> > Activist Mailing List - http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/ > > Iraq: Changing the attack rules > > INDEPENDENT (London) January 13, 1999 > > American planes free to attack Iraqi radar sites > > By Andrew Marshall in Washington > > The United States has widened the rules of engagement for aircraft > flying over Iraq, allowing them to fire on Iraqi air defence sites > before they are targeted by them. > > The decision represents another escalation in the conflict, with signs > growing that a fresh outbreak of violence is likely. Iraq continues to > criticise its neighbours for the backing it says they have given to > Washington and London, while American officials hint broadly that they > believe the regime is on its last legs. > > The US Defense Department said yesterday that planes would be allowed > to fire at radar sites even if they were not locking on to allied > aircraft. To demonstrate the new tactics, a US aircraft fired a > missile at an Iraqi radar site in the no-fly zone over northern Iraq > yesterday, the fifth such episode in the past few weeks. The Pentagon > said that, unlike previous such attacks, this was on an early-warning > radar site, part of Iraq's integrated air defences. In the other > cases, the US and Britain have said that their aircraft were targeted > by surface-to-air missiles, and fired back. > > "The radar was seen as posing a threat to coalition forces in the > area," said a Pentagon spokesman. Previously, early-warning radars > were not attacked, though American and British pilots were allowed to > fire at them if they felt they posed a threat. > > The war of words between Iraq and its neighbours spread yesterday as > the Iraqi parliament accused Kuwait of backing insurgents against the > regime. > > "The Iraqi National Assembly stressed that the governments of Kuwait > and Saudi Arabia are influential partners to the United States and > Britain through presenting facilities for aggression on Iraq," said > the official Iraqi News Agency. > > In particular, Kuwait was accused of "financing and supporting acts of > killing and terrorism against the Iraqi people and its institutions > through receiving agents and betrayers and publishing leaflets that > incite conspiracies on Iraq." > > The US Defense Secretary, William Cohen, said that Saddam "is lashing > out verbally, rhetorically, against the Saudis, against the Egyptians, > against the Kuwaitis". He said this "would seem to indicate that he is > certainly more agitated and frantic". > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Tuesday January 12, 8:30 PM > > Chemical and biological plants not targeted in Iraq raids: Jane's > > LONDON, Jan 12 (AFP) - The US-British air strikes on Iraq were not > targeted at biological and chemical weapons for fear of releasing > toxic substances into the air, according to Jane's Defence Weekly > Tuesday. > > The military analysts' magazine reported that the US Department of > Defense was developing munitions intended to incinerate such targets, > but field tests were still several months away. > > The magazine also said London and Washington had proposed a strike > list of 250 targets for Operation Desert Fox, but this was reduced so > the strikes would not continue far into the holy Moslem month of > Ramadan. > > In the end, said Jane's, US and British aircraft attacked 93 targets, > destroying 14 and severely damaging another 26. > > Jane's also said that the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors just > before the attacks gave sufficient warning to the elite Republican > Guards and military and security personnel to evacuate barracks and > disperse valuable equipment. > > This contrasted with US-British claims of heavy damage to Iraq's > military machine. > > Conflicting also with official British claim of taking part in 20 > percent of all the strikes, Jane's said that of the 650 strike and > support aircraft sorties flown, 622 were made by the Americans and > just 28 by British Tornados. > > Regarding claims that hospitals and schools were hit and strike > figures were inflated, Jane's declared: "Neither side offers solid > proof. All that appears certain is that Operation Desert Fox shows a > more concerted effort to make air strikes as surgically accurate as > possible." > > The Iraqi response, said Jane's, was limited to short range > surface-to-air missiles and heavy anti-aircraft artillery fire. No > medium range missiles or fighters were launched. > > The magazine said that on December 28 and 30, Iraq fired Soviet-made > SA-6 "Gainful" mobile surface-to-air missiles on American and British > aircraft patrolling no-fly zones. > > It added that Baghdad appeared to have decided to conserve most of its > surface-to-air missiles for after Desert Fox, knowing that each wave > of strike aircraft would be protected by jammers, decoys and > anti-radar missiles. > > Jane's predicted that in the future, rather than operating from bases > close to Iraq, "the USA is clearly moving towards having the ability > to stand-off and operate from long-range, eventually aiming to be able > to operate from safe bases within the US homeland. > > "The use of more accurate and guided bombs and missiles reduces > collateral damage, but more importantly reduces the number of sorties > that have to be flown and reduces the supporting logistic > requirements." > > Such a quick-strike approach to arms control falls in line with US > projections that "future warfare will be short in duration and high in > intensity", said Jane's.
Activist Mailing List - http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/ Iraq: Changing the attack rules INDEPENDENT (London) January 13, 1999 American planes free to attack Iraqi radar sites By Andrew Marshall in Washington The United States has widened the rules of engagement for aircraft flying over Iraq, allowing them to fire on Iraqi air defence sites before they are targeted by them. The decision represents another escalation in the conflict, with signs growing that a fresh outbreak of violence is likely. Iraq continues to criticise its neighbours for the backing it says they have given to Washington and London, while American officials hint broadly that they believe the regime is on its last legs. The US Defense Department said yesterday that planes would be allowed to fire at radar sites even if they were not locking on to allied aircraft. To demonstrate the new tactics, a US aircraft fired a missile at an Iraqi radar site in the no-fly zone over northern Iraq yesterday, the fifth such episode in the past few weeks. The Pentagon said that, unlike previous such attacks, this was on an early-warning radar site, part of Iraq's integrated air defences. In the other cases, the US and Britain have said that their aircraft were targeted by surface-to-air missiles, and fired back. "The radar was seen as posing a threat to coalition forces in the area," said a Pentagon spokesman. Previously, early-warning radars were not attacked, though American and British pilots were allowed to fire at them if they felt they posed a threat. The war of words between Iraq and its neighbours spread yesterday as the Iraqi parliament accused Kuwait of backing insurgents against the regime. "The Iraqi National Assembly stressed that the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are influential partners to the United States and Britain through presenting facilities for aggression on Iraq," said the official Iraqi News Agency. In particular, Kuwait was accused of "financing and supporting acts of killing and terrorism against the Iraqi people and its institutions through receiving agents and betrayers and publishing leaflets that incite conspiracies on Iraq." The US Defense Secretary, William Cohen, said that Saddam "is lashing out verbally, rhetorically, against the Saudis, against the Egyptians, against the Kuwaitis". He said this "would seem to indicate that he is certainly more agitated and frantic". =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Tuesday January 12, 8:30 PM Chemical and biological plants not targeted in Iraq raids: Jane's LONDON, Jan 12 (AFP) - The US-British air strikes on Iraq were not targeted at biological and chemical weapons for fear of releasing toxic substances into the air, according to Jane's Defence Weekly Tuesday. The military analysts' magazine reported that the US Department of Defense was developing munitions intended to incinerate such targets, but field tests were still several months away. The magazine also said London and Washington had proposed a strike list of 250 targets for Operation Desert Fox, but this was reduced so the strikes would not continue far into the holy Moslem month of Ramadan. In the end, said Jane's, US and British aircraft attacked 93 targets, destroying 14 and severely damaging another 26. Jane's also said that the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors just before the attacks gave sufficient warning to the elite Republican Guards and military and security personnel to evacuate barracks and disperse valuable equipment. This contrasted with US-British claims of heavy damage to Iraq's military machine. Conflicting also with official British claim of taking part in 20 percent of all the strikes, Jane's said that of the 650 strike and support aircraft sorties flown, 622 were made by the Americans and just 28 by British Tornados. Regarding claims that hospitals and schools were hit and strike figures were inflated, Jane's declared: "Neither side offers solid proof. All that appears certain is that Operation Desert Fox shows a more concerted effort to make air strikes as surgically accurate as possible." The Iraqi response, said Jane's, was limited to short range surface-to-air missiles and heavy anti-aircraft artillery fire. No medium range missiles or fighters were launched. The magazine said that on December 28 and 30, Iraq fired Soviet-made SA-6 "Gainful" mobile surface-to-air missiles on American and British aircraft patrolling no-fly zones. It added that Baghdad appeared to have decided to conserve most of its surface-to-air missiles for after Desert Fox, knowing that each wave of strike aircraft would be protected by jammers, decoys and anti-radar missiles. Jane's predicted that in the future, rather than operating from bases close to Iraq, "the USA is clearly moving towards having the ability to stand-off and operate from long-range, eventually aiming to be able to operate from safe bases within the US homeland. "The use of more accurate and guided bombs and missiles reduces collateral damage, but more importantly reduces the number of sorties that have to be flown and reduces the supporting logistic requirements." Such a quick-strike approach to arms control falls in line with US projections that "future warfare will be short in duration and high in intensity", said Jane's. _____________________________________________________ * The Activist * http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian =20 This is not about the world that we inherited from our forefathers, It is about the world we have borrowed from our children !! _____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
