US troops: ready for a biochemical attack?

Facing a US-led invasion, will Saddam Hussein order chemical and biological weapons attacks on US troops - or even on his own people as a propaganda ploy? Will he decide to set Iraqi oil fields ablaze? Will he order Scud missile attacks on Riyadh, Tel Aviv, or other cities?

Simply put, once his regime is doomed, will Mr. Hussein go out with a wave of vengeful destruction?

Pentagon planners must assume the answer is yes.

Indeed, months ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld drafted a list of "risks of acting" to overthrow Hussein and presented it to President Bush. Top US military officials added to the list, which now runs four or five pages, and are readying countermeasures.

Whether or not the United States can avert such worst-case scenarios remains in doubt, however, especially if Hussein chooses to wreak havoc on his own country, say military officials and analysts.

One potential catastrophe would involve the successful Iraqi use of chemical or biological agents. US officials believe the Baghdad regime is preparing to use weaponized agents against American forces and possibly against civilians in neighboring countries or in Iraq.

"[There is] concern about Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction against his own people and blaming it on us, which would fit a pattern," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said recently.

The Iraqi military last fall began dispersing rocket launchers and warheads filled with biological agents in western Iraq. It hid the launchers in large groves of palm trees, with plans to move them every few weeks to escape detection, according to US intelligence cited by Secretary of State Colin Powell last week. Hussein recently authorized field commanders to use the weapons, he said.

Washington is trying to discourage such attacks in two ways: First, it has vowed to bring to justice any Iraqi who obeys orders to use "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD). It is uncertain, however, whether such a warning will influence hardened Hussein loyalists.

Second, the Bush administration has pointedly retained the option of nuclear retaliation. "I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table, but we have a responsibility to make sure Saddam Hussein and his generals do not use weapons of mass destruction," Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, said recently.

Nevertheless, whether the United States can make the nuclear deterrent credible in the case of Iraq remains in doubt.

Prior to the 1991 Gulf War, US officials publicly hinted of the threat of nuclear retaliation if Hussein used WMD or ignited Kuwaiti oil fields - but failed to carry out that threat when the oil wells were set on fire. Indeed, privately, the nuclear option had been all but ruled out by senior US officials including Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Today, some US officials are downplaying the nuclear deterrent. "I think we believe we have all the capabilities we need with our conventional forces," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Also, the political threshold for using a nuclear weapon remains extremely high. "The president would really have to pause to be the first person to use a nuclear weapon in more than half a century," notes Hans Binnendijk, a nuclear-arms expert at the Pentagon's National Defense University.

Page: 1 | 2