Carafano, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments here.

Page: 1 | 2