War scenarios start with strikes to kill or isolate Hussein

WASHINGTON -- No matter what war plan President Bush chooses, if he decides to attack Iraq, the assault is almost certain to start from above.

Strikes from U.S. warplanes and Tomahawk cruise missiles would aim first to destroy Iraq's relatively sophisticated air defenses, war strategists believe. The strikes would focus not on the surface-to-air missile batteries and anti-aircraft guns themselves but on the radar and communication networks that tie them together.

"You don't have to break every piece of an air defense system," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who commanded the Air Force during the Persian Gulf War.

The U.S. goal would be to own the skies; to be able to bomb Iraqi sites and provide air support to ground forces with impunity.

The airstrikes would be aimed at isolating or killing President Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders and damaging Saddam's elite Republican Guard units and the internal security mechanism around him. Rumsfeld said during the weekend that U.S. military action would focus on Saddam, not Iraq's infrastructure.

Initial airstrikes also would try to destroy Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities and his long-range missiles, targets on which the United States has intelligence but are easy to hide.

Thus, many experts agree that removing Saddam and getting rid of Iraq's banned weapons programs almost certainly would require ground troops, possibly entering Iraq as early as days after bombing started.

'Deep penetrators'

"You're not going to be able to deal from the air with weapons of mass destruction," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers last week. "It would take deep penetrators and would require capabilities that would have some effects that would not be nice."

Rumsfeld's allusion was to nuclear weapons, which would be needed to blow up deeply buried bunkers.

Some experts say there's a strong chance Saddam would resort to his weapons of mass destruction. U.S. forces have equipment, training and vaccinations to deal with chemical and biological weapons, but their use would slow an advancing U.S. military force.

"It wouldn't stop the American or coalition forces from completing their mission, but it would delay and make it harder, and there would be more casualties," said former U.N. weapons inspector Raymond Zilinskas.

Both sides have had more than a decade to learn each other's tactics and capabilities during skirmishes in the two flight-interdiction zones over Iraq. There have been no aerial dogfights between warplanes, but Iraqi anti-aircraft gunners have learned to "pop on" their radars at the last minute to avoid being targeted by U.S. radar-seeking missiles or jamming aircraft. Iraq also has put anti-aircraft guns and installations in civilian areas, even an amusement park, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. air campaign may try to preserve some lines of communication between Saddam's government in Baghdad and the military in the rest of the country.

One fear is that if lower-level commanders were to be cut off from Baghdad, they would use chemical or biological weapons out of desperation. On the other hand, if they are tuned in enough to know the war is going badly, they might stay out of the fight or switch sides.

After the first round of airstrikes, which could last days or weeks, the United States might pause to assess whether some of Saddam's military were defecting and whether Iraqi dissidents had gained territory or provoked uprisings.

Iraq's military, mindful of its crushing defeat a decade ago when it was much stronger than now, could simply fold when an attack is imminent or shortly after. Tens of thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered in the Gulf War.

"It's a military that has a pattern of recognizing that it's better off not fighting for long," Rumsfeld said.

Estimates of the numbers of ground forces needed vary from 50,000 to 350,000 or more. More than 500,000 coalition soldiers faced Iraq in the Gulf War.

Getting that many U.S. troops to the region could take up to three months, experts say. Thousands already are stationed in the region, participating in the war on terror or in exercises with friendly governments. Tons of U.S. military materiel, including tanks, armored personnel carriers and other heavy gear, already are in the Gulf area.

U.S. commanders have many options for getting American troops into Iraq. Most would require approval beforehand by other countries, some of which have expressed reluctance.

Soldiers could mass in Kuwait and push northward into Iraq toward Baghdad. The United States has thousands of soldiers there, as well as battle experience in southern Iraq from the Gulf War. Saddam has put many troops in the south and violently suppressed dissent there.

U.S. forces also could gather in southern Turkey and press south to the Iraqi capital. This would give U.S. troops better roads and the support of anti-Saddam Kurds, but the route is mountainous and Saddam's hometown stronghold of Tikrit, which has an air base, is on the way.

American planes could airdrop troops virtually anywhere in Iraq, especially if Saddam's air defenses were down. Or the United States could use captured outlying Iraqi military bases as staging areas.

A push to Baghdad from the west is considered unlikely, given Saudi Arabia's reluctance to be involved. Iraq's eastern border is with Iran, which basically precludes a drive from that direction.