With the Bush administration moving intently towards mobilising anti-Saddam Hussein forces, the question is now when and how it should be done, writes Salah Hemeid Click to view caption General Tommy Franks, the top American officer who oversaw the war in Afghanistan and is widely expected to command an invasion of Iraq, has presented United States President George W Bush and his key security advisers with the latest Pentagon scenario for a US attack. Neither Franks nor the White House disclosed any information about the plan, and there was no indication that Bush, who has demanded that US military planners give him options for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, has endorsed the plan to accomplish his strategy of "regime change" in Baghdad. In recent weeks, several highly publicised leaks have been made to the American and British press about a military assault to depose Saddam. One plan envisaged a full-scale assault that would require as many as 250,000 US troops to invade Iraq and take out the Iraqi leader and his regime. A second plan suggested a limited strike against the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, and the top command and control facilities there. A third option would rely on the so-called "Afghan model" -- heavy air strikes backing up Special Operations commando missions and covert operations coordinated with Iraqi opposition groups. That was the model that successfully overthrew the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and which seems to be favoured by Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. The Bush administration, however, has rejected options that would not involve US ground troops, or would rely on air strikes alone, to eliminate Saddam's regime. This leaves military planners to work out war strategies that would use ground forces who would be required to stay in Iraq long after Saddam's downfall. Meanwhile, many administration officials, including some army commanders and congressmen, either seem reluctant to support a massive invasion or doubt its result. But many experts say that the US is capable of launching a rapid attack on Iraq by marshalling 50,000 troops at Iraq's borders in roughly a week, airlifting them in, or moving them from bases in Turkey and the Gulf countries, while bringing their tanks and heavy equipment from warehouses in the region, or on ships through the Arab Gulf. According to these experts, the US has tens of thousands of military personnel already stationed in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, some of these nations host to warships, aircraft carriers and warplanes. Whatever Bush's chosen option, and with so much attention now being focused on the possibility that the US will again go to war against Iraq, military analysts are taking a closer look at Iraq's military capability. By all accounts, the Iraqi army was severely battered during the 1991 Gulf War, but it remains a formidable force. With his regime and his life at stake, some experts believe that Saddam may use whatever fearsome arsenal he has hidden away, killing thousands of attacking troops and possibly innocent non-combatants. Iraq's regular army is believed to have five army corps arrayed to defend against foreign threats and internal rebellion. Each army corps is said to have 30,000 to 50,000 troops divided into three to four infantry, mechanised and armoured divisions. The Republican Guard is composed of two main corps with some 50,000 men while the Special Republican Guard can muster up to 30,000 troops stationed around Baghdad to defend the Iraqi capital. In addition, a force of up to 10,000 men form the Special Security Apparatus, which is entrusted with the task of protecting Saddam himself, his family and his close associates. Moreover, Saddam has set up the Feda'yeen Saddam and Al-Quds Army, two para-military militias with hundreds of thousands of recruits who are assigned to fight any internal rebellion. Though the Iraqis have lost more than half of their aircraft -- from 689 to 300, they still have an impressive air defence capability that poses a major threat to US warplanes. Saddam is now resorting to diplomatic manoeuvres to play for time and make it difficult for Bush to make the case for war, but the Iraqi leader is convinced that a US strike is inevitable. In an address to the nation marking the 14th anniversary of the end of the war with Iran last week, Saddam warned that "those who will perpetrate an aggression against Iraq will be buried with their sick dreams, arrogance and greed." Without mentioning the Americans, Saddam added: "this is the inevitable outcome awaiting all those who try to aggress against Arabs and Muslims." Yet many experts believe a war against Iraq can be won at reasonable cost. After more than a decade of sanctions, Iraq's army is degraded. Its equipment is in poor repair, and morale -- except in certain elite units such as the Special Republican Guard -- is low. A combination of smart weapons, indigenous opposition forces, and as few as 50,000 US troops could accomplish the task. American allies in the region would support US action once they were sure Saddam would be overthrown. Financial cost estimates are as low as 20 billion dollars. Yet for many observers, the most worrying question concerns the day after. Having ousted Saddam, the United States would face the prospect of occupying a country of 23 million people with thousands of troops for years as a new government consolidates its power. Uniting the Iraqi dissident factions, sharply divided on religious, sectarian, ethnic and political grounds, and in competition for influence and power in post-Saddam Iraq, would be a daunting task. For this reason, the administration summoned exiled leaders of six main Iraqi opposition groups to Washington last week for talks on creating a successor government. Despite their division, the leaders who met with senior State Department and Pentagon officials (in a session that was briefly attended by Secretary of State Colin Powell, and later included a conference call with Vice President Dick Cheney) said they are now planning a broader meeting for the opposition groups in autumn to prepare for a new regime in Baghdad. As chances of a diplomatic solution to the US stand-off with Iraq appear remote, Bush, who branded Saddam as "enemy until proven otherwise", has yet to decide on the next move in his strategy of "regime change": a timetable for a military strike against Iraq.
