|
October surprise Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020731/4320561s.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020731/4320561s.htm
Page 1A
Officials: No Iraq 'October surprise' War plans still in flux; hearings start on Hill
By John Diamond
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials have told key lawmakers not to expect a U.S. attack on Iraq before the fall elections, allowing time for Congress to debate the possibility of war.
Senior administration officials gave the assurances in private conversations with senators planning a series of hearings that begin today into a possible U.S. attack on Iraq. The officials said there would be no ''October surprise'' -- a sudden attack before the Nov. 5 congressional elections to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The assurances square with Pentagon estimates that it would take until early next year to have the weapons, intelligence and forces in place to take on Iraq's 375,000-man army. One key factor: U.S. soldiers can't fight in Iraq's summer or autumn heat wearing protective gear against chemical or biological weapons attack.
Today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing is the first of several on Iraq. But the White House has decided it's too early in the decision-making process to participate and won't send witnesses until the sessions resume after the August recess.
''I'm holding hearings to begin for the first time to seriously discuss what is the threat, if it's identified, and what are the scenarios, the forces involved,'' said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del. ''If we attack, we'll win. But what do we do the day after? We can't just go in and walk away.'' Biden, who confers regularly with senior Bush administration officials, said the president's aides have made it clear that no Iraq invasion is imminent.
''There's not likely to be anything before November, and I think they're trying to get their act together on what to do afterwards,'' Biden said.
Members of Congress want the administration to begin building support at home for an attack and to counter growing concern among allies, particularly in the Arab world, about the implications of such a war.
Bush has resolved to remove Saddam from power, but the president's advisers have not agreed on how to do it. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other hard-liners are pushing for an invasion.
''They have chemical weapons and biological weapons and have an appetite for nuclear weapons,'' Rumsfeld said Tuesday. But even Rumsfeld cautioned against assuming President Bush has decided to invade. ''We don't know if the United States would exercise a military option,'' he said.
The Pentagon hasn't settled on an invasion plan, but options are beginning to emerge from planning by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and generals at the U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., the military headquarters responsible for the Persian Gulf region.
One key consideration is not to simply repeat elements of the 1991 war that ousted Iraqi forces from Kuwait but left Saddam in power. This time, the goal is to remove him. Options under discussion include:
* Attacking suddenly, without the lengthy and obvious buildup that preceded the 1991 Gulf War.
* Using small units to immediately sever Saddam's control over chemical and biological weapons.
* Planning for a peacekeeping force of up to 50,000 to wean the Iraqi public from its support for Saddam.
|
|
