| Submit your comments on this article |
| Middle East |
| U.S., Britain Plan Seaborne Attack on Iraq |
| 2002-12-21 |
| Sat December 21, 2002 05:01 PM ET By Peter Graff LONDON (Reuters) - The United States and Britain are planning a massive seaborne invasion of Iraq from the Gulf as the first stage in any ground war, a British defense ministry source said on Saturday. "Discussions on future amphibious operations are at an advanced stage," the source said, adding that Britain would commit its elite 3 Commando Brigade of Royal Marines to the proposed invasion. In the 1991 Gulf War, U.S.-led forces assembled a large amphibious task force in the Gulf, but never mounted an assault by sea. Instead, infantry poured into parts of Iraq and Kuwait from Saudi Arabia by land. The British defense ministry source said planners were this time leaning toward an amphibious assault in the case of a war with Iraq in part because of the difficulties of protecting a large ground-based army from chemical or biological attack. "Would you really put 200,000 troops in one place and let them be targets for an attack?" the source said. The amphibious option also reduces the diplomatic and political sensitivity of moving large land forces into countries in the region which have not yet publicly given consent for their territory to be used as a launch-pad for an invasion. Other ground forces could deploy later, after amphibious forces had already opened up a front, the British source said. CONTROL OF MAIN SEA LANES The United States, Britain and any other allies that join them would have an easier time launching a seaborne attack this time than in 1991 because they already control the main sea lanes into Iraq and have made sure they are free from mines. Over the past year, Australian, U.S. and British warships patrolling the Gulf to enforce U.N. sanctions on Iraq have moved their operations from international waters into Iraqi territory, Reuters reported from aboard warships in the region last week. The allied navies now operate freely up to the mouths of the Khor Abd Allah and Shaat Al Arab estuaries, where Iraq's great rivers spill over salt marshes into the Gulf. The Shaat Al Arab gives access to Iraq's main port of Basra on the Euphrates. Three British mine-clearing ships are in the Gulf helping make sure the waterways are clear. Britain's 3 Commando Brigade, the elite force that made up the main British contribution to fighting in Afghanistan last year, would send about 3,000 men to the amphibious operation to join a much larger contingent of Americans. A large British naval task force is due to sail from Britain at the end of January, and would presumably include the amphibious units. Britain and the United States both say that Iraq has failed to supply a complete account of its missiles and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, as required by a tough-worded U.N. Security Council resolution. Washington and London indicated that the prospect of a war to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in early 2003 was now increasingly likely. So, is this FORTITUDE or OVERLORD? |
| Posted by:Frank Martin |
| #1 50-50 chance something like this will come off. Last time through we had a "massive amphibious landing" all rarin' to go, and it ended up as all tanks, all the time. So we'll either do the same thing this time, or while they're looking for the tanks we'll stage the amphib landing. Or we'll do something else. I think Bush is maneuvering Sammy to a spot where there aren't any moves left for the Iraqi commanders. It isn't "either Sammy will comply or we'll take him out," but "either you guys take him out or we will." If his commanders take him out, they have a say in what the follow-on regime looks like: the old military junta, building a "government of national reconciliation," setting elections in 18 months routine. If we take him out, it's military government and tribunals. If you were an Iraqi commander and you had a tank division, which would look more palatable to you? |
| Posted by: Fred 2002-12-22 09:32:52 |