UN Document forgies?

[Cheetah772]

Hello,

Recently, I just read a news article on the possible document forgies relating to the Iraqi blueprints for the WMD programs.

Though, the head of nuclear watchdog agency didn't directly accuse the US and Britain of forging these documents, I can't help but wonder about the impact it will have on the world and the US case for the war against Iraq.

It is indeed a serious blow to the US case, and a deadly setback for a flurry of diplomatic manuevurs to get the votes needed for the latest UN resolution -- a deadline on March 17 for Saddam to completely disarm or else.

I am curious, having said this, will this make the US want to go war sooner than Bush would have liked considering it's all moot for both US and Britain to present the latest proposal on the deadline?

It's strange to see so many events happening so soon before the war becomes a reality.

It reminds me of Gulf War I, just weeks before the war started, there was a lot of diplomatic activity, a lot of arm-twisting and last minute ditch for peace, etc.

Any word on Turkey permitting the US troops to use its bases in southern Turkey for opening the second front?

Dan

[Deltapooh]

I've heard about the forging possibility. I strongly doubt this. These documents are usually a part of a long paper trail. Discepancies can be determined by reviewing other documents related to the matter. The US had to know IAEA was scrutinizing every document closely. So it would have been a very foolish move to even try it.

I am not prepared to dismiss the claims completely. Blair and Bush are so desperate for UN support, they might try something so boneheaded. It could also be a "local" act committed by lower level officials who are under alot of pressure to produce results. Yet, that's stretching it. The political consequences of being caught in such an act far outwieghs any gains.

Right now, it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the ongoing drama. The new Resolution calling for a March 17 deadline is dominating most agendas. The inspectors, though a part of the debate, have taken a backseat for now.


I am curious, having said this, will this make the US want to go war sooner than Bush would have liked considering it's all moot for both US and Britain to present the latest proposal on the deadline?

Blair and Bush have a clear timetable mapped out. They likely want the war to be over in before the end of April. The deadline signals when our military forces will be ready to strike. The 101st AA is offloading it's gear in Kuwait. This will take a few days. The division is likely implementing a crash program to speed up readiness. The AH-64s and CH-47s usually take the longest to prepare after unloading (24-36hrs I believe).


Any word on Turkey permitting the US troops to use its bases in southern Turkey for opening the second front?

Turkey appears unlikely to permit usage of it's bases. I don't think we can wait much longer. One ship left Turkey's port Friday. With 230,000 troops in the south, the attack force seems to almost be in place. 4 ID might be used to confuse the Iraqis.

Saddam will likely seek to concentrate his main forces, not disperse them. An attack from the north and south would draw their attention. Yet, once the shooting starts, Saddam will order his troops to assume defensive positions near the key cities, not go out to meet the invading force.

[Wolfe Tone]

It seems that Turkey is allowing US forces to unload and move inland. How many I don't know. Today the ruler of the Justice Party won a by-election and is likely to be elected PM. He will allow the US to invade from Turkey. Also the Turkish Army has publicly stated that it backs US involvement. However whether the 4th can be in position by 17 March is doubtful. The War might start without them. Or might be delayed by say another 7 days to allow at least the forward elements to cross into Iraq with the Turks.
As for using the 82nd or 101st to seize the northern oilfields I wonder whether this will happen. The 82nd would be out on a limb unless the 4th was coming down fast from the north. Could the 101st reach from Kuwait to Mosul/Kirkuk axis in one swoop? Can their choppers fly that far fully loaded and then return to KW to refuel? Also while the oilfields in the south at least to some degree straddle the border and could be seized probably fairly intact, the northern ones are a much more difficult proposition. It might be that they will be written off for the moment. They can always be repaired after the war is over, thus saving military forces for other more urgent military missions.

[Deltapooh]

It seems that Turkey is allowing US forces to unload and move inland. How many I don't know. Today the ruler of the Justice Party won a by-election and is likely to be elected PM. He will allow the US to invade from Turkey. Also the Turkish Army has publicly stated that it backs US involvement.

I believe the only equipment being unloaded is for ongoing base preparation. Turkey has yet to pass the bill allowing US forces to bases there for a possible second front. Erdogan's strong support for the bill is not shared by many deputies within his own party.

Hopes for a Turkish Front were also damaged by recent threats made by two main Kurdish factions in Iraq. They promise to resist any Turkish military presence in the north.


As for using the 82nd or 101st to seize the northern oilfields I wonder whether this will happen. The 82nd would be out on a limb unless the 4th was coming down fast from the north. Could the 101st reach from Kuwait to Mosul/Kirkuk axis in one swoop? Can their choppers fly that far fully loaded and then return to KW to refuel?

The 101st AA could make the long trip, but it would not be easy. The CH-47 and AH-64 have limited ranges. The gunships also require a ton of maintenance. During the Gulf War, the Apache needed five hours of maintenance for every one hour of flight. I'm certain improvements have been made, but the fine desert sand will likely reek havoc on the birds. FARPs could be established along the way. Yet, I still believe the division can leap around 200mi every 12-24hrs.

As you stated, using airborne troops borders on the level of gambling. The 82nd is not at full strength. 3 BDE is still in Afghanistan. Secondly, if I'm wrong and the Iraq's do elect to confront the invaders in meeting engagements, the lightly armed paratroopers could be in serious trouble. I really hate link-ups. Speed depends on a number of factors. Some like weather can't be controlled and overwhelmed easily. If 4 ID is slower than the Iraqis, the 82nd might not be able to fend off the enemy.

A better option would be employing SOF teams to dominate the fields. These teams can observe the oil fields and call in air support to destroy enemy units. While this plan is not very effective, I don't think preserving pumps already scheduled to be replaced after the war is worth the cost.

As Wolfe Tone stated, the oil fields might not be worth the effort required to seize them intact. There are plenty of urgent targets that demand our attention.

[Marko]

If 60,000 thousand US troops deploy to Turkey then the cost will be $433.34 ($26 billion total) per soldier. An absoulte bargain.

[Deltapooh]

Originally posted by Marko
If 60,000 thousand US troops deploy to Turkey then the cost will be $433.34 ($26 billion total) per soldier. An absoulte bargain.

If it gives our troops a better chance, then yes I consider it a bargin.

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Marko
If 60,000 thousand US troops deploy to Turkey then the cost will be $433.34 ($26 billion total) per soldier. An absoulte bargain.

Hmmmm. I come up with $433 333.00 per soldier with 60 000 soldiers and $26 000 000 000.00

[Marko]

Ooops...that's what I got it to also, almost half a million dollars a head. A snip. :p

[Deltapooh]

Originally posted by tigersqn


Hmmmm. I come up with $433 333.00 per soldier with 60 000 soldiers and $26 000 000 000.00

Of course Turkey will make us "round up" to the next highest penny. So it's more like $26,000,000,600.00

[Marko]

Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,

Recently, I just read a news article on the possible document forgies relating to the Iraqi blueprints for the WMD programs.

Though, the head of nuclear watchdog agency didn't directly accuse the US and Britain of forging these documents, I can't help but wonder about the impact it will have on the world and the US case for the war against Iraq.

It is indeed a serious blow to the US case, and a deadly setback for a flurry of diplomatic manuevurs to get the votes needed for the latest UN resolution -- a deadline on March 17 for Saddam to completely disarm or else.

I am curious, having said this, will this make the US want to go war sooner than Bush would have liked considering it's all moot for both US and Britain to present the latest proposal on the deadline?

It's strange to see so many events happening so soon before the war becomes a reality.

It reminds me of Gulf War I, just weeks before the war started, there was a lot of diplomatic activity, a lot of arm-twisting and last minute ditch for peace, etc.

Any word on Turkey permitting the US troops to use its bases in southern Turkey for opening the second front?

Dan

By the way they were not UN forged documents but US forged documents - thank you.