THE US Congress has been warned that President Bush’s proposed attack on Iraq could escalate into a nuclear conflict.
An assessment of Iraq’s capabilities says that the US is unlikely to knock out many, if any, of President Saddam Hussein’s mobile missile-launchers in a first wave of airstrikes. It raises the possibility of Baghdad hitting an Israeli city with a missile carrying biological agents, saying that Saddam is likely to use chemical and biological weapons.

Israel’s likely reaction would be nuclear ground bursts against every Iraqi city not already occupied by US-led coalition forces. Senators were told that, unlike the 1991 Gulf War, when Washington urged Israel not to retaliate against Iraqi missile strikes, Israeli leaders have decided that their credibility would be hurt if they failed to react this time.

The assessment was written by Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon and State Department official now with the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies. He was a witness before last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and chosen to open a national debate on the looming Iraqi conflict. He queried the ability of US forces to use pre-emptive airstrikes to cripple Iraq’s mobile launchers, which would be used for chemical or biological weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has alluded to the problems of locating the launchers.

Referring to the Gulf War, Mr Cordesman said that, despite contrary claims, the US had not detected most Iraqi chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. US and British forces also had “no meaningful success” in finding Scud missile sites, nor were the airstrikes of Operation Desert Fox in 1998, after the departure of UN weapons inspectors, successful.

“It’s likely, therefore, that Iraq could succeed in launching some CBRN strikes against US coalition forces, targets in neighbouring states, and / or Israel.”It could take days to characterise biological agents. “Even US forces would only be able to firmly characterise dissemination by observing the lethal effects,” he said.

The United Nations secretary-general, Kofi Annan, rejected conditions set by Baghdad for new talks and told Iraq last night he was waiting for a “formal invitation” for UN weapons inspectors to return. Mr Annan said in a letter to Iraq’s foreign minister that new talks must focus on “practical arrangements” for the resumption of inspections.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - If the mood on the streets of Baghdad is anything to go by, then a U.S. attack on Iraq is not a matter of if, but of when and how.

In shops, restaurants and cafes in Baghdad one topic seems on everyone's lips: war with the United States.

Most ordinary Iraqis seem convinced that President Bush will launch a military strike to carry out his policy of ousting President Saddam Hussein.

"We are not stupid, we hear the drums of war beating in the distance," said Mohammad, a shop owner in the Iraqi capital.

"When the president of the world's only superpower says he wants to do something, he will try to do it. It doesn't mean he'll succeed but he will definitely try to do it," he said.

The feeling that war is inevitable has grown in recent days after the United Nations and United States poured cold water on two surprise Iraqi proposals.

Baghdad last week invited the head of the banned U.N. weapons inspector team for "technical talks," but the offer was turned down by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan who told Iraq it would have to send a formal invitation.

An Iraqi invitation to the U.S. Congress to send a mission to inspect alleged sites of weapons of mass destruction was also dismissed.

ANXIETY SETTING IN

On the surface, Iraqis are going about their usual business. There is no panic, but underneath the usual bustle of a big city, anxiety seems to be setting in.

"People seem convinced that war is coming and they are slowly preparing for it," a businessman said.

European Union leaders agree with Washington that U.N. weapons inspectors must be let back unconditionally, but differ on the "or else." German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has struck a strident anti-war tone, while there is speculation that British Prime Minister Tony Blair may have privately pledged Bush his support for a military attack.

In Baghdad, traders and businessmen say sales of luxury goods -- such as cars and electronics -- have fallen in recent weeks, matched by a slow rise in sales of food and other essentials like petrol and gas.

"People are slowly starting to build up their food stocks and are spending little on luxuries. There definitely is a slow down," another shop owner said.

PREPARING FOR WAR

The Iraqi authorities also appear to be preparing for a showdown. Military measures are shrouded in secrecy, but officials have hinted at the seriousness of the situation.

The government declared last week that as of August, food rations would be distributed every two months instead of every month. Iraqis get rations from the government to help them overcome the hardships of 12 years of U.N. sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Saddam was due to address the nation Thursday to mark the anniversary of the end of the 1980-88 war with Iran, celebrated as a "great victory day."

Undeterred by memories of war, military training camps are filling up, with teenagers, women and elderly men volunteering for instruction. The authorities say around seven million Iraqis -- out of a population of around 22 million -- have already attended these camps.

"We have to defend our country and our beloved leader. Bush will regret any attack on great Iraq," a volunteer said.

WASHINGTON — The Joint Chiefs of Staff are unanimously behind a U.S.-led military mission to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, reports revealed Wednesday.


The six-member team has not signed off on a plan for military action, but their backing of a war represents a sea change from previous discussions on what to do with the despot and his threat to the Middle East. The generally cautious group of military leaders is responsible for advising the administration on U.S. war strategy.

"The chiefs have come over because they can read the handwriting on the wall," an administration adviser told The Washington Times. "Now the senior leadership is on board."

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers told Fox News that he couldn't speak about specifics of an Iraq operation, but said, "You have to be concerned with those countries. The question is 'What should we do about that?'"

Senior Defense officials told Fox News that there was some dissension among the six chiefs about using military force in Iraq, but the Times report said the chiefs are past that now.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff is comprised of six military generals -- Chairman Gen. Myers, Vice Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, and the secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. For years, they have been the last word on whether it is wise or not for the country to conduct a military operation.

But several civilian leaders at the Pentagon and White House, most notably the president's national security advisers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have wielded considerable influence with President Bush, and the military has lined up behind the secretary, according to the Times.

Pentagon officials say they have specific evidence of Saddam reinstituting his chemical and biological weapons programs, and he is working hard to finish a nuclear bomb. They say to leave him in power opens the region to an unacceptable threat.

Any military action, covert or overt, will require the assistance of the surrounding countries, specifically Kuwait, which would be a staging ground for U.S. troops. Turkey, to the north of Iraq, has also signed up to allow U.S. forces to operate in its space. Saudi Arabia, however, said Wednesday that U.S. troops would be prohibited from launching an attack on Iraq from Saudi soil.

Myers said that a significant military build-up for the mission won't be on the front pages of the newspapers.

"Because you don't see something going on doesn't mean there isn't a lot of activity -- it's like looking at the lake out there. You know that there is a whole society of fish down there doing whatever fish do. It's really busy -- you look at this placid lake and say it's a pretty calm day at the lake. Well, it may not be just a foot below the surface so it'll be that kind of thing that's going on."

While there are a lot of time frames being suggested for an attack, The Washington Times quoted two administration officials saying that it won't happen until the beginning of next year. The paper also quoted the sources saying that a military action would likely involve "about 200,000 air, ground and naval troops, as well as wide-ranging air strikes and aid to indigenous anti-Saddam forces."

Military sources told Fox News that the size and timing of an attack will depend on which plan the president chooses to undertake. In case of a limited attack, the military could be ready in 30 days after an order is given.

WASHINGTON — The U.S.-led plan to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power by force appears to have become a question of "when" rather than "if," but the "who" -- as in "who will take over when Saddam is gone?" -- still remains unanswered.


In a sign that American commitment is firming up, the State Department and the Pentagon -- for several years at odds over Iraq policy -- have teamed up to invite several Iraqi opposition groups to Washington this week for a meeting all sides agree will be very significant.

"This is a clear order from the top leadership and the president to march forward toward overthrowing Saddam," said Entifadh Qanbar of the Iraqi National Congress.

The INC, headed by Ahmad Chalabi, is the best-known opposition faction, serving as an umbrella organization for many smaller parties.

Chalabi will be joined at the meeting by leaders of other important groups, including the Constitutional Monarchy Movement, the Iraqi National Accord, two Kurdish parties and the Supreme Islamic Resistance of Iraq, which is based in Iran.

The loosely-bound Iraqi opposition movement has often been portrayed as a collection of disparate groups arguing over which faction's leader should take charge -- a criticism some analysts say applies to the United States' Iraq policy as well.

"Their divisions were a total reflection of our divisions inside our government and our lack of seriousness," says Danielle Pletka, an Iraq analyst. "If they come together, it will be a reflection of their capabilities and our seriousness and commitment to the removal of Saddam Hussein."

Support from the Kurdish parties, for instance, is a crucial factor in any plans for Iraqi regime change.

The two Kurdish factions divide administration of an prosperous, semi-autonomous Kurdish state in the northern Iraqi "no-fly" zone, which was instituted by the U.S. and Britain at the end of the Gulf War as the Kurds rebelled against Baghdad's authority.

Previous Kurdish uprisings had resulted in horrific massacres at the hands of Saddam's troops, including the killings of thousands of civilians by poison gas in the late 1980s. At that time, the United States declined to intervene.

Not surprisingly, Kurdish leaders are less enthusiastic about a potential U.S. invasion than are the opposition figures operating out of London and Washington.

"We live there -- people's lives and livelihoods are on the line," said Barham Salah of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. "We cannot afford mistakes in this situation."

Pletka, however, said that an invasion looks more likely than ever.

"The decision to have meetings jointly is a sign that the administration is coming together under the president, as is appropriate," she says. "We are getting ready to move forward with the opposition."

"I hope it will happen as soon as possible," says the INC's Qanbar. "I've been ready for this for twenty years."

Quoted:
 Anybody know who sells gourmet MREs? [;)]

Quoted:
Look at these Iraqi POSs:

Eric The(OhYeah,Those[u]Other[/u]POSs)Hun[>]:)]

Quoted:


And living underground for the rest of your life can really be fun too!  For a look at what could be, please see the movie "A Boy And His Dog".  

Let's try to postpone WW3 for just a while longer, can we?

 [url]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/sadness.gif[/url]