U.S. military weighs options for making attack on Iraq

WASHINGTON -- The generals developing plans for possible U.S. military action against Iraq have many options, from a massive invasion requiring more than a quarter million soldiers to a covert operation relying largely on dissident Iraqis.

President Bush says he wants Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ousted, accusing Saddam of developing chemical and biological weapons and seeking a nuclear bomb. But Bush and other administration officials say the United States has not decided what to do about Saddam.

"Let me emphasize that the president has not made a decision at this point to go to war," Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday. "We're looking at all of our options."

Gen. Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command and the man who would lead any military action against Iraq, met with Bush and his National Security Council on Monday to discuss how to go about it.

Here's a look at the pros and cons at some Iraq war concepts under review:Q: Is there an option that would not use any U.S. ground troops?

A: Yes, but the Bush administration has rejected it. The United States could help Iraqi dissident groups, encouraging them to attack Saddam, and try to win defections among Iraqi military leaders. That strategy is unlikely to succeed, administration officials say. The Iraqi opposition is too weak and splintered to be a realistic threat to Saddam's still formidable military.

Couldn't the United States just attack Iraq from the air?

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last month that airstrikes alone wouldn't be enough to eliminate Saddam's chemical and biological weapons. Many of the weapons facilities are buried deep underground, Rumsfeld said, and Iraq could have mobile weapons laboratories that are indistinguishable from civilian truck trailers.

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has relatively strong air defenses, including anti-aircraft radars, missiles and artillery guns. It also has more than a decade of experience with U.S. aircraft and tactics, since it often tries to shoot down American planes patrolling the no-fly zones over the northern and southern parts of the country.

What option requires the fewest U.S. ground troops?

Pentagon officials are mulling several scenarios involving 50,000 to 100,000 ground troops. One prominent idea, nicknamed the "inside out" strategy, would send several U.S. battalions into Baghdad and perhaps a few other key Iraqi cities.

The idea is to quickly eliminate or cut off Saddam and his elite Republican Guard units from the rest of the country and the military while neutralizing important weapons complexes in the Baghdad area. Losses by Saddam's forces in the capital could encourage other Iraqi units to surrender to the United States or to stay out of the fight.

The plan has significant dangers, however. Saddam's forces in Baghdad have the best training and equipment in his military and may be very loyal to him. Urban fighting is difficult, particularly against an enemy on his own turf, where civilians could be caught in the cross fire.

"Fighting delaying actions inside urban areas offers Iraq a way of using human shields, limiting U.S. air strike capability, and forcing U.S.-led coalition forces to fight on the most restricted terms," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.

"Iraq is virtually certain to try to exploit civilian casualties and collateral damage as a political and media weapon and mix this with the use of deception and decoys."

What about plans requiring large numbers of troops?

Some scenarios call for 250,000 to 350,000 or more ground forces to invade Iraq via Kuwait in the south, Turkey in the north, Jordan or Saudi Arabia in the east -- or a combination of those routes.

There are advantages to a large-scale invasion -- nicknamed "Desert Storm Light" in reference to the 1991 Gulf War that dislodged Iraq from Kuwait. A large force could crush Iraq's military, encouraging dissidents to fight and Iraqi generals to switch sides. It also would ensure the United States could counter virtually any development.

But there are drawbacks. One is the time needed to position so many troops in the region, allowing Saddam to plan a response or to attack with weapons of mass destruction.

Another is the reluctance of Iraq's neighbors to serve as staging areas. Saudi Arabia, the main U.S. base for the Gulf War, has said it won't let U.S. soldiers use its soil to attack Iraq. Turkey, a NATO ally that borders Iraq to the north, also is skittish about serving such a role.

Some experts say a large force would be needed in the region regardless.

"Even if you were to do the inside out approach, you still would want to have the backup to do Desert Storm Light if it doesn't work," said Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution think tank.

What's the most likely plan?

It would probably combine elements of several proposals, and any plan has limits; as an old military adage goes, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy.