Looking for help with a project on the Iraq war/DSM timeline

[T Roosevelt]

uggabugga has a great timeline for the march to war and the DSM:

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2005/06/iraq-decision-timeline-subject-to.html



It would be interesting to see a couple of other things in contrast to the graphic:

1. Military movements/logistic shifts related to Iraq - Rep Kaptur mentioned this in the DSM hearings today.

2. Public comments/statements by the admin saying they weren't planning war, they hadn't decided on war, etc.

[phoebe]

1. this may help - Operation Endless Deployment article from the Nation

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021019-iraq2.htm

dated October 31, 2002

snip

In the fall of 1999, in his first major campaign speech on foreign policy, Bush criticized the Clinton Administration for sending US troops off on "aimless and endless deployments" that allegedly detracted from their core mission of fighting and winning wars. Bush was primarily referring to US peacekeeping missions in places like Kosovo, but he gave the impression that he was planning to reduce the overall US military presence overseas as well. Three years later, Bush's pledge to seek a more streamlined US global military presence has been cast aside under the guise of fighting "terrorists and tyrants" of Washington's choosing. Since September 2001 US forces have built, upgraded or expanded military facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan; authorized extended training missions or open-ended troop deployments in Djibouti, the Philippines and the former Soviet republic of Georgia; negotiated access to airfields in Kazakhstan; and engaged in major military exercises, involving thousands of US personnel, in Jordan, Kuwait and India. Thousands of tons of military equipment have been added to stockpiles already pre-positioned in Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf states, including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Qatar. And discussions are still under way with Yemen about increasing American access to facilities there and establishing an intelligence-gathering installation aimed at monitoring activities in Sudan and Somalia.

These forward bases, many of which have been arranged through secretive, ad hoc arrangements, currently house an estimated 60,000 US military personnel. This includes 20,000-25,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, poised to serve as the opening wave of a US invasion of Iraq.


There is plenty of info. in this article - hope it is somewhat helpful

[T Roosevelt]

4. Thanks

I'll go through these...

[phoebe]

2. more on air attacks pre-war

US and British planes attacked Iraqi air defences

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021216-iraq01.htm from December 2002

snip

Since March of this year, the tonnage of coalition bombs dropped on Iraq has increased by 300 percent. Targets have been expanded to include Iraqi command bunkers and communications and pilots no longer required to bomb only when fired on or locked on by Iraqi radar.

GARRETT: You've seen a lot of attacks...

HALTON: According to military analyst Patrick Garrett, the goal of destroying Iraqi air defences seems to be the priority now.

GARRETT: These strikes, especially in the last seven months, have been extremely effective in destroying locations and facilities that could pose a threat to American and coalition aircraft in the opening hours of the war.

HALTON: It's just one more step, says defence expert Tony Cordesman, on the road to war.

TONY CORDESMAN (Defence Expert): If the United States and Britain go to war, suppressing air defences as soon as possible, leaving Iraq totally open to the surgical use of air power is going to be equally important.

Please read entire articles - am only posting some of the relevant stuff.

Remember that these so called "no fly zones" were not completely
legal.

Globalsecurity.org looks to be a very informative website

[phoebe]

3. Is Iraq the Next Target? article from 11/27/2001

CNN International Q&A November 27, 2001
Is Iraq the Next Target?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011127-attack03.htm

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Saddam Hussein agreed to allow inspectors in his country in order to prove the world he is not developing weapons of mass destruction. He ought to let these inspectors back in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If he does not do that, what will be the consequences? BUSH: He'll find out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAIN VERJEE, HOST: The president of the United States says Afghanistan is only the beginning in the war against terror. And he's singled out Iraq as possibly being next in line. Inside the U.S. administration, some argue there are already grounds to strike at Iraq. Others say it would be a mistake.

On this edition of Q&A: Is Iraq the next target?

Welcome to Q&A. I am Zain Verjee. Jim Clancy is on assignment.

Strong words from the U.S. president as he turns his attention to Iraq. CNN's John King has this look at just what the U.S. president said.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUSH: If they develop weapons of mass destruction that would be used to terrorize nations, they will be held accountable. And as for Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction.

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In this speech to Congress at the start of the campaign, Mr. Bush put terrorists and those who harbor terrorists on notice. But he did not list amassing weapons of mass destruction as grounds for U.S. military strikes.

BUSH: Have I expanded the definition? I have always had that definition as far as I am concerned.

KING: Two key lawmakers, just back from the region, say the focus should be on Afghanistan for now.

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: I think the more that we focus on other places, and particularly if we get specific relative to that, the more challenging it will be to maintain the coalition.

KING: Mr. Bush himself said first things first. But his tough talk about Iraq re-ignited a debate that divides some top administration officials.

Hawks like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz have so nicknamed "the bombers" because they advocate strikes on Iraq. But Secretary of State Colin Powell warns targeting Iraq would weaken the international coalition unless there is firm evidence tying Baghdad to the September 11 attacks. U.S. officials concede they have no such evidence.


There's so much more.. where's the rest of DU? Don't be shy..