As the United Nations (UN) weapons inspection process continues in Iraq, and with mixed signals coming out of Washington, there appears to be some uncertainty over the likelihood of war. In assessing the situation, it is as ever the equivalent of the small print in this case, a detailed examination of what is happening in the US military that offers the most informed, accurate idea of what is to come.
One of the real problems created for the United States by the extensive and protracted involvement of the UN inspectors in Iraq, is that it can prove hugely costly to keep forces at a high state of alert for long periods of time. This is a situation that most affects the United States Air Force (USAF), since it is particularly dependent on reserves.
The USAF is constituted as a force that can commit very large numbers of personnel to a war overseas, but only if its forces that remain in the American homeland are largely crewed by reservists. Most of the latter are former USAF personnel, including pilots, navigators, ground crew and other support staff. Having left the air force and gone into civil employment, their call-up involves considerable disruption.
A reliable Washington-based source, Aviation Week has reported on 9 December 2002 that a mobilisation of up to 87,000 air force reservists has now been pushed back to mid-January. This parallels changes in the movement of naval forces; together, they indicate that a war before February is less likely unless there is a sudden crisis, possibly instigated by the Iraqis before US forces are ready.
At the same time, there is abundant evidence of a high level of activity in preparation for war, as reported in last weeks assessment. In the Gulf region itself, US officials have now got agreement to use bases and other facilities in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, and it is even probable that Saudi Arabia will allow some use of bases, once it is sure that war is inevitable.
In another development with strong regional resonance, a recent exercise was conducted at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. This involved the launch of two Scud missiles as part of a long-standing programme to assess how to detect and intercept them. For some time, the US has been buying up Scuds from eastern Europe and elsewhere, but the significance of this particular exercise is that it took place in conditions of unusually high security as a result of the attendance as observers of 50 Israelis representative of the countrys government, armed forces and industry. According to a local Californian newspaper, The Lompoc Record, Israeli specialists even helped prepare the tests.
An intensive air war in prospect
There is also some evidence that a war with Iraq is going to be even more dependent on a massive air assault using precision-guided bombs, with rather less emphasis on ground troops. This does not preclude incursions into northern and southern Iraq, or fighting in Baghdad itself. What is becoming clear, though, is that there will be a sustained air campaign of remarkable intensity, and that this will be intended to so damage the Iraqi military, including Saddams elite forces, that they will be crippled before any ground forces are heavily committed.
If this is indeed the scenario, civilian casualties are likely to be high, and there will be a demolition of the countrys economy. However accurate the bombs are, intelligence failures are certain, and there will be many instances of civilians being killed, not least because Iraqs military forces will have been dispersed throughout the civilian population. Furthermore, the civil infrastructure that supports the electricity grid, food distribution, water supplies, health services, education and everything else that makes an economy work is also the infrastructure that supports the military. Wrecking the militarys support network in a major air war will inevitably cause sustained civilian hardship.
Despite all this, there are clear signs of preparation for an extensive air war. The B-2 stealth bomber is about to be fitted with a new form of bomb rack that enables a single plane to carry 80 precision-guided 250-kg bombs in a single operation. This is due to be operational in the summer of 2003 but could certainly be brought forward. Another of the US strategic bombers, the B-1B, will operate out of Oman, but some will even be forward-based in Kuwait. There is even a plan to have sufficient B-1Bs in the region to maintain two on airborne alert over western Iraq at all times, to forestall any Iraqi moves towards Jordan or Israel.
During the war in Afghanistan, the USAF operated the older B-52 strategic bombers out of the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The intensity of the air war now being planned appears to be such that Diego Garcia is not adequate for this purpose. Consequently, the USAF seems likely to be quite heavily reliant on UK facilities, with the USAF base at Fairford in Gloucestershire being used as a base for a force of B-52s that will stage raids on Iraq directly from Britain.
Last year, B-2 stealth bombers flew from their base in the United States to bomb Afghanistan, flying on to Diego Garcia before returning to the US. To increase the intensity of B-2 use against Iraq, these planes will now be based in Diego Garcia itself. The effectiveness of the B-2 depends on maintaining its radar-absorbing surface coating and this requires frequent repair that can only be done in purpose-built, climate-controlled hangars to ensure that the curing process for the stealth coating works.
A US company specialising in sophisticated pre-fabricated structures, American Spaceframe has developed just such a hangar, and two of them have just been installed on Diego Garcia.
There is an ominous aspect to this development, in that the B-2 is capable of carrying the new B61-11 earth-penetrating nuclear bomb. The White House has recently confirmed that the United States would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to an opponent using chemical or biological weapons against its forces. The only likely circumstance in which Iraq would use such weapons would be if the regime was being destroyed the very aim of war with Iraq. This immediately raises the question of whether the British government is allowing the USAF to deploy nuclear weapons to Diego Garcia. Parliamentary questions aimed at illuminating this issue are being stonewalled.
Three conclusions and a question
Meanwhile, one possible result of the move towards a more intensive air war is a change in the nature of Britains own involvement in a war with Iraq. Put simply, it may not now be the case that the Blair government will commit a large ground force of around 20,000 troops as previously indicated.
The lack of any sign of such a commitment has been assumed by some analysts to indicate that a war with Iraq is unlikely. Instead, British ground forces may be limited to a few thousand marines and other specialist forces, together with a large air component. In this connection, the movement of a naval task group centred on the aircraft carrier Ark Royal seems something of a coincidence.
This group is intended to take part in exercise Flying Fish in south-east Asia next June, but could conveniently be in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean within a month, with supplies sufficient for a six-month deployment. The task group is likely to include RAF Harrier GR7 ground attack aircraft, and there have been reports of an emergency buy of precision-guided bombs from the United States.
What all this tells us is three things. First, there has been some delay in full preparations for war, but current indications are that the process will still be in hand and ready by February (see an earlier article). Secondly, there is an increasing emphasis on an air war, not least as a means of somewhat limiting the extent to which ground troops will be used. Thirdly, British bases are going to be even more significant for US forces than might have been expected.
If, without a clear UN mandate, the United States were to take action along these lines, this would put the British government in a very interesting position. If it went along with the US in such circumstances it would face strong opposition internally as well as in Europe and the Middle East. If, however, it decided not to support the US, it would actually have a considerable degree of leverage in terms of the latters base requirements.
The British government could not have it both ways and would be caught between support for Washington and a stated preference for the UN route. It would be a remarkable test for the Blair government and one that would indicate the nature of its internationalist leanings for a long time to come.
