Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Dutch MPs and SFIR Troops not Informed about Use Depleted Uranium
France insists Saddam has never bought uranium
Israel Accuses Iran of Trying to Make Nuclear Arms
Iran's ballistic missile goes into service
Alarm Bells Ring After Iranian Uranium Report
Pentagon Plan 5030
OPLAN 5027 Major Theater War - West
Russia Urges N. Korea Talks to Avert 'Hot' Conflict
S. Korea Dismisses Report on Nuke Plant
N.Korea Restates Demand as Nuclear Talks Seen
Facing A New Nuclear Reality
Democrats Start Anti-Bush Ad Campaign
Bush must go
Bush welcomes EU president to ranch
MILITARY
Liberia Fighting Escalates; Mortar Bomb Hits U.S. Embassy
COALITION OF DECEIT
U.N. labor agency says chemical weapons chief was wrongly dismissed
Europe Still Studded With WWII Bombs
Deputy defense secretary says weapons issue is now secondary in Iraq
U.S. Is Creating an Iraqi Militia to Relieve G.I.'s
Wolfowitz Warns Iraq's Neighbors Not to Interfere
In Najaf, a Sudden Anti-U.S. Storm
The wrath of the conquered
Tense Meeting of Sharon and Abbas Ends in Stalemate
Curfew's Gone, but Troops Still Hem In Hebron Family
SADDAM BELIEVED TO BE OPERATING FROM SYRIA
Turkey Says U.S. Wants It to Send Troops to Iraq
End of live bombing at Vieques makes base, jobs expendable
Suicide bombers' chief revealed
Follow the Yellowcake Road
Nuke group exposed Niger fraud in 'days'
Intelligence quagmire: How to gauge the new IQ
Israeli military intelligence: Saddam's WMD hidden in Iraq or Syria
Columnist Names CIA Iraq Operative
Officials Debate Whether to Seek a Bigger Military
As Iraq clash drags, more armor, fresh food needed
The Crime and the Cover-Up
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Saddam's loyalists thwart polygraph tests
A New Hard-Liner at the DEA
The Rockefeller Drug Rap
DAs try antiterror laws for drug cases
At Homeland Security, Doubts Arise Over Intelligence
Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
ENERGY AND OTHER
New York Earmarks $14.5 Million for Clean Energy Projects
Va. School Leads Area Into Green Movement
ACTIVISTS
Peace groups open Baghdad office
Communities shun Patriot Act
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- depleted uranium
Dutch MPs and SFIR Troops not Informed about Use Depleted Uranium in South Iraq
Geplaatst op
21 July 2003
RISQ Reviews
Author: M.H.J. van den Berg
http://www.risq.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=131
This article contests the Dutch government's claim that "no significant fighting has taken place in the province of Al Muthanna" and, more specifically, its assertion that "no DU [i.e. depleted uranium] ammunition was deployed [in the province]" during the recent conflict. If this assertion is based on information it received from US officials, as the government claims, it has been deceived.
On June 6, the Dutch government decided to send a battalion of marines and supporting personnel to Iraq, pending approval of parliament. As the latter had just closed its investigation of the NATO peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia (where Dutch troops failed to prevent the massacre of 600 Muslims in the UN declared 'safe area' of Srebrenica), MPs were not immediately convinced. They submitted more than 160 questions to the Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs and decided to consult independent experts on the matter. The answers of the Ministers, sent to parliament on June 18, and the hearing of experts held the subsequent day, must have reassured most MPs because a majority of them endorsed the mission on June 17. It is expected thatthe troops will deployed by mid-August.
The troops, 1100 in total, will be stationed in the southern province of Al Muthanna. Although the Dutch unit will operate under British command, formally it is not part of the occupying forces. Instead, it pertains to the so-called "stabilisation force" (SFIR) authorised by UN resolution 1483, which calls upon member-states to contribute to the "stabilisation and security" of Iraq. Apart from the Netherlands, other countries that have agreed to participate in SFIR include Poland and Japan whereas India recently decided not to sent any troops, unless a more explicit UN mandate were to materialize.
Of course, the mission is not without risks. As the ongoing assaults on US troops in and around Baghdad and the recent killing of six British troops indicate, post-Saddam Iraq is all but stable and secure. Nonetheless, the Dutch government assured MPs, "the security situation in the South of Iraq may be described as reasonably stable". Elsewhere (in an article co-authored with Pim van Harten[1]), we have argued that the Dutch government has painted an all too rosy picture of the security situation in Southern Iraq as it did not pay due regard to the political risks involved in the operation.
Here, we take issue with the government's account of the recent war effort in South Iraq and its repercussions for the safety of civilians and army personnel in the area. In particular, we contest the government's claim that "no significant fighting has taken place in the province of Al Muthanna" [2] and, more specifically, its assertion that "no DU [i.e. depleted uranium [3]] ammunition was deployed [in the province]" during the recent conflict [4]. We observe that on both accounts the government has misinformed parliament. As a result, we conclude, neither members of parliament nor the troops sent to Iraq have been able to make an adequate judgement on the risks of exposure to DU contamination.
The assertion that no significant fighting took place in the area is so blatantly belied by open sources, that one wonders if any of the Ministers ever reads a newspaper. The capital of the province, As Samawah, is strategically located on the road from Basra to Baghdad, providing access to a bridge over the Euphrates river. Consequently, on its march to Baghdad, the US army anticipated some resistance there. In fact, it would encounter rather fierce resistance both from Iraqi forces, including Saddam Feyadeen paramilitaries and Baath party militias, as well as a group of Syrian volunteers, according to American officers[5]. Reportedly, it took just one day to take the bridge but more than a week before the town and the road were cleared of all 'pockets of resistance'[6]. 112 civilians, most of them inhabitants of As Samawah, were killed in the battle[7]. Even then, violence did not cease: in the first week of April, a suicide squat drove into an American roadblock just outside As Samawah, detonating a load of propane-filled bottles[8].
Despite such incidents, the Dutch government persists in depicting Al Muthanna as a remote, barely inhabited desert where no noteworthy events have occurred. In fact, the majority of the province's population lives on the banks of the Euphrates river along the road between Najaf and Nassiriya (about 100 kilometers, respectively, to the north and south). Inhabitants of the capital As Samawah maintain close relationships with these citiesand, somewhat farther away, Kerbala and Basra. Thus, As Samawah but also smaller towns such as Al Khidr, directly partake in regional social and economic activities and were, as far as recent military activities are concerned, part and parcel of the 'theatre of operations'.
For that matter, the assertion of the Dutch government that "no DU ammunition was deployed in Al-Muthanna" is also unfounded. If this assertion is based on information it received from US officials, as the government claims, it has been deceived. On the 12th of March, about a week before his troops set foot on Iraqi soil, Major General "Buff" Buford Blount III, commander of the US army 3rd Infantry Division already conveyed in an interview with Le Monde that "if we receive the order to attack, final preparations will only take a few days. We have already began to unwrap our depleted uranium anti-tank shells."[9] That order came shortly, and as the Division advanced to Baghdad along the Euphrates, its Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles (BFVs) did not leave their unwrapped DU-shells sit idle on the way. On March 26, at CENTCOM Headquarters, General Brooks admitted as much, although he stressed that only "a very small portion of our munitions [contain] depleted uranium"[10].
Be that as it may, it is a fact that DU-ammunition has been widely used during operation "Iraqi Freedom", also in Southern Iraq. The province of Al Muthanna is no exception: the usage of DU-ammunition there has been confirmed by US troops and 'embedded' journalists. In a widely distributed field message, Sergeant First Class (SFC) Cooper reports that the weapon systems used by the 3rd Infantry 7th Cavalry en route to As Samawah and on toNajaf, "are performing well, especially the 25mm DU and 7.62"[11]. In a letter sent home, E. Pennell, crew member on a BFV of the 1st Infantry Battallion, 41st Infantry regiment, describes how his crew fires a 25 mm DU-round as they encounter seven enemy troops in the town of As Samawah: "We fire five rounds. The first one is a depleted uranium due to standard operating procedures", adding that "DU is designed to penetrate enemy armour"[12].
Such reports suggest that DU ammunition was routinely employed in encounters with armoured enemy vehicles, also in urban environments. What is more, it appears that DU ammunition has not been reserved exclusively for designated armoured targets. A journalist embedded with the 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment as it approached the city of Najaf, describes how a Bradley gunner made its first enemy contact in the war: "[Sergeant Bryce] Ivings spotted a man moving furtively around a commercial building, about thousand meters away. American tanks opened fire. In support, Ivings fired his 25 mm cannon, equipped with high explosive, depleted uranium shells. 'Wow, look at that' Ivings said, as two basketball-sized holes open up in the building. He fired again, knocking down the wall. 'Whoa, that was awesome'."[13]
In another report, an RFE/RL correspondent embedded with the 3rd Infantry Division describes the horrifying effects of 25-millimeter DU ammunition fired at a Nissan pickup truck with six Iraqi regular-army soldiers that were driving it straight at a US position near Tallil: "These Iraqi regular-army soldiers had RPGs and fired two of these rocket-propelled grenades at the US positions, when a US Bradley troop carrier using this depleted-uranium ammunition opened fire on it from about 30 to 35 meters away. If you can imagine what a human being looks like melting when being hit by this ammunition, there wasn't much left of these people other than the charred remains of their skeletons. One Iraqi soldier who was out of the vehicle at the time about 15 meters back from the vehicle was killed just from the concussion of the blast"[14].
Whereas the deployment DU ammunition on the ground may have been subject to some operational restrictions, airborne DU ordnance has been fired less discriminately. The aircraft of choice for close air support to ground battles has been the A-10 "Wharthog" jet, notorious for its anti-tank missiles and its lethal 30 mm cannons that can fire up to 4200 rounds per minute. Accordingly, the aircraft is designed to carry lots of ammunition, both DU as well as 'conventional', high explosive (HE) rounds, typically fed into its guns in a mix of 5/6 or 5/8 (DU/HE)[15]. Data released by the US Air Force recently, establish that the Warthogs have shot 311,597 roundsof 30 mm ordnance during the war[16], which would suggest that they have delivered at least 194,748 DU rounds. As each cartridge contains just over 300 grams of depleted uranium, this amounts to a minimum release of 58,814 kilograms of DU[17].
In Southern Iraq the Warthogs have played an important, supporting role in efforts to control strategic locations such as Tallil airbase and the bridges over the Euphrates. In the battle of Samawah, too, Warthogs have been called in to help ground troops mob up resistance and capture the two bridges there. In one of the incidences, vehicles of the 3rd Infantry 7th Cavalry reportedly drew friendly fire from Warthog aircraft, during a strike on a junk yard in town: "The roar of jets grows and A-10 ground attack aircraft fly into view. These slow-moving aircraft carry a devastating 30 mm Gatling gun in the nose as well as Hellfire air-to-ground missiles. Thegun's firing sounds like tearing cloth. The local commander shouts over the radio for the convoy to halt and clear the area...[However,] a number of vehicles fail to hear the warning and continue on through town and are shot as they run a gantlet of fire."[18]
Somewhat farther north along the Euphrates, between As Samawah and Najaf, Lt. Col. Terry Ferrell, commander of the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment summons the Air Force for support when, at dusk on the 24th of March, his troops run into Iraqi positions on the banks of the river. As Sean D. Taylor, a staff writer with the Army Times recalls it: "The night reverberated with the banging of Bradley chain guns pouring 25mm high-explosive shells into the Iraqi positions. A pair of A-10 Warthog ground-attack planes showed up on station within minutes, dropping bombs and then strafing the enemy position with 30mm cannon fire that hit with a series of white phosphorescent explosions"[19].
Since the US government has so far not disclosed any exact numbers, it is yet unknown just how much DU has been used in the war. The British government has been a bit more forthcoming, admitting that British Challenger tanks expended 1.9 tons of DU (approximately twice as much as in the 1990-91 Gulf Conflict)[20]. On the basis of the available information, Dan Fahey, an independent DU expert, estimates that 100-200 tons of DU may have been released during combat[21]. If true, this would be significantly less than the total of approximately 290 tons shot in 1991. However, as Mr Fahey and others note, this time a larger share of the expenditure appears to have occurred in or around urban areas and, thus, increasing the potential for civilian exposure to DU[22].
Indeed, all over Iraq, the remains of spent DU shells and DU-contaminated debris have been found littering the streets in urban areas[23]. Some wrecked vehicles have been towed away, and the most obvious contaminated sites are marked. However, most locations have not even been identified let alone cleaned, even though there is a widely shared consensus that DU contamination can be a potential health hazard.
After all, DU is a radioactive and toxic heavy metal which, like any other metal, is disposed to corrode and may, therefore, end up in the water supply or food chain[24]. However, apart from that, DU ammunition and armourignites on impact, resulting in a very fine, radioactive and toxic dust that can be inhaled or ingested. Once in the body, DU may cause harm due to the exposure of internal organs to its chemical toxicity, radiation or the combined effects of both[25].
As of yet, though, little is known about the long-term health effects of exposure to DU contamination. To minimize the risk of exposure, US and UK troops have been instructed to stay away from potentially contaminated areas as much as possible or to wear, at least, respiratory protection and gloves when it is inevitable to enter such sites[26]. British safety instructions further provide that troops should not climb on or into vehicles orstructures possibly hit by DU rounds; touch, pick up or retain souvenirs from struck vehicles or DU fragments; and smoke, eat or drink near a target struck by DU. For the rest, troops are advised to keep their dust masksand gloves on until they have a chance to change clothes, and to wash their hands before eating, drinking or smoking[27].
We may assume that Iraqi civilians stand to bear the same health risks as US or UK troops. However, there is no indication that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has properly informed the population about DU contamination. The British Ministry of Defence merely affirms that Iraqi locals have been warned "that they should not go near or touch any debris they find on the battlefield"[28]. Perhaps this would have sufficed, were it not for the fact that quite a few battles have been fought in densely populated areas, where it is virtually impossible for residents to avoid all remnants of war. It is thus indispensable that DU contaminated debris is clearly marked, fenced off or, preferably, cleaned up, and that citizens receive proper safety instructions.
Now, at least the British government has agreed to provide details of UK DU firing locations to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and directly to recognised non-government organisations working on location [29]. It has also assumed some responsibility for clean-up and decontamination[30]. In contrast, the US government has so far denied any responsibility for DU clean-up in Iraq. To date, it has also refused to disclose any information about the quantities and locations of DU expenditure or allow a UNEP Post Conflict Assessment Unit to study the environmental impact of DU contamination.
In fact, if we are to believe the Dutch government, the only specific information that the US authorities have disclosed so far is that no DU-ammunition has been used in the province of Al Muthanna. As we have demonstrated, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Consequently, either the Dutch government has deceived parliament or it has been misinformed by US authorities. Either way, the question remains as to how much DU has been fired and where exactly-both in Al Muthanna as well as Iraq at large. As long as such basic issues are not addressed, it is not possible to assess the health risks of DU contamination, let alone claim that these are negligible.
Of course, the lack of reliable information bears, before all, on concerns about the health and safety of the Iraqi population but it also implicates coalition troops and the newly arriving SFIR units. Dutch troops, the Minister of Defence has declared, "will avoid [DU-contaminated] areas and, if they are near such areas, they will take appropriate precautions". Unfortunately, Dutch safety measures do not appear to be as comprehensive as those of the British or the Americans[31]. However, the main problem is that the troops only know of areas contaminated more than ten years ago, during the Gulf War in 1991. About areas that have been contaminated recently, they have received no information[32].
--
[1] Maarten H.J. van den Berg and Pim van Harten "Nederlandse militairen naar Irak: veel risico, weinig analyse", RISQ, 25 June 2003. See: http://www.risq.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=118
[2] Letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (NL) to Parliament, 6 June, 2003
[3] Depleted Uranium (DU) is a radioactive, toxic heavy metal used in armour-piercing (AP) ammunition because of its extreme density. Besides that, it is relatively cheap, as DU is an otherwise useless by-product of the nuclear industry, which is generally offered for free to ammunition manufacturers. DU is also used to armour tanks.
[4] Letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (NL) to Parliament, 18 june 2003, in answer to question 90.
[5] Ben Arnoldy, "Syrian Fighters Join Battle", Christian Science Monitor, 11 April 2003
[6] Monte Reel, "The Bridge at Samawah: It was a small thing, the taking of this obscure Iraqi city. Unless you were there", The Washington Post, 4 April 2003. See:http://www.risq.org/modules.php?name=Web_Links&l_op=visit&lid=217
[7] Associated Press, "Breakdown of AP's Count of Iraqi Deaths", 10 June 2003
[8] Michael R. Gordon, "Incursion Enables U.S. Forces to Test the Mettle of Their Foe", New York Times, 6 April 2003
[9] Yves Eudes, "Tout pourrait aller très vite, affirme le commandant en chef de la 3e division de l'US Army", Le Monde, 12 March 2003.
[10] CENTCOM Operation Iraqi Freedom Briefing, March 26, 2003
[11] Field Message from SFC Cooper, 28 March 2003. See: http://www.phoenix158.org/iraq/cooper.cfm
[12] Letter of private Ed Pennell, 1st Infantry Battalion, 41st Infantry regiment, 22-04-2003 as posted by St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church, Lohman, Misouri (church of Mr Pennell's parents). See: http://www.stpaulslutheranlohman.org/EdPennellJournal.pdf
[13] Chris Tomlinson (embedded with 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division) and Michael Luo, Associated Press, as published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. See: http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/032603/war_20030326057.shtml
[14] Ron Synovitz "The View Near Karbala" 2 April 2003
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/04/02042003150647.asp and (ibid.) "It's Been A Dusty, At Times Scary, Road To Baghdad", 31 March 2003. http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/03/31032003144745.asp
[15] Dan Fahey, "The Use of Depleted Uranium in the 2003 Iraq War: an initial assessment of information and policies", June 24, 2003. See: http://www.antenna.nl/~wise/uranium/pdf/duiq03.pdf
[16] US Air Force, CENTAF Assessment and Analysis Division, "Operation Iraqi Freedom by the Numbers", 30 April 2003.
[17] Dan Fahey, "The Use of Depleted Uranium in the 2003 Iraq War: an initial assessment of information and policies", June 24, 2003, note 29.
[18] Greg Grant, The Salt Lake Tribune (embedded with the 3rd Infantry Division), 30 March 2003. See: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03302003/iraq/43299.asp
[19] Sean D. Naylor, Army Times, 25-03-2003. http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1704995.html
[20] Ministry of Defence (UK), "Depleted Uranium: Middle East 2003". 1 July 2003.http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/middle_east_2003.htm
[21] Dan Fahey "The Use of Depleted Uranium in the 2003 Iraq War: an initial assessment of information and policies", June 24, 2003, page 5.
[22] Ibid., see also: Laka Foundation, "Iraq: depleted uranium weapons used in the war", WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor, April 11, 2003. http://www.antenna.nl/wise/585/5503.html
[23] Scott Peterson, "Remains of toxic bullets litterIraq", Christian Science Monitor,http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.htm
[24] Studies of corrosion rates conducted by UNEP and the Royal Society indicate that the uranium core of DU ammunition may completely disintegrate within five to ten years. Dan Fahey, "Facts, Myths and Propaganda in the Debate over Depleted Uranium Weapons", 12 March 2003, note 34. See: http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/dumyths.pdf
[25] The claim that the health risks posed by DU are insignificant, is based on studies that have looked at either one of the effects. However, some researchers are beginning to suspect that radiation and toxicity may work together and, as such, do much more significant harm. "Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both", says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. "The bottom line is it might contribute to the risk." New Scientist, "Depleted uranium casts shadow over peace in Iraq", 15 April 2003. See:http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993627.
[26] Both US and UK authorities assert that full chemical warfare gear is generally not necessary, unless prolonged exposure to high concentrations of DU contamination is expected. Hence, the chemical warfare suits worn by British troops when they had to retrieve the body of a dead soldier from a vehicle that had just been struck by A-10 aircraft in a friendly fire accident near Basra. Audrey Gillan, the Guardian (UK), 31 March 2003, cited in Dan Fahey op. cit., note 40. For US Handling Procedures, see: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p700_48.pdf. For UK Safety Instructions, see: http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/gulf_safety_instructions.htm . For an excellent, recent article on US policy, see the article "Weapons of Mass Deception" by Frida Berrigan: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16272
[27] Ministry of Defence (UK), "Safety Instructions: Hazard management of depleted uranium on operations", 27 February 2003.
[28] Ministry of Defence (UK), "Depleted Uranium: Middle East 2003". 1 July 2003. [29] Ministry of Defence (UK), "Depleted Uranium: Middle East 2003". 1 July 2003.
[30] Note that the stated commitment is conditional: "Following risk assessment on a case by case basis, clean-up and disposal may be carried out or the vehicles may be collected together and fenced off. Decontamination may be carried out where appropriate". Ministry of Defence (UK), "Depleted Uranium: Middle East 2003". 1 July 2003.
[31] In fact, there is no indication that Dutch troops have received any specific safety instructions or training. The Minister of Defence has merely stated that, "in case of contact with depleted uranium, [troops] shouldwere a dust mask and gloves" and that "decontamination can be achieved by changing and washing clothes, and by cleaning exposed skin by rinsing it with water or by showering". Minister of Defence (NL), cited in a transcript of the Meeting of the Parliamentary Commissions of Foreign Affairs and Defence, 26 June 2003.
[32] Note that the troops may have been informed differently on the issue in a classified briefing. If that is the case, the Dutch government has deceived parliament and the wider public.
-------- france
France insists Saddam has never bought uranium
By Kim Sengupta
21 July 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=426172
The British Government's claim that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium from Niger has been dismissed by the French ambassador to the central African state.
In another blow to the credibility of the Blair Government over the issue, Denis Vène said it was impossible for uranium to leave the country without French officials knowing.
France has a substantial stake in the two companies that mine, process and export uranium, and its movement is "perfectly controlled". The ambassador told The Sunday Telegraph: "The mining companies check and monitor the amounts that leave Niger all the way from the mines to the ports. If any were to go missing, it would be very obvious and the inspectors would pick it up straight away."
British government sources had claimed that French intelligence supplied London with details of Iraqi uranium purchases. But this has been vehemently denied by Paris.
M. Vène was backed by Rabiou Hassanne Yari, Niger's Minister of Mines, who told The Independent on Sunday that he was "sure and certain" that his country had never sold uranium to Iraq.
Of Mr Blair's claim that 270 tons had been purchased in the 1980s, he said: "It's not true. The Iraqis asked, but there was never any transactions."
He added that the request was not a secret. It was "officially made and officially turned down". He pointed out that Niger's uranium production was subject to scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Britain had maintained that the "purchase" of the uranium in the 1980s made it likely that Iraq went back for more.
-------- iran
Israel Accuses Iran of Trying to Make Nuclear Arms
Reuters
Monday, July 21, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21781-2003Jul21?language=printer
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Israel said on Monday that Iran was "trying to do everything" to build a nuclear weapon and would pose a threat to the whole world unless it was stopped.
Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told reporters after a meeting with his counterparts from the European Union that Tehran was enriching uranium and refusing to accept tougher inspections of its nuclear program.
"Iran now is trying to do everything to have a nuclear weapon and that is threatening not only the Middle East, it is threatening Europe, the southern part of Russia," he said.
"And I think the EU should take a key role in the last efforts to prevent them from having this ability."
Iran, branded part of an "axis of evil" by Washington, said on Sunday its Revolutionary Guards had been armed with a new medium-range missile, which analysts say could hit Israel -- a close U.S. ally -- or U.S. bases in the Middle East.
The deployment of the Shahab-3 missile came as Iran faces mounting scrutiny about a nuclear energy program Washington says may be a front for a covert bid to make atomic arms.
Iranian officials have said reports that enriched uranium was found samples taken by U.N. inspectors in Iran were questionable.
Iran insists its nuclear facilities are geared to producing electricity, and diplomats say the presence of enriched uranium in the samples may in fact be the result of contamination.
EU foreign ministers last month demanded that Iran accept tougher inspections of its suspect nuclear program, and linked compliance to progress on a pending trade deal. It was the most serious warning the EU had sent Tehran since they began negotiating a trade and cooperation agreement late last year.
Iran said on Monday it had no intention of pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, despite calls from some hard-liners in the country to do so.
----
Iran's ballistic missile goes into service
By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
July 21 2003
Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1057562579258&p=1012571727172
Iran's revolutionary guards were yesterday officially armed with the Shahab-3 ballistic missile, capable of hitting Israel, in a show of military might and defiance of international pressure to stop the programme. Advertisement
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, who has the final say in all state affairs, attended the inaugural ceremony, broadcast on state television, in which at least five Shahab-3 missiles mounted on portable launchers were on display.
The official adoption of Iran's controversial missile programme, after successful tests, is expected to fuel international suspicions that the Islamic republic might seek to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists its missile programme is merely for military deterrence, while denying any efforts to seek nuclear arms.
The first test flight of Shahab-3, with a range of 1,300km and the ability to carry a one tonne warhead, was in July 1998. The missile is reportedly based on North Korea's No-Dong-1 missile but has been improved by Russian technology.
"Today, the Iranian nation and armed forces are ready to stand against the enemy with firm determination anywhere," Ayatollah Khamenei told thousands of revolutionary guards.
He said that Iran's power was not only military but also "spiritual" - as manifested in Lebanon and Palestine, in a clear reference to the resistance by Iranian-backed Islamic groups against Israel. The US accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism and sabotaging the Middle East peace process.
The Shahab-3 missiles are believed to be held at the moment only by revolutionary guards, who backed the programme.
So far, the army has been denied access.
The revolutionary guards, which function independently of the army and are accountable only to the ayatollah, were also armed yesterday with an undisclosed number of Russian-built Sukhoi-25 aircraft and attack and transport helicopters.
Iran's political structure - which is divided between reformists, who dominate the government and parliament, and conservatives in the non-elected bodies - appears united over the missile programme. "Like all other countries, Iran wants to strengthen its defence might within the framework of international conventions," said Reza Yousefian, a pro-reform member of the parliament's National Security Commission.
The US, European Union and Israel suspect Iran may be seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.
However, Abdullah Ramezanzadeh, the government spokesman, yesterday denied recent reports that Iran might have enriched uranium to make nuclear arms.
----
Alarm Bells Ring After Iranian Uranium Report
Reuters
Monday, July 21, 2003
By Louis Charbonneau
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22105-2003Jul21?language=printer
VIENNA (Reuters) - Reports that U.N. inspectors found enriched uranium in Iran have set off alarm bells among nuclear disarmament experts.
Diplomats told Reuters last week that U.N. nuclear inspectors found traces of enriched uranium in environmental samples taken during recent inspections in Iran.
Although the enriched uranium might have come from contamination, the diplomats, who declined to be identified, said it might mean Tehran purified uranium without telling the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei neither confirmed nor denied the Reuters report, saying only: "Any media reporting on sample results would be pure speculation."
Jon Wolfsthal, of the U.S.-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank, wrote about the Reuters report: "If true, this could be the first hard evidence that Iran has purified uranium... in violation of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."
Wolfsthal said in comments on his organization's Web site, however, that Iran acquired some enriched uranium in the 1970s from the United States to fuel two research reactors and it was possible this was what the IAEA found.
"(But) if the samples confirm that Iran has enriched the uranium itself, it would mean that Iran has violated its treaty commitments," he said. "Such a finding would need to be referred by the IAEA to the U.N. Security Council for further action."
Even if it went to the Security Council, an Asian diplomat in Tehran told Reuters the council may find its hands tied.
"The military option is pretty much ruled out, so the only thing is economic sanctions," the diplomat said. "There already are economic sanctions on Iran so it would just have to be more effective implementation of the sanctions."
Leonard S. Spector, a former top non-proliferation official at the U.S. Energy Department and now deputy director of the Monterey Institute of International Studies' Center for Nonproliferation Studies, was also worried about the uranium.
"This would appear to confirm that the Iranian program has advanced to a very serious stage," Spector was quoted as saying in Saturday's Washington Post. "Just as with North Korea, time is running out for us to find a way to slow this process down."
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
The IAEA board of governors chided Iran last month for failing to report on many aspects of its nuclear program, such as importing natural low-enriched uranium from China and the construction of uranium enrichment plants at Natanz.
The IAEA's June report deepened concerns among many countries -- especially the United States -- that Iran was secretly developing the capacity to make nuclear weapons.
The June report increased pressure from IAEA member countries for Iran to sign the NPT's "Additional Protocol" and permit tighter IAEA inspections. The protocol was created after the 1991 discovery of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Tehran says it has a "positive" view of the protocol, but has yet to sign it.
A prominent non-proliferation expert, who asked that he not be identified, told Reuters he saw nothing about Iran's civilian nuclear program that indicated it was seeking weapons.
"None of the eight or nine countries that we know today have nuclear weapons started down the path of getting nuclear weapons using a civilian nuclear program. All had dedicated military programs," he said.
Even if the IAEA were to find a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program in the near future, it would be hidden, separate from the civil projects and run by the defense ministry, he said.
"In every case, the nuclear weapons program has been a dedicated nuclear weapons program, even in India, Pakistan and Israel. The same for North Korea, if it exists," he said.
Unlike Iran, India, Pakistan and Israel have not signed the NPT and are not subject to IAEA inspections. The five NPT members with nuclear weapons are the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France.
North Korea left the NPT earlier this year.
(Additional reporting by Paul Hughes in Tehran)
-------- korea
Pentagon Plan 5030, a new blueprint for facing down North Korea
Upping the ante for Kim Jong Il
By Bruce B. Auster and Kevin Whitelaw With Thomas Omestad
Nation & World
7/21/03
USA Today
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030721/usnews/21korea.htm
Within the past two months, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has ordered U.S. military commanders to devise a new war plan for a possible conflict with North Korea. Elements of the draft, known as Operations Plan 5030, are so aggressive that they could provoke a war, some senior Bush administration officials tell U.S. News.
Adm. Thomas Fargo, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, and senior Pentagon planners are developing the highly classified plan. The administration insiders, who are critical of the plan, say it blurs the line between war and peace. The plan would give commanders in the region authority to conduct maneuvers--before a war has started--to drain North Korea's limited resources, strain its military, and perhaps sow enough confusion that North Korean generals might turn against the country's leader, Kim Jong Il. "Some of the things [Fargo] is being asked to do," says a senior U.S. official, "are, shall we say, provocative."
There are several war plans for Korea--Plans 5026 and 5027, as well as 5030--that outline the different phases of war and the specific provisions for movements of large numbers of troops, aircraft carriers, and other war-fighting requirements. U.S. News has learned details of the prewar phase of the newest version of Plan 5030. Some officials believe the draft plan amounts to a strategy to topple Kim's regime by destabilizing its military forces. The reason: It is being pushed by many of the same administration hard-liners who advocated regime change in Iraq. The Pentagon only recently began offering details of the plan to top officials at the White House, the State Department, and other agencies. It has not yet been approved. A Pentagon spokesman declined comment.
One scenario in the draft involves flying RC-135 surveillance flights even closer to North Korean airspace, forcing Pyongyang to scramble aircraft and burn scarce jet fuel. Another option: U.S. commanders might stage a weeks-long surprise military exercise, designed to force North Koreans to head for bunkers and deplete valuable stores of food, water, and other resources. The current draft of 5030 also calls for the Pentagon to pursue a range of tactical operations that are not traditionally included in war plans, such as disrupting financial networks and sowing disinformation.
Against the wall. Some administration officials and military experts say they consider these tactics dangerously provocative. What would happen, they ask, if North Korea shot down an RC-135 or lobbed artillery at South Korea? "What the Pentagon is trying to do is balance the risk between ceding the initiative to the enemy or taking steps to influence it," says Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "But does war become more likely?"
America's allies in the region--South Korea and Japan--think so. They, along with China, worry that if the Bush administration puts too much pressure on North Korea, Pyongyang could strike back in unpredictable ways. "Once we push them too hard against the wall," says a Japanese official, "we do not know what kind of reaction Kim Jong Il will have."
It is the Pentagon's job to be ready for war--and critics of this war plan admit as much. The Pentagon work on 5030 was triggered by Rumsfeld's desire to reinvent the military in the wake of lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq--and that includes the way the nation plans for war. Says one official, "The secretary wants to make how we plan for conflicts responsive to changing situations."
But if the Pentagon gives commanders more authority to take aggressive actions in peacetime, as contemplated in Plan 5030, it risks tripping over the president's--and Congress's--authority to commit the nation to war, says a senior official. "Who decides when to go to war?" the official asks. "Good question."
--------
OPLAN 5027
Major Theater War - West
GlobalSecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm
OPLAN 5027 is the US-ROK Combined Forces Command basic warplan. Under Operations Plan 5027 (CINCUNC/CFC OPLAN 5027), the United States plans to provide units to reinforce the Republic of Korea in the event of external armed attack. These units and their estimated arrival dates are listed in the Time Phased Force Deployment List (TPFDL), Appendix 6, to Annex A to CINCUNC/CFC OPLAN 5027. The TPFDL is updated biennially through U.S./ROK agreements. CINCUNC/CFC OPLAN 5027 is distributed with a SECRET-U.S./ROK classification.
Pyongyang can credibly threaten the prompt destruction of Seoul with conventional arms alone. The North Korean military could also establish a shallow foothold across the DMZ. However, the DPRK's ability to sustain these offensive operations, or advance its forces further to the south, is questionable. South Korean and American air forces could quickly establish air supremacy and destroy North Korean ground forces. The ensuing buildup of US forces in Korea could reverse any remaining North Korean advances into the South, and unlease offensive operations into the North. North Korea does not require long-range missiles with nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads to devastate Seoul or to make a land grab across the DMZ. Such weapons are needed to deter or defeat an American counteroffensive into North Korea.
North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. Seoul is within range of the 170mm Koksan gun and two hundred 240mm multiple-rocket launchers. The proximity of these long-range systems to the Demilitarized Zone threatens all of Seoul with devastating attacks. Most of the rest of North Korea's artillery pieces are old and have limited range. North Korea fields an artillery force of over 12,000 self-propelled and towed weapon systems. Without moving any artillery pieces, the North could sustain up to 500,000 rounds an hour against Combined Forces Command defenses for several hours.
North Korea's short-term blitzkrieg strategy envisions a successful surprise attack in the early phase of the war to occupy some or all of South Korea before the arrival of US reinforcements on the Korean Peninsula. North Korean ground forces, totaling some 1 million soldiers, are composed of some 170 divisions and brigades including infantry, artillery, tank, mechanized and special operation forces. Of the total, about 60 divisions and brigades are deployed south of the Pyongyang-Wonsan line. North Korea has deployed more than half of its key forces in forward bases near the border. Seventy percent of their active force, to include 700,000 troops, 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is garrisoned within 100 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. Much of this force is protected by underground facilities, including over four thousand underground facilities in the forward area alone. From their current locations these forces can attack with minimal preparations. This means a surprise attack on South Korea is possible at any time without a prior redeployment of its units.
The North Korean navy has also deployed 430 surface combatants and about 60 percent of some 90 submarine combat vessels near the front line in forward bases. With about 40 percent of its 790 fighter planes deployed near the front line, the North Korean air force could launch a surprise attack on any part of South Korea within a short period of time.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea possesses larger forces than Iraq, and they are already deployed along South Korea's border. A war could explode after a warning of only a few hours or days, not weeks. Unlike in the Persian Gulf, this attack would be prosecuted along a narrow peninsula on mountainous terrain. It would probably be accompanied by massed artillery fire, commando raids, and chemical weapons. Initially, the primary battlefield would be only about 125 kilometers wide and 100 kilometers deep. The DPRK attack would be conducted against well-prepared ROK forces in fortified positions and against larger US forces than in the Persian Gulf. Most probably, the DPRK attack would aim at seizing nearby Seoul by advancing down the Kaesong-Munsan, Kumwa, and Chorwon corridors. If successful, North Korean forces might also try to conquer the entire peninsula before large US reinforcements arrive.
The South Barrier Fence is the Southern part of the DMZ. The South Koreans have a series of Defensive lines that cross the entire peninsula, but with the exception of the South Barrier Fence, they aren't connected completely across the peninsula. They are designed to withstand an attack and allow a minimum force to hold a line while reinforcement/counter attack forces are assembled and sent to destroy any penetrations.
The basic goal of a North Korean southern offensive is destruction of allied defenses either before South Korea can fully mobilize its national power or before significant reinforcement from the United States can arrive and be deployed. The primary objective of North Korea's military strategy is to reunify the Korean Peninsula under North Korean control within 30 days of beginning hostilities. A secondary objective is the defense of North Korea.
To accomplish these ambitious objectives, North Korea envisions fighting a two-front war. The first front, consisting of conventional forces, is tasked with breaking through defending forces along the DMZ, destroying defending CFC forces, and advancing rapidly down the entire peninsula. This operation will be coordinated closely with the opening of a second front consisting of SOF units conducting raids and disruptive attacks in CFC's rear.
The DPRK offensive against the ROK will consist of three phases. The objective of the first phase will be to breach the defenses along the DMZ and destroy the forward deployed forces. The objective of the second phase will be to isolate Seoul and consolidate gains. The objective of the third phase will be to pursue and destroy remaining forces and occupy the remainder of the peninsula.
Approximately forty percent of the South Korean population resides within 40 miles of Seoul. While the terrain north of Seoul is dominated by rice paddies offering limited off-road mobility, the terrain west of Seoul is a wide coastal plan with the main invasion routes to Seoul. North Korean forces attacking Seoul through the Chorwon or Munsan corridors would have to cross the Han or Imjin rivers (while these rivers freeze in the winter, the ice is not strong enough to support heavy armor). The narrow eastern coastal plain is lightly settled and less heavily defended, though mountains make movement of forces from the east coast difficult.
The US plans are based on the belief that the North Koreans would not be successful in consolidating their gains around Seoul and could be pushed back across the DMZ -- though the plans assume the North may break through the DMZ in places. A critical issue is strategic warning of unambiguous signs that North Korea is preparing an attack. The warning time has reportedly been shortened from about ten days to about three days as North Korea has covered its military activities.
The US-ROK defense plan would be shaped not only by the threat but also by the mountainous terrain. Korea is commonly regarded as rugged infantry terrain that invites neither mobile ground warfare nor heavy air bombardment, but North Korea has assembled large armored forces that are critical to exploiting breakthroughs, and these forces would pass down narrow corridors that are potential killing zones for U.S. airpower. A new Korean War would bear little resemblance to the conflict of 195053.
During Phase 1, US-ROK forces would conduct a vigorous forward defense aimed at protecting Seoul. Their campaign would be dominated by combined-arms ground battles waged with infantry, artillery, and armor. US air and naval forces would conduct close air support, interdiction, and deep strike missions. After Phase 1, US-ROK operations in Phase 2 would probably focus on seizing key terrain, inflicting additional casualties on enemy forces, and rebuffing further attacks. Phase 3, to start when the US ground buildup was complete and ROK forces were replenished, would be a powerful counteroffensive aimed at destroying the DPRK's military power. The war plan envisions amphibious assaults into North Korea by US Army and Marines at the narrow waist of North Korea. The entire resources of the US Marine Corps would flow there to establish a beachead, with substantial Army resources quickly conducting over-the-shore operations. OPLAN 5027-74
The the forward defense strategy in OPLAN 5027 was developed by Combined Forces Commander US General James F. Hollingsworth in 1973 [this discussion is based on "Winning in Korea Without Landmines," by Caleb Rossiter]. Prior to this time, OPLAN 5027 focused primarily on defeating a North Korean invasion. It envisioned the allies staging a 50-mile fighting retreat along the primary armored invasion route from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), and taking up strong positions [the "Hollingsworth Line"] south of the broad Han River where it bisects the South Korean capital of Seoul. There, allied forces would wait for US reinforcements before counter-attacking.
Concerned that the US withdrawal from Vietnam might lead the DPRK to question American commitment to defend South Korea, Hollingsworth altered the focus of OPLAN 50-27 to a forward-based offensive strategy. The goal was to convince North Korea that an invasion could bring an end to its regime. The new posture moved most allied artillery, tanks,and infantry forward toward the Military Control Zone (MCZ), which runs five miles south of the DMZ. General Hollingsworth announced plans to strike north after these forces defeated the invasion. He assigned two brigades of the US 2nd Division to seize the North Korean staging city of Kaesong just across the DMZ, and promised around-the-clock raids on the North by B-52 bombers and a "violent,short war " to capture the capital of Pyongyang.
It was unclear whether Hollingsworth's plans included the use of the US tactical nuclear weapons then on the Korean peninsula if the North Korean invasion forces overwhelmed the allies. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that without nuclear weapons,the new strategy could result in the initial loss of Seoul. In 1975 Gen. Hollingsworth stated that the US had a '9-day war plan', according to which North Korea would be defeated in a few days in a violent clash with 700-800 air sorties. OPLAN 5027-94
As of 1994 it was reported that a variant OPLAN 5027 under consideration by CINCPAC focused on a scenario under which ROK forces were able to blunt a DPRK offensive and stabilize a defensive line at FEBA Bravo (20-30 miles below the DMZ). Subsequently, US-ROK Combined Forces Command would execute a retaliatory offensive once US reinforcements arrived. A major air campaign against northern forces would be required before the counteroffensive could begin. A US Marine Expeditionary Force (in division strength) and the 82nd Air Assault Division, along with ROK divisions, would launch an overland offensive north toward Wonsan from the east coas. Soon thereafter, a combined US-ROK force would stage an amphibious landing near Wonsan, and advance to Pyongyang. Subsequently, a combined US-ROK force would execute a major counteroffensive from north of Seoul aimed at seizing Pyongyang. This would be achieved either by linking up with the force at Wonsan, or meeting it at Pyongyang.
A favorable outcome for the South depends on two conditions. First, the ROK forces must withstand DPRK forces during the initial 5-15 days of North Koean offensive actions. Second, they must hold the line while US and ROK forces are mobilized for the counteroffensive, which could take another 15-20 days.
The ROK and US war plan included a counteroffensive that would destroy the North Korean regime. South Korean state television reported on 24 March 1994 that Seoul and Washington planned to topple the North Korean government if the Stalinist state attacks the South. The Korean Broadcasting System said that rather than simply driving back the North's troops, the plan provides for a counteroffensive to seize Pyongyang and try to topple the government of Kim Il Sung ["KBS reports plan to topple Kim Il Sung," Washington Times , March 25, 1994, p. 16]. In 1994, the South Korean president, Kim Young-sam, said: "Once a major military confrontation occurs, North Korea will definitely be annihilated" [Ranan R. Lurie, "In a Confrontation, 'North Korea Will Definitely Be Annihilated,'" Los Angeles Times (Washington Edition), March 24, 1994, p. 11].
The battlefield coordination line (BCL) first appeared in MEF operations during Ulchi Focus Lens (UFL) 94. It was employed as a workaround "MEF internal fire support coordination line (FSCL)" since the combatant commander approved theater FSCL was too distant from the Marine close fight to be of any value. The extended placement of the combatant commander's FSCL was due mostly to cultural and programmatic conflicts between the Army and the Air Force (read JFACC or in Korea, the CFACC). The point of contention has always centered on the area between the FSCL and the ground commander's forward boundary. The Air Force has historically demanded that the Army "coordinate" strikes forward of the FSCL with the CFACC prior to execution. The Army doesn't like the idea of having to coordinate (thus delay operations) with another component inside its own assigned area of operation, so to avoid the problem, they push the FSCL out to a point beyond their area of influence, ATACMS soliloquies notwithstanding. In effect, the FSCL became a de facto forward boundary. OPLAN 5027-96
After the nuclear crisis of 1994, OPLAN 5027 was completely overhauled, including a new agreement to ensure Japanese bases are available if the US goes to war with North Korea. The updated Japan-US defense cooperation guidelines, which the Japanese parliament approved 24 May 1999, allow the US to prepare for a Korean war by stationing its military forces in Japan and the Pacific region. OPLAN 5027-98
Further revisions to the concept of operations were elaborated in OPLAN 5027-98, which was adopted in late 1998. Previous versions of OPLAN 5027 had called for stopping a North Korean invasion and pushing them back across the Demilitarized Zone. The new version of the plan was more clearly focused on offensive operations into North Korea. A senior US official was reported to have said: "When we're done, they will not be able to mount any military activity of any kind. We will kill them all." The goal of the revised plan was to "abolish North Korea as a functioning state, end the rule of its leader, Kim Jong Il, and reorganize the country under South Korean control."
New priorities also focused on countering sudden chemical and biological attacks against Seoul. The South Korean military reportedly estimates that 50 missiles carrying nerve gas could kill up to 38 percent of Seoul's 12 million inhabitants. The new plan called for a campaign against North Korean armed forces and government involving "defeating them in detail." The operation would be conducted in four phases: activities prior to a North Korean attack, halting the initial North Korean assault, regrouping for a counter-attack, and finally a full scale invasion of North Korea to seize Pyongyang.
According to reports, the new military plan included preemptive attacks against North Korea's military bases, including long-range artillery and air forces bases, if intellitence detected a hard evidence that North Korea was preparing to wage war. US and South Korean military leaders included pre-emptive strikes in this revised war plan. If the North Koreans showed unmistakable signs of preparing to strike, and the US decided not to wait until South Korea had been attacked, US forces had targets in North Korea already picked out and weapons assigned to destroy them.
Tasks performed during the Destruction Phase of the OPLAN reportedly involve a strategy of maneuver warfare north of the Demilitarized Zone with a goal of terminating the North Korea regime, rather than simply terminating the war by returning North Korean forces to the Truce Line. In this phase operations would include the US invasion of North Korea, the destruction of the Korean People's Army and the North Korean government in Pyongyang. The plan includes the possibility of a Marine amphibious assault into the narrow waist of North Korea to cut the country in two. US troops would occupy north Korea and "Washington and Seoul will then abolish north Korea as a state and 'reorganize' it under South Korean control.
When this new war plan leaked to the press in November 1998, it escalated tensions between the United States and North Korea. North Korea sharply criticized OPLAN 5027-98, charging that it was a war scenario for the invasion of North Korea. Pyongyang blamed Seoul for the revision of OPLAN 5027, and a North Korean Army spokesman stated 02 December 1998 that North Korea had the right to take a containment offensive while holding mass rallies of military units and various social organizations to criticize OPLAN 5027. Such incidents illustrated North Korea's sensitive reaction to the OPLAN 5027.
On 02 December 1998 the General Staff of the North Korean People's Army (KPA) issued a lengthy and authoritative statement warning that the United States was instigating a new war. The statement stressed that the KPA would rise to the challenge. "We neither want nor avoid a war. If a war is imposed, we will never miss the opportunity," the statement read. The unique aspect of Pyongyang's public statements is the preoccupation with "US war-plan # 5027" as an imminent threat. Official Pyongyang is adamant that "war-plan # 5027" is already being implemented, and public statements frequently focus on OPLAN 5027. OPLAN 5027-00
According to the 04 December 2000 South Korean Defense Ministry White Paper, the United States would deploy up to 690,000 troops on the Korean peninsula if a new war breaks out. The United States apparently had considerably increased the number of troops that would be deployed in any new Korean conflict. The figure had risen from 480,000 in plans made in the early 1990s and 630,000 in the mid-1990s. The latest Time Phased Forces Deployment Data for any contingency on the Korean Peninsula is comprised of 690,000 troops, 160 Navy ships and 1,600 aircraft deployed from the U.S. within 90 days.
The South Korean defense ministry described the increase as the result of a new US "win-win strategy," which would require the United States to have the capability to fight two wars simultaneously, such as in the Middle East and East Asia. Along with equipment to counter weapons of mass destruction, the US plan focused on the deployment of aircraft carriers and advanced aircraft to attack enemy artillery units in the early stages of any war.
US augmentation forces, including the army, navy, air force, and the marine corps, are composed of approximately 690,000 troops. The augmented forces comprise army divisions, carrier battle groups with highly advanced fighters, tactical fighter wings, and marine expeditionary forces in Okinawa and on the US mainland. The US augmentation forces have contingency plans for the Korean peninsula to execute the Win-Win Strategy in support of United Nations Command (UNC)/Combined Forces Command (CFC) operation plans.
There are three types of augmentation capability: Flexible Deterrence Options (FDOs), Force Module Packages (FMPs), and the Time-Phased Forces Deployment Data (TPFDD). These are executed through a unit integration process, when the commander of CFC requests them and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff orders them in case of a crisis on the Korean peninsula.
FDOs are ready to be implemented when war is imminent. They can be classified into political, economic, diplomatic, and military options. Approximately 150 deterrence options are ready to be employed.
FMPs are measures that augment combat or combat support units that need the most support in the early phase of the war should war deterrence efforts through FDOs fail. Included in the FMPs are elements such as strong carrier battle groups.
Under TPFDD, in which FDO and FMP are included, the key forces are planned ahead of time to be deployed in case of an outbreak of war. There are three types of forces under TPFDD: in-place forces, or forces currently deployed to the peninsula; pre-planned forces, or forces of time-phased deployment in a contingency; and on-call forces, which could be deployed if needed.
CFC Pub 3-1 (Deep Operations Korea) of 1 May 99 requires pre-planned fire support coordination lines (FSCLs) 26 hours prior to ITO execution, and immediate FSCL changes (inside the ITO cycle) 6 hours from transmittal to implementation with nominal FSCL placement 12 to 20 kilometers from the FLOT. The publication discusses the need to avoid confusion and fratricide via frequent FSCL changes, yet still retain the ability to accommodate rapid maneuver. Ground and amphibious force commanders will recommend placement of the FSCL, but the combatant commander is the approving authority. OPLAN 5027-02
In February 2002 it was reported that the US military was updating OPLAN 5027 in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. This includes a military calculation of the force needed to remove North Korean leader Kim Jung Il.
In mid-2002 a top aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld briefed a concept of operations for striking North Korea's weapons of mass destruction. This case study in the application of the Bush administration's new doctrine of pre-emptive military action envisioned a swift attack, carried out without consulting South Korea, America's ally on the peninsula. Soone after word of the briefing spread, administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of US forces in the Pacific, worked to stifle further discussion of the scheme. OPLAN 5027-04
While Patriot is the only missile defense system deployed by the US military, the Defense Department expects that three "emergency capabilities" for missile defense will begin to emerge in the year 2004. Those capabilities are ground-based midcourse interceptors being installed in Alaska as part of a Pacific test bed; sea-based midcourse interceptors on one or two Navy Aegis ships; and an Airborne Laser prototype. By late 2004 or early 2005 the missile-defense test site at Fort Greely, Alaska could provide an emergency capability against a North Korean missile attack, but it will be extremely limited. Five anti-missile interceptors will be deployed at the site.
Following Operation Iraqi Freedom, USFK held a conference for senior military leaders at Osan Air Force Base to evaluate the air component of OPLAN 5027. The conference was held on May 22-23, 2003 and was to adapt lessons learned from the use of UAVs and ground tactics and to "apply them in plans and strategies for 2003" according to 7th Air Foce commander Lt. General Lance Smith. The Air Boss conference discussed specific targets and the impact of new technologies. According to General Smith, as quoted by Stars and Stripes on May 24, 2003 the battle plan has changed considerably.
In June 2003 US and Republic of Korea officials agreed to a plan to realign American forces stationed in "The Land of the Morning Calm." In June 4-5 meetings held in the South Korean capital city of Seoul, according to a joint U.S.-South Korean statement, it was decided the operation would consist of two phases. During Phase 1 US forces at installations north of the Han River would consolidate in the Camp Casey (Tongduchon) and Camp Red Cloud (Uijongbu) areas. Both bases are north of Seoul and the Han, but well south of the demilitarized zone that separates North and South Korea. The 14,000-strong U.S. Army 2nd Infantry Division, which provides troops to bases near the DMZ, is headquartered at Camp Red Cloud. During Phase 2 US forces north of the Han River would move to key hubs south of the Han River. U.S. and Korean officials agreed to continue rotational U.S. military training north of the Han even after Phase 2 is completed. The realignment operation would take several years to complete.
Phases of War
# Flexible Deterrent Options (FDO)
# Phase 1 - DPRK Attack
# Phase 2 - ROK Defense
# Phase 3 - US Counter-Attack
Subordinate Operations
- Vigiland Warrior
- Quick Saber
References
# CFC (KOREA) OPLAN 9518X-XX Protection of US National Security Interests and Support for the Republic of South Korea 29 December 1999
# ROK-US Combined Forces Command Publications 3-2.2, Air-Ground Operations - Korea 15 June 2002 [MSWORD 8 MB]
# Air boss conference discusses war plan AFPN 23 May 2003
# Planning for Major Theater Wars: Examining the Worst Case by Major Gregory A. Pickell, US Army Military Review - January-February 2000
# NORTH KOREA COUNTRY HANDBOOK MCIA-2630-NK-016-97
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity - May 1997
# Secretary of Defense, 2000 Report to Congress; Military Situation on the Korean Peninsula; September 12, 2000.
# HANGING IN THE BALANCE: NORTH-SOUTH KOREAN MILITARY CAPABILITIES - Peter Hayes February 25, 1994
# Military Strength and Augmentation Capabilities of Allied Forces 04 December 2000 - South Korean Defense Ministry White Paper
# Military Options in Korea's End Game Lieutenant General John H. Cushman, U.S. Army (Retired) May 23, 1994
# New Warplan Calls for Invasion of North Korea By Richard Halloran, November 14, 1998
# The Likelihood and Implications of a North Korean Attack on the South Kyongmann Jeon
# Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997), pp. 313-25.
# Michael O'Hanlon, 'Stopping a North Korean Invasion: Why Defending South Korea is Easier than the Pentagon Thinks', International Security', vol. 22, no. 4 (Spring 1998)
# Chemical, Biological Weapon Capabilities on Korean Peninsula : JPRS-UMA-94-045 : 2 November 1994
# Cordesman, Anthony H.; "The Asian Balance of Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Quantitative and Arms Control Analysis." Center for Strategic and International Studies; January 29, 2002; pg. 20.
# "Winning in Korea Without Landmines," by Caleb Rossiter, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, 2000
# Measuring Interdiction Capabilities in the Presence of Anti-Access Strategies: Exploratory Paul K. Davis, Jimmie McEver, Barry Wilson; RAND; Ch. 5 2002.
----
Russia Urges N. Korea Talks to Avert 'Hot' Conflict
By REUTERS
July 21, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-russia-korea-north.html
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia urged the United States and North Korea to start talks on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program, warning that a standoff between them was boiling over, Interfax news agency said Monday.
``Signals from the main participants, primarily the United States and North Korea, are needed to ease tensions,'' it quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov as saying. Advertisement
``So far this is not happening, which is preventing the start of talks in any form. Meanwhile, the situation continues to deteriorate and is slowly sinking into a state of conflict which could get hot.''
----
S. Korea Dismisses Report on Nuke Plant
By SANG-HUN CHOE
Associated Press Writer
Jul 21, 2003
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea's president on Monday dismissed a report that North Korea has secretly built another plutonium production plant and expressed concern that such media accounts could hurt his country's economy.
Meanwhile, a senior South Korean official predicted a possible breakthrough in the nuclear standoff, saying the United States, China and North Korea will hold talks in Beijing "quite soon."
The nations are "in the final stage of arranging a new meeting," said Ra Jong-il, President Roh Moo-hyun's national security adviser.
Quoting unnamed U.S. and Asian officials with access to the latest intelligence on North Korea, the New York Times reported Sunday that strong evidence has emerged in recent weeks that the communist state has built a second, secret plant for plutonium, a key material for nuclear bombs.
Roh was told by aides Monday that the Times report was "low in reliability," said Kim Man-soo, Roh's deputy spokesman.
"The president expressed concern about the phenomenon of unclear and groundless media reports throwing cold water on our economy," Kim said.
South Korean experts said North Korea would find it hard to secretly build another plutonium production plant. Yet they did not rule it out.
"Concluding that North Korea has a new, second plutonium plant is stretching it way too much," Roh's national security adviser said in an interview with Seoul's CBS Radio.
If true, a report that North Korea has built a second plant for producing weapons-grade plutonium could complicate diplomatic efforts to seek the verifiable dismantling of Pyongyang's nuclear facilities. It also poses a dilemma for President Bush if diplomacy fails and he is forced to consider military action.
Even if talks take place to check North Korea's nuclear ambitions, no quick result is expected. On Monday, North Korea said unless Washington "legally committed itself to nonaggression," it would not give up its nuclear programs.
"The nuclear issue between the (North) and the U.S. is a very acute matter of 'who beats whom.' Therefore, there can be no unilateral concession or compromise forced by one side. It can be settled only through negotiations based on the principles of fairness, equality and trust," said Pyongyang's official news agency KCNA.
In the past week, China, a longtime ally and key aid provider for North Korea, has dispatched its Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo to Pyongyang and then to Washington to press for a new round of three-way talks, which will later include South Korea and Japan.
North Korea has demanded one-on-one discussions with the United States, saying the nuclear issue is between it and Washington. The United States says the issue is a regional one and wants to include China, Japan and South Korea in five-way discussions.
In the first three-party meeting China hosted in Beijing in April, North Korea said it already had nuclear weapons but it was willing to give up its nuclear programs in return for economic aid and security guarantees. U.S. officials have ruled out a nonaggression treaty with North Korea but said they could consider less formal guarantees.
U.S. and U.N. officials are watching for signs that Pyongyang has begun producing weapons-grade plutonium, a process that emits a kind of krypton gas that U.S. sensors can detect. The Times reported that American officials confirmed that sensors on the North Korean border have detected elevated levels of krypton 85.
But the gas is apparently not emanating from North Korea's known Yongbyon nuclear site, leading American and Asian officials to believe North Korea has secretly built a second plant for producing plutonium, according to the Times.
A senior State Department official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said there was no hard evidence to back up the idea that there is a secret plutonium processing plant.
"There are suspicions such exists, but no hard evidence," the official said.
This month, North Korea told U.S. officials that it had reprocessed all of its 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods, a procedure that experts say could yield enough plutonium to make several nuclear bombs within months. U.S. officials are not sure whether North Korea is bluffing.
The nuclear dispute flared in October when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted having a clandestine, uranium-based nuclear program in violation of international agreements.
----
N.Korea Restates Demand as Nuclear Talks Seen
Reuters
Monday, July 21, 2003
By Paul Eckert
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21722-2003Jul21?language=printer
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea restated on Monday its demand for a non-aggression treaty with the United States, resurrecting the communist state's old terms for resolving its nuclear crisis amid growing expectations of multilateral talks.
"If the United States dropped its hostile policy toward the DPRK (North Korea) and legally committed itself to non-aggression, the latter would be ready to dispel the U.S. concern," said the state-run KCNA news agency.
The KCNA commentary came shortly after a South Korean newspaper reported that nuclear crisis talks between North Korea, the United States and China are likely to be held on September 6 in the Chinese capital, Beijing.
The mainstream Korea Times quoted anonymous sources as saying an announcement would be made this week.
A South Korean government official said Seoul was unaware of any schedule for a second round of nuclear talks following a meeting of U.S., North Korean and Chinese officials in April in Beijing.
But Seoul has been encouraged after a flurry of diplomatic efforts by China, which sent a senior envoy to Moscow, Pyongyang and Washington this month to try to build momentum for talks to defuse northeast Asia's biggest security threat.
China has floated new talks formats to try to bridge the gap between mutually distrustful parties. Pyongyang demands bilateral talks with Washington, while the United States says only multilateral pressure can make a deal with the North stick.
Russia's top Asia expert warned the nuclear standoff between the United States and North Korea "could get hot" and urged the two countries to start talks, in any form, as soon as possible.
Deputy Foreign Ministry Alexander Losyukov, quoted by news agencies on a visit to South Korea, also said orders had been issued to test Russia's civil defense system on its far eastern borders in view of the worsening situation.
"Only talks can make things less acute. Signals from the main participants, primarily the United States and North Korea, are needed to ease tensions," Losyukov told Interfax.
"So far this is not happening, which is preventing the start of talks in any form. Meanwhile, the situation continues to deteriorate and is slowly sinking into a state of conflict which could get hot."
BOTH SIDES TALK TOUGH
The KCNA commentary resurrected the non-aggression pact demand that North Korea first made in October, days after the nuclear row erupted when U.S. officials said the North had acknowledged it had a covert atomic program.
In the earlier, inconclusive Beijing round of talks, North Korea sought the non-aggression pact, diplomatic normalisation and economic help first in exchange for dismantling its nuclear programs later -- a proposal the United States rejected.
KCNA did not mention three-way talks or other formats for negotiations. The Korea Times said an expanded meeting involving South Korea and Japan would follow September's three-way talks.
"The nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. is a very acute matter of 'who beats whom'," it said.
"Therefore, there can be no unilateral concession or compromise forced by one side."
An editorial in Rodong Sinmun, the North's ruling party daily, insisting on the need for a treaty said: "Whether the nuclear issue between the two countries is settled in a peaceful way or by war depends on the U.S. action."
The United States rejects North Korea's portrayal of the nuclear dispute as a bilateral matter, saying Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions threaten neighbors South Korea and Japan and violate several key international arms-control agreements.
A senior U.S. official in Washington said last week that the American position in any future talks would be the same as it has been: an offer of a new relationship "if there is a complete transformation in the way North Korea does business on nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic missile programs."
Officials with experience of negotiating with North Korea say Pyongyang's reiteration of a proposal that has been rejected reflects a tactic of stiffening demands just before entering talks to make subsequent proposals seem like concessions.
But Lee Jung-hoon, professor of international relations at Seoul's Yonsei University, said the non-aggression pact appeal was an attempt to convince the world that "the peninsula's stability is threatened by the U.S., not by North Korea."
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
[To reply - mailto:OPED@washpost.com ]
Facing A New Nuclear Reality
By Spencer Abraham
Monday, July 21, 2003
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20780-2003Jul20?language=printer
The United States took another step toward eliminating the last vestiges of Cold War nuclear weapons production in May when the Department of Energy awarded contracts for construction of fossil fuel power plants to replace three Russian nuclear reactors. These reactors produce not only heat and electricity but also weapons-grade plutonium, enough to build 11/2 nuclear weapons a day. When the new U.S.-financed power plants are constructed and the nuclear reactors shut down, weapons-grade plutonium will no longer be produced in Russia.
President Bush is deeply committed to reducing the number of our nation's strategic nuclear warheads by two-thirds, and to preventing nuclear and radiological materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. This $466 million project is the latest advancement in an aggressive nonproliferation effort that has expanded from $800 million to $1.3 billion per year since the president took office. That's why I was perplexed, during congressional debate on the defense budget by the hysterics over the $21 million that would allow our scientists to contemplate advanced weapons concepts that could be used to protect against 21st-century threats. (In all, some $6.4 billion in the budget is for Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs.)
This funding should not have surprised anyone. It is the logical result of early Bush administration initiatives, endorsed by Congress, to conduct a thorough review of the nation's nuclear weapons policy. That review determined that the 21st-century national security environment differs greatly from that of the past half-century.
Deterrence during the Cold War led to a predictable -- if chilling -- balance of terror that has now largely vanished. Henceforth threats will likely evolve more quickly and less predictably. It is a situation that demands the restoration of our capacity to meet new challenges.
Recently the United States has begun making great strides to rebuild those capabilities. Now, for the first time in more than a decade, we are able to manufacture a plutonium pit -- also known as a trigger -- an essential nuclear warhead component. The lack of this proficiency has seriously constrained our ability to maintain our nuclear stockpile. We have also launched a much-needed facility modernization program. But maintaining our capability to address 21st-century challenges requires more.
Should our scientists decide we cannot certify the reliability of our nuclear stockpile, we must be capable of conducting a nuclear test in a much shorter time frame than the current three years. The capacity to test within 18 months is a critical capability every president must have. We must also give our weapons scientists the resources and authority to explore advanced weapons concepts, including research related to low-yield weapons. Funding constraints and confusing legal prohibitions have stifled most new thinking on these issues. This has, in turn, made us less capable of devising the best responses to emerging threats.
The challenges posed by rogue nations or terrorists possessing weapons of mass destruction are strikingly different from that posed by the Soviet Union. Yet our best thinkers aren't being allowed to fully shift their focus from winning the Cold War to meeting new challenges.
Finally, we must move ahead to address one of the foremost military challenges identified in our recent review -- an enemy using hardened, deeply buried facilities to protect its weapons and other assets. We have just begun to explore whether modified existing warheads might be effective in attacking such targets. Similar analyses of the applicability of conventional weapons to addressing this threat are also being done.
We are not planning to resume testing; nor are we improving test readiness in order to develop new nuclear weapons. In fact, we are not planning to develop any new nuclear weapons at all. Our goal is designed to explore the full range of weapons concepts that could offer a credible deterrence and response to new and emerging threats as well as allow us to continue to assess the reliability of our stockpile without testing.
This is a sensible course that meets our national security requirements by restoring our capabilities and ensuring that we have the flexibility to respond quickly to any potential problems in the current stockpile, or to new threats that require immediate attention. Our policies are designed to strengthen the deterrent value of our nuclear weapons so that they don't ever have to be used.
The writer is U.S. secretary of energy.
-------- us politics
Democrats Start Anti-Bush Ad Campaign
By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press
Monday, July 21, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21285-2003Jul21?language=printer
CRAWFORD, Texas - Democrats are launching a television ad that accuses President Bush of misleading Americans on the nuclear threat from Iraq.
Republicans urged broadcasters not to carry the ad, set to be aired initially Monday in Madison, Wis., then elsewhere; they called it "deliberately false and misleading."
The Democratic National Committee has been raising money through an e-mail campaign that began July 10 to help finance the ad, which sharply questions Bush's veracity on Iraq's weapons.
The ad says: "In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush told us of an imminent threat. ... America took him at his word."
The video shows Bush saying, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The ad continues: "But now we find out it wasn't true.
"A year earlier, that claim was proven false. The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it.
"But he told us anyway."
Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his entire statement was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
DNC spokesman Tony Welch said: "With the British in there, the president's information is still false and misleading. It is exactly what the president said."
Some Republicans have argued Bush's statement was technically accurate because it attributed the findings about uranium to the British.
"You can say whatever you want in a fund-raiser," Republican spokesman Jim Dyke said, "but it steps over the line when you knowingly mislead people in your advertising."
Welch said the ad would be aired in Madison for about a week at a cost of nearly $20,000.
Efforts to get comment from Madison TV stations were not successful Sunday.
The ad squabble comes at a time when public trust in the president has been eroding, according to results released Sunday from a CNN-Time poll.
The poll found that 47 percent view Bush as a leader they can trust, while 51 percent said they have doubts and reservations. That's down from 56 percent who saw him as a leader they could trust in late March, with 41 percent having doubts.
The poll of 1,004 people taken Wednesday and Thursday had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
----
Bush must go
Colorado Daily News
July 21, 2003
Letter to Editor
http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2003/07/20/news/opinion/opinion02.txt
The Bush Administration knowingly misled the nation into war. 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. The Iraqi environment has been contaminated with depleted uranium, and unexploded cluster bombs.
The Administration rained down an unprovoked blitz of over 14,000 Tomahawk missiles alone, at a cost of a million dollars each, on one of the poorest countries in the world the size of California, with a population that is 50% children.
The administration ignored international law. The voices of 40 Nobel Peace prize winners. The pleas of heads of all the world's main religions. The leaders of 90% of the planet's countries. Tens of millions of world citizens who marched against the war. The UN and a roster of prominent international environmental and humanitarian organizations who predicted the quagmire that the US faces today. The administration bragged, "It'll be a cakewalk...."
The Administration has bankrupted the US treasury. Hijacked the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, the government "of, for and by the people." While consolidating the "free press" necessary to democracy under control of a few corporations.
The Administration is the ground zero of corruption.
It must go.
Now.
Suzanne Nonamee
San Francisco, CA
----
Bush welcomes EU president to ranch
Discussion will include weapons proliferation, Middle East conflict
07/21/2003
By DAVID JACKSON
The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/politics/national/stories/072103dnintusitaly.181ad.html
CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush is giving ranch-style hospitality to a European leader who may be even less popular on the continent than he is.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is also temporary president of the European Union, though the start of his six-month term has solidified his reputation as one of the world's most outspoken - some say outrageous - political leaders.
Even before telling a German legislator he would be "perfect" for a role as a guard in a Nazi prison movie, Mr. Berlusconi faced criticism for a law granting him immunity from prosecution on bribery charges stemming from a 1980s business deal.
The White House, in announcing the Bush-Berlusconi meeting, said the two leaders "will discuss a range of issues, including stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, peace and security in the Middle East region, continuing the fight against terrorism and strengthening trans-atlantic relations."As he arrived at the Bush ranch in Crawford on Sunday afternoon, analysts said Mr. Berlusconi might be a less-than-ideal candidate to bridge the divide between the White House and Europeans who opposed the Iraq war.
"There's an awkwardness to the fact that Berlusconi is the temporary president of the European Union, simply because a cloud follows him around," said Charles Kupchan, an international relations specialist at Georgetown University in Washington.
Mr. Kupchan added that Mr. Bush and Mr. Berlusconi "seem to have pretty strong personal ties, and that certainly does some good at a time of EU-U.S. rivalry."
The agenda items could include international help for rebuilding Iraq, where a rising number of American troops have been killed in by guerrilla-style attacks.
In an interview with Time magazine, Mr. Berlusconi said many of his disagreements with critics boil down to the war on terrorism: "Some Europeans don't understand that the world changed radically after Sept. 11."
His visit to Mr. Bush's ranch, which ends Monday, is also a thank-you gesture. Mr. Berlusconi and another previous guest, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been among the staunchest allies of the Bush administration.
Once a lounge singer on a cruise line, Mr. Berlusconi is his nation's richest man, its largest publisher and the owner of three television networks.
Editorialists across Europe denounced Mr. Berlusconi's ascension to the EU presidency as an embarrassment, and it didn't take long for a controversy to erupt.
When a German lawmaker questioned the immunity arrangement, Mr. Berlusconi replied: "Mr. Schulz, I know there is a man in Italy producing a film on the Nazi concentration camps. I would like to suggest you for the role of kapo [guard]. You'd be perfect."
Most members of the European Parliament jeered the comment. Mr. Berlusconi's office later issued a statement of "regret for the fact that somebody might have misunderstood the sense of a joke that was only meant to be ironic."
E-mail djackson@dallasnews.com
-------- MILITARY
-------- africa
Liberia Fighting Escalates; Mortar Bomb Hits U.S. Embassy
July 21, 2003
The New York Times
By SOMINI SENGUPTA with KIRK SEMPLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/international/africa/21CND-LIBE.html?hp
MONROVIA, Liberia, July 21 - At least one mortar bomb fell on the American embassy in the capital of Liberia during intense fighting between rebels and government troops today as the first members of a contingent of 41 American Marines arrived to bolster security on embassy property.
The mortar round hit the embassy commissary as embassy staff and several dozen reporters were huddled inside a building in the complex, but no injuries were reported.
In the most intense day of fighting since rebels opposed to President Charles G. Taylor began to push into the city three weeks ago, the area around the embassy was subject to intense shelling and another mortar bomb struck a nearby compound owned by the American Embassy, injuring two Liberian security guards.
A reporter for Newsweek suffered minor injuries from shrapnel and was treated by medical personnel at the embassy.
Scenes of carnage and mayhem played out on the city streets, especially in the neighborhood of the American embassy. Screaming, wailing Liberians piled mutilated corpses in front of the embassy's shuttered gates, and a little boy carrying a plastic bag of greens was killed instantly when a piece of shrapnel punctured his head.
During brief interludes in the shelling, injured people hobbled out onto the streets; women clutched babies with head wounds, and others suffered from twisted limbs and fresh body wounds.
Liberian and American officials could not confirm whether the bombs were coming from the rebel side or the government side.
There were no official death counts but initial reports put the toll at about 50. The main city hospital was reported to be secure but the roads leading to and from the building were growing increasingly dangerous.
Shortly after the first team of Marines arrived today, 25 Americans and other Western nationals were evacuated in Pavehawk military helicopters. The group included United Nations officials, aid workers and two journalists.
A spokeswoman for the United States European Central Command in Stuttgart, Germany, said 23 of the people were Americans and included four military personnel and 19 American civilians.
The Marines joined the embassy's regular security force and 15 other Marines that were flown in on July 7 to accompany a humanitarian survey team that has been analyzing how the United States might help to end Liberia's armed conflict.
The arrival of the Marines pushes the number of American troops on the ground in Liberia to "more than 70" though fewer than 100, said Capt. Sarah Kerwin, the spokeswoman for the United States European Command. Captain Kerwin said the contingent's "primary mission is to enhance security," but she said the Marines will be prepared to evacuate the embassy if the State Department gives a formal evacuation order.
"They have the capability should it be needed," she said. "None of those words have been used, but should the need arrive, they can do it."
Captain Kerwin added: "They're taking mortar rounds. You can probably say that's a hairy situation."
Today's shelling was a continuation of fighting that broke out on Sunday as anti-government rebels pushed into the city, the government's last stronghold.
The rebel assault, the third in six weeks, was the fiercest and most sustained of the three.
Reports from witnesses in several neighborhoods suggested that the rebel army, whose only stated goal is to oust President Taylor, tried first to come into the city's center from the north on Sunday, then from the east. The day's fighting wounded dozens of civilians, swelled the temporary camps to bursting and risked a breakout of disease.
As Liberia descended further into chaos, peacekeepers promised by other West African countries had yet to arrive. President Bush, who has offered assistance to those peacekeepers, said last week that he was considering sending in American troops for a mission of limited scope and duration, provided that Mr. Taylor stepped aside. Liberia, which has historic links to the United States, has been unstable for many years.
"We don't see any sign of the fighting stopping," said Prince Jallabah, stranded in his apartment on one side of a bridge leading to the city center. Bursts of gunfire and shelling sent other people dashing through the streets for cover.
Stray bullets punctured the windows of a Roman Catholic school compound that now houses hundreds of displaced Monrovians. "One every half hour," Sister Barbara Brilliant, an American nun who runs the school, said this evening. "That's why we are on the floor."
By Sunday evening, rebels appeared in control of the port, while the government held the airport, on the city's outskirts. Downtown remained in government hands, and on Sunday afternoon, forces loyal to Mr. Taylor took advantage of that by going on a looting spree. Witnesses described armed men, as well as civilians, grabbing prizes: one had a kerosene stove, others had shoes and toys.
Bizarrely, a statement by the rebel group, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy, said it had no intention of capturing Monrovia. Later, a rebel figure, Kabineh Janeh, said by telephone from Ghana, where both sides said they remained in peace talks, that the advance was simply to stop assaults on rebel positions outside the city. "We are asking our troops to exercise restraint," Mr. Janeh added. "We do not wish to take over Monrovia."
Mr. Taylor, elected in 1997 after waging a guerrilla insurgency lasting eight years, promised to step aside but has refused to leave until peacekeepers arrive. Mr. Taylor, widely denounced for worsening the region's troubles, has been accused of providing aid to rebels in Sierra Leone in exchange for diamonds.
The violence has made most of the city impassable.
The already jam-packed, unhealthy shantytowns of people displaced by the fighting swelled once again, and a dwindling water supply, combined with a dearth of toilets, threatened to send cholera spinning out of control.
"We've got drugs, we've got staff, but if we can't get water in here, it will get really nasty," said Magnus Wolfe Murray, country manager for Merlin, the agency that runs health clinics and builds toilets at Greystone, a jammed United States Embassy-owned compound across from the chancery.
At Greystone, once a storage yard, the population doubled in the last day to more than 20,000, the agency estimates.
-------- britain
COALITION OF DECEIT
Dead UK govt' scientist feared 'Dark actors playing games,' but who are they - and why did they want to drag us into war?
July 21, 2003
Antiwar.com
by Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j072103.html
In the moments before he set off on what was to be his final stroll across the hills and copses near his home, British government weapons expert Dr. David Kelly sent a number of emails to friends saying he was being haunted by "many dark actors playing games."
He was found dead, several hours later, an apparent suicide.
The British government is in a crisis, and the waves of panic are reverberating over on this side of the Atlantic, as the spiders' web spun by government spinmeisters comes unraveled. The rationale for war on Iraq turns out to have been woven from lies.
The ongoing controversy over the now infamous "16 words" is just the beginning of a scandal that is fast morphing into a much wider cause celebre. Niger-gate is turning into Fibber-gate.
We were told, by the Americans as well as the British government, that Saddam could launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes of giving the order. That turns out to have been a figment of someone's imagination - but whose?
The President of the United States got up there and told the American people that a fleet of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) possessed by the Iraqis was capable of launching an attack on the continental U.S. and leveling American cities - so where is this sinister armada? And where the heck did Bush get such an outlandishly tall tale?
Dr. Kelly was supposedly the key source for a BBC report that the Blair government had "sexed up" the Iraqi WMD dossier in order to drag an unwilling nation into war. In Blair's England, where the right of free speech is ever more precarious, the government launched an all-out assault on the supposedly independent media organization - which does, after all, rely on government revenues - and Dr. Kelly's name had been deliberately leaked as the BBC's "mole" within the Ministry of Defense. He was dragged before a committee of Parliament, mercilessly grilled, kept holed up in a MoD "safe house," and ultimately found dead a few miles from his home.
Dr. Kelly committed suicide, as far as we know, but it is fair to ask: was he felled, in an important sense, by the "dark actors" he complained about in his final hours?
Shortly before Kelly's death, Julian Borger, writing in the Guardian, brought to light the existence of a network of some very dark actors - a faction of the British and American intelligence agencies that almost certainly was about to be exposed as the source of the disinformation put out by the Bush-Blair coalition of deceit.
In the period leading up to the invasion, as millions marched in the streets hoping to stop the rush to war, Newt Gingrich, the disgraced former Speaker of the House, made at least three trips to CIA headquarters, in Langley, Virginia, to browbeat analysts into projecting a more threatening picture of Iraq's military capabilities. But why, one has to ask, would anyone bother listening to a political has-been and well-known bore? Surely the CIA brass had better things to do.
"Mr Gingrich gained access to the CIA headquarters and was listened to," reports Borger, "because he was seen as a personal emissary of the Pentagon and, in particular, of the OSP."
The key link in an international chain of professional prevaricators, the OSP, or Office of Special Plans, was authorized by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and presided over by a cabal of neoconservative ideologues who "functioned like a shadow government," according to Borger. Bypassing both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, they "cherry-picked" tidbits of raw intelligence, acting more like lawyers arguing a case than analysts probing for facts, and piped their propaganda directly to the President via Dick Cheney.
This story is nothing new: Seymour Hersh gave us a good look inside this network, and several writers have elaborated on a similar theme, but Borger provides some telling (and disturbing) new details:
"The OSP itself had less than 10 full-time staff, so to help deal with the load, the office hired scores of temporary 'consultants.' They included lawyers, congressional staffers, and policy wonks from the numerous rightwing thinktanks in Washington. Few had experience in intelligence. 'Most of the people they had in that office were off the books, on personal services contracts. At one time, there were over 100 of them,' said an intelligence source. The contracts allow a department to hire individuals, without specifying a job description."
This was, in effect, a welfare program for warmongers. In the great debate leading up to the war, one side was subsidized and succored by our tax dollars, the other was vilified, threatened, and harassed by paid shills and agents of the U.S. government. Over 100 of the pro-war pundits, professional screamers, and crusading "patriots" who make careers out of finding an "Islamofascist" under every bed were on the take.
Who were they? How much did they get? And how many of them are still sucking at the federal teat? The journalists among them surely need a little exposure, in this, the age of Jayson Blair. And what about all those think-tankers who managed to get on the Iraq war gravy train - how many of them were from such bastions of scholarly integrity as the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Jewish Institute for National Strategic Affairs, and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies?
As U.S. troops took Baghdad, an article in the Financial Times reported on a rollicking party in the nation's capital:
"Billed as a 'black coffee briefing on the war on Iraq,' yesterday's breakfast for the influential hawks of the American Enterprise Institute was more of a victory celebration. With a few words of caution - that the war to oust Saddam Hussein was not yet over - the panel of speakers, part of the Bush administration's ideological vanguard, set out their bold vision of the postwar agenda: radical reform of the UN, regime change in Iran and Syria, and 'containment' of France and Germany."
Rollicking, that is, by neocon standards. The talk was of a measured triumphalism, and a sneering disdain for the defeated peace movement:
"The war was going well, said Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Advisory Board. There were more anti-war demonstrators in San Francisco than Iraqis willing to defend their leader. The 'coalition of the willing' was growing."
As Perle, along with his fellow warmongers Michael Ledeen, and Bill Kristol, pontificated to an audience of like-minded Washington war wonks, how many in that room were not on the government payroll? It was, no doubt, a gathering of welfare queens and kings, and they had plenty to celebrate. Not only on account of their ideological victory - albeit a short-lived one - but also because they had personally profited handsomely. Perle has already been demoted for improper profiteering off his position with the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Board, and had to resign his chairmanship. How many of his fellow celebrants have similarly dubious relationships is a matter that needs to be thoroughly investigated.
Remember the "poverty pimps" of the 1960s and 70s, who were riding high on the liberal illusion that the welfare state could uplift the poor, if only we lavished enough dollars on social service bureaucracies and waged a "war on poverty"? Today, in the post-9/11 era, we have the propaganda pimps of the "war on terrorism," who in this age of perpetual war are guaranteed permanent and lucrative employment.
The media and at least two congressional investigations are now busy uncovering the trail of lies that misled us into war. If the scope of the investigation is not limited, and they follow the fibs and outright forgeries back to their original source, they are investigators are likely to discover that the neoconservative network inside the Washington Beltway acted like a conveyor belt feeding fantastic tales of Iraqi WMD directly to the Oval Office. The question then becomes how far the White House will have to distance itself from the resulting embarrassing revelations.
The unsavory concoction fed to the President and his top advisors was disguised as "intelligence" - to make it easier to swallow - and the President is still refusing to take personal responsibility for the fateful 16 words, or much of anything else. In order to maintain that stance, the White House is going to have to fob off the responsibility elsewhere, and there is some indication that this is already beginning to occur, with the President reprimanding National Security advisor Condolezza Rice and even outgoing presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer. Let's hope that the result of the political tornado now sweeping Washington replicates the plot of "The Wizard of Oz," and the house falls directly on the Wicked Witch of the OSP.
The "dark actors" in this tale of disinformation and competing spy agencies are shadowy, elusive creatures who wield enormous power with no compunctions about the consequences. Some are Americans, some British: others are Israelis, as Borger reports:
"The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorize. 'None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels,' said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr. [Douglas] Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms."
Bypassing all the normal procedures and regular government agencies, agents of a foreign power - Israel - were admitted into the inner sanctum of the Pentagon, where they proceeded to clog the arteries of U.S. intelligence operations with misinformation.
The War Party, as we see, was hired on as a "consultant" to the U.S. government in the crucial period leading up to the invasion of Iraq. But what other government gave them succor and assistance? We have said all along in this space that the one country that stood to benefit from the war was not the U.S., but Israel. The war in Iraq, as Professor Paul W. Schroeder pointed out in The American Conservative,
"Would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state."
Surely this is a case of the tail wagging the dog, but the explanation for this strange phenomenon is now coming out in the investigation into Liar-gate. If we look at the Iraq war as an intelligence operation directed by the one nation that stood to benefit, the answer to the question of how did we get into this mess becomes a little clearer.
No wonder the neocons were celebrating at that AEI shindig, lifting their coffee cups in a collective toast to a job well-done and gloating over their victory. No matter what the consequences of the Iraq war for the U.S., Israel's interests were well-served. Let Uncle Sam shell out $3.9 billion per month and let the President take the heat for misleading the nation with bogus information about the imminence of the Iraqi "threat" - the cabal's mission has been accomplished.
-------- chemical weapons
U.N. labor agency says chemical weapons chief was wrongly dismissed
7/21/2003
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-07-21-OPCW-wrongly-dismissed_x.htm
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - The former head of the world's chemical weapons regulatory body was wrongly dismissed last year at the insistence of the U.S. government, according to a ruling at the International Labor Organization in Geneva.
Jose Mauricio Bustani was voted out of office as director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in April 2002, after Washington accused him of mismanagement and rallied other countries in a vote to have him dismissed.
At the time, Bustani's supporters said Washington wanted him removed not because he performed poorly, but because he supported making Iraq a member of the OPCW, which might have interfered with U.S. plans for war in Iraq.
The International Labor Organization, a U.N. body charged with arbitrating labor disputes at the United Nations and other international institutions, said that Bustani was improperly dismissed and awarded him $56,700 in damages to be paid by the organization.
The ruling was issued Wednesday but not publicly released.
In a copy of the July 16 decision obtained by The Associated Press, the court said Bustani was not given a fair opportunity to respond to Washington's charges, which it qualified as "extremely vague." It said the lack of due process in his dismissal was "an unacceptable violation of the principle on which international organizations' activities are founded, by rendering officials vulnerable to pressures and to political change."
It said that while the United States had followed procedures, Bustani should have had a chance to defend himself in a court free of political pressures.
The OPCW is charged with ridding the world of chemical weapon stockpiles and production facilities. It has 153 member countries, including the world's two largest possessors of chemical weapons, the United States and Russia. Member countries are subject to inspections of weapons and chemicals banned under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
If OPCW chemical weapons inspectors had gone to Iraq and, like U.N. weapons inspectors, failed to find banned chemical weapons, it could have hurt the Bush Administration's case for war.
Officials at the organization were not immediately available for comment.
Bustani's firing came one year after he was unanimously re-elected by the organization's member countries, including the United States, for a second four-year term. At the time, Secretary of State Colin Powell praised his leadership qualities in a personal letter.
In February 2002, The U.S. government began lobbying to have Bustani removed, saying he had not performed his job properly. However, government representatives declined to detail allegations of mismanagement, abuse of power and "destruction of staff morale." Bustani always denied wrongdoing.
Bustani called the ruling a "great relief," telling The Associated Press that he would donate the damages he won to an international cooperation program at the OPCW, based in The Hague, Netherlands.
-------- europe
Europe Still Studded With WWII Bombs
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
The Associated Press
Monday, July 21, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21101-2003Jul21?language=printer
VIENNA, Austria - They don't tick, but they're still time bombs capable of wreaking death and devastation.
Nearly six decades after the end of World War II, much of Europe remains studded with unexploded ordnance like the U.S. bomb that went off near Salzburg's train station last week, killing two men sent to defuse it.
Experts say it will take decades more to rid the continent of the war's enduring legacy: Nazi and Allied bombs, mines, missiles, grenades and other explosives.
"There are thousands upon thousands of unexploded bombs throughout Europe," said Colin King, a munitions expert with London-based Jane's Information Group, which analyzes defense and military issues.
Old bombs are turning up in surprising places:
- Last month, organizers preparing for a visit to Bosnia by Pope John Paul II unearthed six aerial bombs and a mortar grenade from beneath a platform where the pontiff was to address tens of thousands of pilgrims at a monastery.
- In November, Greek army experts removed a 250-pound World War II bomb at Athens' former international airport, which will become a sports venue for the 2004 Olympics. Work crews found it eight feet underground near a former runway.
- That same month, authorities sealed off streets and evacuated 400 people from their homes before detonating a bomb from World War II found on a building site near the center of Glasgow, Scotland's largest city.
It's not unusual for farmers working their fields in Belgium and France to hit a dud, sometimes with fatal results, or for beachcombers in Normandy to find bombs or shells - some dating to World War I - buried in the sand. Last spring, 9,000 people were evacuated from their homes in the northern French city of Lens so experts could defuse a 660-pound British bomb discovered during construction work near a soccer stadium.
In April, Russian workers defused a bomb that had been attached to a busy railway bridge near the city of Bryansk since World War II - and also discovered wartime mines on the territory of a nuclear power plant.
Salzburg, the quaint cobblestoned birthplace of Mozart, is strewn with at least 122 other bombs that could pack a punch similar to the 550-pound U.S. aircraft bomb that accidentally detonated Thursday, said Wilfried Althuber, the city's environment chief.
Salzburg's railway lines and train station were major targets of Allied bombing during the war, and many bombs from that period remain in the area.
Nationwide, experts say, the Allies dropped more than 120,000 tons of bombs, mines and incendiary devices across Austria, which Hitler had annexed in 1938. Up to 30 percent of those explosives never went off.
In World War II, "bombs penetrated diagonally and deeply into the soil," where they are slow to rust and break down, Althuber said.
In July 1996, one such bomb exploded in a park near a kindergarten, gouging a crater from the ground. No one was injured.
Werner Csidek, in charge of war-era munitions for Austria's national railway, told the Austria Press Agency that experts still must conduct a thorough search of Salzburg. He said U.S. aerial photographs taken after 1944-45 bombardments could help pinpoint the location of unexploded bombs.
The bombs are tricky to defuse because years of exposure to groundwater and frost have made them chemically unstable, Gerhard Proksch, who heads the Austrian Interior Ministry's bomb disposal unit, told Austrian state radio.
Europe isn't the only part of the world still dealing with such bombs.
In June, explosives experts in Singapore uncovered a cache of 843 unexploded bombs at a construction site near a former British military base. The bombs, still in a stable condition, were cleared out and destroyed in controlled explosions.
Nearly 200 bombs and artillery shells dumped offshore by the British military decades ago were removed last year from the site of a Disney theme park being built in Hong Kong. Most posed no danger because they had no fuses.
-------- iraq
Deputy defense secretary says weapons issue is now secondary in Iraq
ROBERT BURNS,
AP Military Writer
Monday, July 21, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/21/international0252EDT0444.DTL
Finding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that President Bush cited as his main justification for going to war is now a secondary issue, says Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
In an interview Monday night aboard an Air Force jet en route to Washington following a five-day tour of Iraq, Wolfowitz said the task of settling the weapons question is in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies.
"I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction," Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him. "I'm concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn't come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction."
He also asserted that Iraqis themselves have little concern about the weapons issue.
"If you could get in a relaxed conversation with Iraqis on that subject they'd say why on earth are you Americans fussing so much about this historical issue when we have real problems here, when Baathists are killing us and Baathists are threatening us and we don't have electricity and we don't have jobs. Those are the real issues.
"I'm not saying that getting to the bottom of this WMD issue isn't important. It is important. But it is not of immediate consequence."
The CIA has put David Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, in charge of the search for illegal weapons.
Wolfowitz said Kay told him during a meeting Sunday that U.S. officials were having difficulty getting Iraqi prisoners to tell what they know about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological or nuclear programs.
The Iraqi government claimed prior to the war that it had destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction it once held, and U.N. inspectors were unable to find evidence of any.
"I pushed him (Kay) a bit on why aren't these people talking. Why don't you, in effect, plea bargain with them," Wolfowitz said. "He said there is no concept of plea bargaining in this place. If you confessed you just got executed faster or tortured less."
Administration officials had hoped, and in some cases expected, to find evidence of chemical or biological weapons on the battlefield in the aftermath of the war, but so far nothing has turned up. Pentagon officials have said they believe the key is getting lower-level Iraqi officials to help.
"The people that we're holding still feel they have much more to fear from their old buddies -- still buddies -- than anything we do to them," he said. "So he (Kay) says it's going to be a painstaking process."
----
U.S. Is Creating an Iraqi Militia to Relieve G.I.'s
July 21, 2003
New York Times
By ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/international/worldspecial/21IRAQ.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 20 - The United States is creating a new Iraqi civil defense force within the next 45 days that is intended to free up thousands of American troops for antiguerrilla missions and to put an Iraqi face on the occupation's postwar security efforts, two top American generals said today.
The immediate goal is to field about 7,000 American-trained militiamen to protect supply convoys and replace American troops now guarding power plants and ammunition depots.
The new Iraqi Governing Council has strongly supported creating an Iraqi militia, which appears to go well beyond a proposal under consideration at the Pentagon to hire private contractors to provide security at sites around the country.
"Over time, it'll free up an awful lot of American forces," said Gen. John P. Abizaid, who is making his first visit to Iraq as the new head of the United States Central Command.
The persistent violence, two months after President Bush declared an end to major combat, was underscored today when two soldiers were killed and one was wounded in an ambush near Mosul in the north. Also today, an Iraqi driver for a United Nations agency died when his convoy was attacked near Baghdad.
In the southern city of Najaf, United States marines found themselves in a standoff with more than 10,000 mainly Shiite demonstrators, angered by rumors that American troops had harassed a cleric who had condemned the United States-led occupation.
Armed resistance to the American-led occupation is coming from a small number of "professional killers" drawn from "remnants of the old regime regrouping in squad-level attacks," said the United States administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, on "Fox News Sunday."
The attacks pose "no strategic threat to us," Mr. Bremer said, in a guardedly upbeat assessment of conditions in Iraq. He cited as signs of progress the restoration of basic services, economic reforms and the recent establishment of the Governing Council, and he said it was "quite possible" that a constitutional conference, probably to open in September, could write a constitution that would lead to elections and a new government within a year.
Eventually, General Abizaid said, the Iraqi militia may also join American soldiers in joint raids against guerrilla fighters, who he said were waging increasingly sophisticated attacks against American troops.
The plan to establish an Iraqi civil defense force, first reported in The Washington Post, reflects the Pentagon's urgent priority to quell the mounting attacks against American troops and to use an interim Iraqi force to help do that until a larger Iraqi national army is formed in the coming months and years.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who is nearing the end of a five-day mission in Iraq, has heard repeatedly from tribal and civic leaders that the occupation authority must give Iraqis a greater role in governing and securing their country in order for the American-led effort to have credibility with the Iraqi public.
Today, Mr. Wolfowitz said that recruiting Iraqis for security and intelligence tasks was essential for the rebuilding of Iraq to succeed. Small numbers of Iraqis and Iraqi-Americans have already served as interpreters and scouts for American commandos and regular forces. "We need more of these people," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
Establishing the militia as an interim Iraqi force is an acknowledgment that training and mobilizing an Iraqi national army will take years to accomplish. Bush administration officials in Washington and American commanders here say they cannot afford to wait that long.
Under the American plan, eight battalions with about 850 Iraqi militiamen each will train under and then work with army divisions in various regions around the country, said Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the commander of allied forces in Iraq. After 45 days, the second group of eight battalions, or nearly 7,000 more militiamen, could be recruited and trained, General Sanchez said.
The makeup of each unit would mirror the demographics of that particular region and would probably include both men and women. Previous military service would not be required but any officer who served in the Iraqi Army above the rank of lieutenant colonel would be barred. Local leaders would help identify militia recruits, who would receive basic training in human rights, weapons handling and patrol techniques.
"Probably the most important contribution they will bring will be putting an Iraqi face on the security problems of the country and ensuring that wherever our soldiers are, Iraqis are contributing to that security," General Sanchez said.
Many details still need to be worked out. General Sanchez and his boss, General Abizaid, focused on different aspects of the program.
General Sanchez said the forces would focus on basic duties like convoy protection, at least initially. "These are not forces intended to conduct offensive operations," General Sanchez told reporters during a lunch interview. "They will be on patrol with us. They will be on fixed sites."
Cautioning that he was not necessarily contradicting his subordinate, General Abizaid said the militia could eventually take on more challenging offensive missions but he did not say when that might happen.
"Over time, as confidence increases in working with these guys, we will ask them to do more and more complicated things," General Abizaid said at the lunch. "And it's important we do."
Some allied commanders have on their own already starting training Iraqi civil defense forces. The Army's 101st Airborne Division has trained one company of Iraqi militiamen in Mosul to guard an ammunition depot and is preparing to graduate three more companies. British forces in Basra, in the south, have organized a new Iraqi patrol force. General Abizaid said the American military needed to change its cultural mindset when it came to dealing with indigenous forces, adding that the United States needed to "train them and have them be prepared to conduct a full range of operations with us."
Recruiting for Iraq's new national army started recently, but American officials have said it will take a year to form an initial force of 12,000 soldiers and three years to create a 40,000-soldier force. The new militia could eventually be folded into the army, officials said.
"The important thing about the new Iraqi army is not the number of divisions or the type of equipment they have, but whether or not the officer corps respects the people they protect and serve the government," General Abizaid said.
Even as Mr. Wolfowitz has