- A first draft of US war plans for strikes on Iraq has
been released, while lawmakers have expressed confidence of broad congressional
support for a military campaign with or without UN backing.
-
- Boldly-outlined Pentagon plans for a "narrowly-focused
but extremely intense" military offensive against Baghdad, which Washington
accuses of developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass
destruction, were made public.
-
- The Pentagon has already begun choosing targets for US
warplanes and missiles, the size and shape of the troop deployments on
the ground and a likely timeline for a US invasion, the Washington Post
reported.
-
- Different from the 1990-91 Gulf War that was waged by
US President George W. Bush's father, former president George Bush, the
offensive is designed to be an attack on a government, not a country.
-
- "Our interest is to get there very quickly, decapitate
the regime, and open the place up, demonstrating that we're there to liberate,
not to occupy," a military planner was quoted as saying.
-
- A small, fast-moving invasion force relying on Special
Operations troops instead of conventional deployments of battalions, would
probably carry out the US offensive, which could include a simultaneous
ground and air assault, the Post reported.
-
- Army General Tommy Franks, the head of the US Central
Command, which is waging the US-led campaign against terror in Afghanistan,
will ultimately be responsible for any US plans for war, which must first
be authorised by the US Congress.
-
- Bush last week presented a resolution to lawmakers that
would grant him sweeping powers to oust Saddam, even if the United Nations
declines to pass measures authorising members to enforce disarmament mandates.
-
- The Bush proposals have been criticised as open-ended
and as failing to focus on a wide, UN-led effort to throw Iraq open to
inspections and ultimately produce a regime change in Baghdad.
-
- But Arizona Republican John Kyl insisted today that the
United States "cannot rely upon the United Nations necessarily to
grant us the authority that we'll need".
-
- "We can never subject our security interests to
the United Nations or the Security Council of the United Nations on the
grounds that somehow that's a moral objective force out there."
-
- Therefore, he said, "the Congress will authorise
what the United States needs to do in our best interest".
-
- Alabama Republican Richard Shelby expressed confidence
that Bush's proposal would pass the US Congress "by overwhelming numbers".
-
- "And there are going to be a lot of Democrats that
support it," he predicted.
-
- Carl Levin, the Democratic chair of the Senate's Armed
Services Committee, disagreed, saying that in its current form the resolution
was unpassable.
-
- "Oh, it's much too broad. There's no limit at all
on presidential powers. There need to be some changes," the Michigan
senator told Fox News Sunday.
-
- "It's a go-it-alone resolution, ultimately."
-
- Senate Democrat Joe Biden, the chair of the Foreign Relations
Committee, told CBS that while Washington would like the support and backing
of its UN allies, "we should reserve the right to move along regardless
of what the UN does".
-
- "But I think it will matter to the president when
and how and if he uses force, depending on what kind of support he has
around the world."
-
- Democrates warned the American public must be fully aware
of the consequences of military action - both human and financial - and
the goals of that military action, before a bullet is fired.
-
- "The American people have no idea what the president
knows, and that is he's going to have to stay in Iraq with thousands and
thousands of troops ... billions of dollars," Biden said.
-
- "I do think Americans may be ready to go to war
to dislodge weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein."
|
