TruthNews

Countdown to War

TruthNews Commentary, Feb. 20, 2003

When will America attack Iraq? For those who think that UN maneuvering will drag out the long-delayed liberation of Iraq until next fall, yesterday's White House press briefing offers some clues that action may be very close.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer made it clear that the U.S.-led attack will take place with or without another U.N. resolution:

The position that the President has taken is that he believes that it remains very important for the United Nations Security Council to be an effective organization. And the President has said to our allies that we intend to work through the United Nations, and we will.
The President intends to work with our friends and allies to offer a resolution, either this week or next, at the United Nations Security Council. And the President has made repeatedly clear that the preferable outcome is for the United Nations to act. If the United Nations Security Council fails to act, the President, along with a coalition of the willing, will enforce Resolution 1441 by disarming Saddam Hussein.

Then, in answer to a question as to whether the administration has a timetable in terms of when the U.N. Security Council members would have to act on a second resolution, Fleischer responded, "the President would not expect a very lengthy debate at all."

So here's the timetable:

The resolution will be offered within the next two weeks.
The debate will be very short – presumably a week or less.
Whether the resolution is approved or not, the war will begin shortly after. Our assumption is within a week.

The time until the start of the war is then, at most, 4 weeks. But this schedule could be compressed considerably. If the resolution were, in fact, offered by the end of this week, and debate was as short as a day, we could be in a war by next week.

Several other signs augur in favor of early war.

First, as noted yesterday, a military exclusion zone is being established in the northern half of Kuwait where U.S. forces will presumably launch their offensive against Iraq. While oil production is considered the most significant sector to be affected by the closure, there also is an enormous impact on the country's agriculture sector. The most fertile grazing land and cultivated areas of Kuwait are in the north. Such an area cannot be closed off for very long without a severe impact on both the economy and people of Kuwait.
By April, the Iraqi desert will become too hot to operate in, especially if American forces are required to wear bulky chemical warfare gear. The last Persian Gulf war began in January.
Deployed forces are very expensive to maintain. Just enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq has cost the U.S. over a billion dollars a year. The forces currently being deployed to the Persian Gulf are considerably more massive than the two or three air wings that have enforced the no-fly zones.
Finally, there's the factor of momentum. Public support for a war on Iraq is already dwindling. In addition, our allies, particularly those who are hosting troops, will not continue to support the U.S. if the war is delayed for another six months.

Of course, Hussein could always come up with a surprise that will make the decision to go to war considerably more difficult. For example, he could suddenly begin cooperating on disarmament. Real disarmament is unlikely, but he could put on a big show to deceive the world. Hussein tried something similar in the last war, when he announced that he would withdraw from Kuwait after the deadline had already expired (Bush Sr. started the bombing anyway). Or Hussein could abdicate but leave an equally unacceptable thug in power.

However, President Bush appears to be resolute in his determination to rid the world of the Iraqi threat and liberate the people of Iraq, so only an unconditional abdication by Hussein or a coup can prevent the coming war. But by following the timeline above, we can get a good idea of when the war will start.