Veterans for Common Sense

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said his country would take “proper actions” if it were hit again by Iraqi missiles. “If harm is done to Israel, if we suffer casualties, or non-conventional weapons are used on us, then definitely Israel will take the proper actions to defend its citizens,” he said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post.

The prospect of Israel retaliating against Baghdad with nuclear weapons sounded an alarm bell with Richard Butler, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector, who said yesterday that it is his “deepest fear.”

Mr. Butler, an Australian who has called for the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, cautioned that a military campaign to overthrow the regime in Baghdad could escalate into an all-out war in which “Israel will use its nuclear weapons.

“If that happens the world would be changed beyond recognition and I would fear that if that happens the state of Israel would cease to exist,” he said at a business conference in Hong Kong.

The possibility of Israel using its nuclear weapons, an arsenal that is not officially recognized, but is widely known to exist, has become a hot political issue, with ordinary Israelis, leading newspapers and national politicians debating its merits.

In 1991, during the Iraqi Scud missile attacks that hit Tel Aviv, few Israelis dared to mention the use of nuclear weapons.

“Everyone believes if Saddam attacks with biological or chemical weapons that we will respond with nuclear weapons,” said Yaffa Sherf, a woman in Ramat Gan, the Tel Aviv suburb that took the brunt of the Scud attacks. “We have to defend ourselves.”

Some political analysts have suggested the Sharon government has employed the apocalyptic talk this week to deter Iraq and its supporters in the Middle East from any strike against Israel should the United States launch an offensive.

When the United States led an international coalition to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991, Mr. Hussein’s forces fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel, apparently in the hope of rallying Arab opinion to his cause. Remarkably, although many buildings, including several blocks of apartments, were destroyed, only one person died in the attacks.

Under intense pressure from former U.S. president George H. W. Bush, who was trying to hold together an Arab coalition, the Israeli government did not respond.

Most observers believe Iraq’s capacity to strike has diminished since then, while Israel’s ability to shoot down incoming missiles has vastly improved. Israel has deployed large batteries of Patriot and Arrow missiles, primarily to stop attacks from neighboring countries. “There’s no system in the world like the Arrow,” air force chief Major-General Dan Halutz boasted recently.

Despite Israel’s improved defenses, there are fears in the military that next time around, Iraq may rely on a low-tech drone or possibly a suicide bomber to detonate chemical and biological weapons. Many Israelis also fear that Mr. Hussein, with his back to the wall, might launch a final desperate strike against Israel.

The current Bush administration, while saying Israel has the right to defend itself, has urged it to stay on the sidelines during any campaign against Baghdad, even if it is attacked. The U.S. military has reportedly agreed to target Iraqi missile-launchers pointed at Israel at the outset of any conflict, which it did not do in 1991.

However, many Israelis, including Mr. Sharon, still regard the decision not to strike back at Iraq in 1991 as a mistake. David Ivry, a former air force commander and director-general of the Defense Ministry, recently argued that the country’s power of deterrence had been diminished by that decision.

Mr. Sharon suggested yesterday that his government might have a scale of responses based on the severity of any Iraqi assault. “If Iraq attacks Israel, but does not hit population centers or cause casualties, our interest will be not to make it hard on the Americans,” he said.

Mr. Sharon also accused Palestinians of exploiting the U.S. concern over Iraq.

“Their operating assumption is that the closer we come to a U.S. attack in Iraq, the more difficult it will be for Israel to respond to terrorism,” Mr. Sharon said.

© 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc

1. High casualties may result at home or abroad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admits that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons. Faced with destruction of his regime (and possibly his own death), Hussein would have every incentive to use them against U.S. forces, Israel, oil fields, or even the U.S. homeland. If rag-tag al Qaeda terrorists can operate on U.S. soil undetected over a number of years, then more highly trained Iraqi intelligence agents might be able to smuggle in chemical or biological weapons (and may be already doing so). The U.S. military has been unenthusiastic about undertaking an invasion of Iraq because of fears of high casualties from urban fighting or from such Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

2. Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists. We should remember the worldwide mobilization of Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. An invasion of Iraq would play right into al Qaeda’s hands. Terrorists hope for an excessive, intrusive response by their adversary so that they can recruit more supporters.

3. Invading and occupying Iraq would distract the U.S. government from the vital task of destroying an enemy that has actually attacked the U.S. homeland–al Qaeda. U.S. intelligence agencies apparently have no hard evidence that links Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. How is an unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq, without international support, is relevant to the legitimate war against America’s terrorist adversaries.

4. The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq’s military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States — half a world away — is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq’s neighbors.

5. The terrorists groups that Iraq supports do not focus their attacks on the United States. Such groups concentrate their attacks on targets in the Middle East.

6. Although unsatisfying, the U.S.-led containment policy has worked. If the United States could successfully contain a superpower (USSR) for more than 40 years until it fell from within, it can continue to contain the dictator of a small, poor nation until he dies or is overthrown.

7. A U.S. invasion of Iraq could destabilize or topple friendly governments in Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Enflamed Islamic populations could rise up against those regimes, which are closely aligned with the United States.

8. The United States might be isolated diplomatically or have to expend large amounts of diplomatic capital to gain support for the invasion. The aforementioned friendly Islamic nations — many of whose territories would be needed to launch any invasion — and the European allies are almost universally unenthusiastic about such a military operation. The United States had to offer Turkey about $5 billion in debt forgiveness and other financial inducements to obtain even reluctant Turkish support for a U.S. attack on Iraq.

9. At a time of economic sluggishness and of red ink for the U.S. government, an invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq could cost billions of dollars, bust the budget and throw the U.S. economy into a tailspin. The Gulf War Cost $80 billion (in 2002 dollars). Because the United States would probably be faced with a long occupation of Iraq to stabilize the country after the invasion, the cost is likely to be higher this time around. And unlike the Gulf War, no financial support from other nations can be expected to defray the costs.

10. The threat of war in the Middle East or a loss of production from actual combat could cause the world price of oil to skyrocket. Fighting in Iraq could reduce oil production there, as could any Iraqi attack on the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields using missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.

After sober analysis, one must conclude that the civilian political appointees in the administration should stop the tub-thumping for war and listen to counsels of restraint by those in the military who would have to fight and die in such a war. Hussein’s survival in the 11 years after the Gulf War–combined with his demonization by three U.S. administrations–has led many to overstate the threat that despot presents and understate the costs of scrapping the containment policy that has contained him effectively.

With a secret plan developed in September 2000 to attack Iraq, President George W. Bush is unleashing the dogs of war and once again plunging American troops through the gates of hell.

The secret war plan (“Rebuilding America’s Defenses”) calls for attacking Iraq (“Bush Planned Iraq ‘Regime Change’ Before Becoming President,” Scotland’s The Sunday Herald, September 15, 2002). This bloody blueprint, penned by the ultra-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century, was given to Bush and top Republicans two years ago.

In 1990, during Desert Storm, U.S. soldiers were provided only official misinformation. Upon returning home, I realized “the fix was in” back then, too. Former President Bush lied about Iraqi intentions and capabilities to invade Saudi Arabia. And a multi-million dollar public relations campaign lied to Americans about Iraqi soldiers tossing Kuwaiti babies from incubators. Many in Congress relied on these lies when they voted in favor of going to war in January 1991. A few changed votes could have changed history.

But let’s not allow a few pesky facts to get in the way.

So, why does a second war appear inevitable? The U.N. vote appears fixed. Russia may remain neutral on a new U.N Security Council resolution calling for the use of force to make Iraq comply with existing disarmament resolutions. Russia wants a free hand to use the military against rebels in Chechnya as well as Chechnya rebels operating in Georgia.

China may remain neutral because China wants to remain a World Trade Organization trading partner with the U.S. China also wants a free hand to fight Muslim rebels in far western China. A vaguely worded U.N. resolution will pass allowing Bush to attack. Sadly, Bush may even invade Iraq regardless what the U.N. does.

The fix appears in with Congress, too. Congress will pass, and Bush will sign, a vaguely worded law authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Common sense won’t prevail because Bush is pressuring Congress to act in a frenzy, without knowing all the facts about September 11 intelligence failures or about the Administrations long-term plans for Iraq.

Today, without approval from Congress Bush is deploying troops off the shore of Yemen, and is speeding up the pace of landing troops in the Persian Gulf region. Portions of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division already flew to Kuwait. Shiploads of tanks are arriving now. Thus, on a hair-trigger notice, Bush can attack Iraq or any nation in Southwest Asia immediately with 30,000 troops and 400 planes (“U.S. Builds Up Huge Attack Force,” The Guardian, September 13, 2002).

Former President Bush used the same tactic in 1990: first deploy the troops, then ask for permission. Several in Congress voted for war on the grounds it would be a “loss of face” for the U.S. to deploy troops and then not use them. Will a courageous Senator filibuster Bush’s folly?

Based on the lies of the past, Bush may be lying now. The bottom line is that American citizens and reporters may never know. We won’t have an opportunity to see and review the facts before Bush attacks Iraq, and reporters may be blocked from the front lines again by military censors. The press accepts many of these unconstitutional restrictions n part because some large media conglomerates are also defense contracting firms set to win enormous war contracts (General Electric, a major defense contractor, owns NBC and MSNBC).

With little public debate, America plunges into hell, as U.S. General William T. Sherman described his burning march through Georgia during the Civil War.

Now, with great historical irony, Georgia’s Senator Zell Miller, a moderate Democrat supporting another Gulf War, faces a quandary. Miller wrote, “Forgive my bluntness, but these folks [his constituents in Georgia] also want to hear the president and the vice president say that this war is not about oil” (“Questions for the Commander in Chief,” The Washington Post, September 8, 2002).

The war has nothing to do with national defense, terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction. The war has everything to do with trillions of dollars in oil supplies. The “U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq” (“In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue: U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool,” Washington Post, September 15, 2002).

If the war is not an immediate success, Miller and other moderates skate on thin ice by supporting a Republican president with questionable legitimacy from the 2000 election abusing his power to launch America’s first-ever attack against a sovereign nation.

This time, the expected urban warfare may result in tremendously high U.S. casualties. The result may be an American Stalingrad – overconfident U.S. troops on a long supply line in an enemy city losing badly. Miller may face strong opposition from voters when body bags come home to Georgia’s Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, and Fort Benning via Dover Air Force Base in Maryland.

America should worry when the fix is in and death seems poised to win. The stomachs of Gulf War veterans churn recalling the senseless over-kill and carnage along “Highway of Death” in 1991. This was the infamous roadway from Kuwait to Iraq where thousands of retreating, defeated Iraqi soldiers were killed, shot like helpless fish in a barrel by U.S. attack helicopters, planes, and tanks.

Bush is cynically using the anguish, fear, and patriotism resulting from 9-11 to advance his partisan political goals, not the interests of Americans. To date, Bush hasn’t sought a peaceful solution. He is failing as our leader at home, as he avoids all questions about our economy, environment, education, social security privatization, corporate scandals (including Harken and Halliburton) and domestic issues.

Unless the $200 billion Bush-Cheney juggernaut racing toward hell isn’t stopped now, hang on to a copy of our tattered U.S. Constitution, pray if you need to for the impotent Congress and the voiceless and uninformed people, and hug your family and friends tight: there will be killing and death caused by Bush’s dogs of war.

Anonymous is a Gulf War veteran.

The Pentagon has hired two giant cargo ships to carry armored vehicles and helicopters, among other war matériel, and eight additional cargo ships capable of carrying ammunition, tanks and ambulances.

The Air Force is stockpiling weapons, ammunition and spare parts, including airplane engines, at depots in the Persian Gulf region and in the United States. Arsenals of Air Force and Navy precision-guided weapons, which proved devastating in Afghanistan, should be fully replenished by autumn, military officials said.

Senior Pentagon officials say the logistical movements do not represent a stealth deployment and should not be interpreted as evidence that a campaign against Iraq is imminent, or even a certainty.

Indeed, some of the movements now under way were ordered months or even years ago. But taken together, the steps suggest that those responsible for arming America’s fighting forces in time of war are beginning serious planning.

“We don’t know when the next contingency might be, but we want to get this in the hands of the war fighters,” Gen. Lester L. Lyles, chief of the Air Force Matériel Command, said in an interview.

Of course, with the United States having just waged war in the region, a certain amount of replenishment is to be expected. But Defense Department and military officials who described the logistical plans indicated that a public discussion of the growing American arsenal confronting Mr. Hussein fit an emerging information strategy to unnerve Iraq ahead of possible combat and weaken it in case of war, as well as reassure skittish allies in the region.

The Pentagon is contracting for one ship to move troop-carrying combat vehicles from Europe and the United States to the Persian Gulf to join equipment for four armored brigades already stored there. Another will carry vehicles, helicopters and ammunition to a Red Sea port for a military exercise this year.

The Defense Department also has awarded a contract to Maersk Line to operate eight cargo ships capable of carrying ammunition and tanks. The ships will be positioned near the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, home of a British base used by the United States as a staging point.

Senior officials acknowledge that the shipments could support war options that Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the chief of the military’s Central Command, has recently presented to Mr. Bush.

Logistics planners are closely tracking the various war options, officials said. The mundane task of setting aside food, fuel and weaponry for troops is essential for sustaining any major military operation. It takes time, and to avoid tipping adversaries off about a military operation, Pentagon officials say, it is prudent to start the flow of supplies now, even without specific orders.

Indications of American resolve and advance placement of weapons are intended to reassure skittish gulf allies and Iraqi opposition groups, officials said, and to convince Iraqi officers and their troops that the Americans would win — especially the Iraqis responsible for weapons of mass destruction and the missiles or artillery to deliver them. American planners hope that Iraqi officers will not pull the trigger after calculating the punishment awaiting them if they unleash weapons on behalf of a crumbling government.

Military transportation planners say the magnitude of the air and sea lift of United States troops and equipment to the Middle East would be daunting: 7,000 miles by air and 12,000 by sea from the East Coast, and more from the West Coast.

“Logistically it won’t be a cakewalk,” said Gus Pagonis, a retired three-star Army general who was chief of logistics during the gulf war of 1991. “To feed, house, equip and medically support 250,000 troops is not an easy task, but it’s not insurmountable.”

Plans for positioning American military equipment in the gulf began just two months after the 1991 war ended, military officials noted.

Today, equipment for two reinforced Army armored brigades is on the ground in the region, and the 9,000 troops to use it could be airlifted and ready for action in 96 hours. The armaments are stored in 37 warehouses, each averaging 60,000 square feet, in Kuwait and Qatar.

Each of those countries holds in storage about 115 M-1A1 Abrams tanks, 60 M-2A2 Bradley fighting vehicles, 100 armored personnel carriers, 25 mortars and 20 155-millimeter howitzers, said a spokesman for Army forces assigned to the Central Command.

Ammunition is stored in both countries, with field artillery rounds in Kuwait. The Kuwait warehouses also hold 30 days’ worth of food and fuel.

Equipment for another armored brigade from the Army and one from the Marine Corps — another 9,000 troops — is afloat on ships in the region, officials said.

The Kuwait site has an 84-bed combat support hospital in storage, and Bahrain has a 500-bed field hospital and a 200-bed combat support hospital in storage, the spokesman said. Two Patriot antimissile batteries are in Kuwait and two more in Saudi Arabia.

The military would need substantially more equipment, though, to support the concepts for operations against Iraq that have been presented to Mr. Bush.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumseld inspected some of those locations himself this summer when he conferred with regional leaders and visited American forces in those states. In Qatar, where just over 3,300 American military personnel are based, Mr. Rumsfeld toured the sprawling air base at Al Udeid, a significant hub in the American-led campaign against terror.

Al Udeid has a fleet of Air Force KC-10 and KC-135 refueling tankers that kept attack jets and bombers, based elsewhere in the region, in the air as they carried out the campaign over Afghanistan. It also has Air Force construction engineers and a smattering of Army personnel. The base has runways long enough to handle any aircraft.

New hangars have been built into the chalk-colored desert, each disguised as a sand dune to blend in with the Qatari badlands and foil the radar of any adversary’s missile.

Mr. Rumsfeld also visited Bahrain, home to the the Fifth Fleet and about 4,200 American military personnel, and greeted troops at Camp Doha, an Army base in Kuwait about 35 miles from the Iraqi border.

In all, about 9,000 members of the American military are based in Kuwait, including crews for the planes that enforce the no-flight zone over southern Iraq. To support the more than 500,000 American troops in the gulf war, the military consumed 1.5 billion gallons of fuel. Troops and equipment consumed nine million gallons of water a day. The military shipped more than 112,000 tanks, trucks and other vehicles. American forces used 95,000 tons of bombs, missiles and other munitions.

Senior officers say the military has improved its logistics network in the decade since the war with Iraq. “We’ve fine-tuned that a lot,” said Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, the deputy chief of naval operations for warfare requirements and programs.

Eleven years ago, Murtha was one of the first President
Bush ( news – web sites)’s chief Democratic supporters
in the effort to win congressional approval for plans
to take on Saddam Hussein ( news – web sites). He was a
member of the president’s inner council, advising Bush
and his aides on congressional strategy. It was a role
that put Murtha at odds with the leaders of his own
party.

Today, the powerful backroom dealmaker finds himself in
an even more politically lonely position: questioning a war-powers resolution that even most Democratic leaders seem reluctant to oppose. ”All of us want to get rid of Saddam,” Murtha says. But he believes that the younger Bush ”went about it the wrong way.”

Bush’s father ”had his coalition built before he came
to Congress,” Murtha says. As a result, most of the
Persian Gulf War ( news – web sites)’s cost was shared
by U.S. allies. Those nations shouldered more than $53
billion of the $61 billion war burden, according to the
White House budget office.

This time, ”it will all be expended by the United
States,” says Murtha, the top-ranking Democrat on the
House panel that funds the Pentagon ( news – web
sites). He says another war with Iraq would cost at
least $50 billion. Other estimates put the price as
high as $200 billion.

Murtha’s concerns are all the more striking given his impeccably hawkish credentials. Murtha, 70, is one of the military’s best friends on Capitol Hill. He’s also one of the few lawmakers who has experienced ground combat firsthand, which is one reason his views command so much respect. Murtha enlisted in the Marines during the Korean War, then volunteered for another two-year stint in Vietnam.

His western Pennsylvania district suffered more
casualties than any other in the Gulf War he supported.
A Greensburg, Pa., reserve unit, assigned to
water-purification duties, was hit by a Scud missile
that killed 28 soldiers.

”One guy lived a block away from me,” Murtha says.
Another casualty he remembers: a young woman who was
called up for duty just as she was about to enroll in
college, the first member of her family to do so.

Murtha says a key reason for questioning a second Iraq
war is strategic. He’s worried that it would cost the
United States not only money and lives, but also
important allies. By moving without international
support, Bush could alienate Arab allies, and ”we
could lose access to the intelligence we need to fight
the war on terrorism.”

As a veteran of wars both legislative and literal,
Murtha is puzzled by all the bellicose talk in
Washington. Fewer than one-third of members of Congress
are veterans; the percentage was more than double that
when Murtha arrived on Capitol Hill 30 years ago. He
says that makes a difference.

”I have found that the guys who haven’t been there are
more likely to vote to go to war,” he says.

Nothing he has seen in intelligence reports has
convinced him that Bush needs to rush through a
resolution, Murtha says. Even so, he has not decided
how he will vote. Although he has doubts about the
president’s plans, Murtha says he’s reluctant to leave
his commander-in-chief isolated in the face of the international community.

”I don’t know whether it was intentional or not, but
he has put the country in such a box,” Murtha says.
”He can say, ‘You’ll undercut me if you don’t vote for
this resolution.’ ”

The casualties could be much higher this time,
particularly if there is ”street-by-street” fighting
in Baghdad, Murtha says. But he has no doubts about who
will win: ”We do have adequate military force to pull
this off.”

I’ll never forget the morning of February 27, 1991. As a young U.S. Army tanker, near the banks of the Euphrates River, two trucks raced through our position at roughly 2 a.m. We opened fire. One truck carried fuel and splashed its burning cargo on the other, and burning men ran everywhere, only to be met by our machine gun fire. This was the clean, precise Gulf War, for me, and those images never left me.

One day my growing son or daughter will ask me what I did in the war, and I’ll tell him. And they’ll have other questions, questions that haunt me, questions we should all be asking.

Where were we, when our country allowed 1.2 million Iraqis to die of preventable diseases related to sanctions? Reaping the benefits of the “new” economy? Working for high-tech startups, trying to provide a better future for our children?

Where were we, when 130,000 disabled Gulf War fought for help from the government, and for years got lies and bureaucratic misdirection? Were we buying our first homes? Trading up to a new one? Saving for our kids’ college?

Where were we, when Congress legislated away our rights to privacy and due process? Huddled with our families, protecting them against terrorists?

What about when the President named American citizens enemy combatants and denied them the rights guaranteed in the Constitution? Were we too busy worrying about the recession? Were we too busy thinking about the next round of layoffs?

Where were we when Congress handed over its Constitutional authority to declare war? The founding fathers wisely placed that power in the whole body of Congress, yet they are too timid to insist on keeping it. Were we too scared by the propaganda and lies? What if there were terrorists in our neighborhoods?

Our children are growing up in a country no longer America: a country where the government can search your house without telling you; a country where your neighbors may be informants; a country where “Americans should watch what they say;” a country where people are “disappeared” if they look wrong, talk wrong or think wrong; a country that dominates world affairs and keeps its citizens scared; a country willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives over politics, and where the people don’t know or care the cost; a country where democracy is controlled by corporations and the rich.

You know, I’ve been pretty busy, with not a lot of time to spend on all those “issues.” I make pretty good money, I’ve got a nice house in the suburbs, a minivan, and I’m raising my children with a better standard of living than my parents had. Isn’t that the American dream? Isn’t it?

Do you think our children will thank us for their legacy?

The kill-the-Constitution coalition quips “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” They are patently wrong. Our nation’s quest for liberty is best typified by Virginian Patrick Henry’s exhortation, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

That is the legacy I would give to my children.

Charles Sheehan-Miles, a decorated Gulf War combat veteran, is the author of “Prayer at Rumayla” (XLibris, 2001) and is a former President of the National Gulf War Resource Center. He can be contacted at http://www.sheehanmiles.com