WASHINGTON, May 25 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) – U.S. military officials warned the Pentagon of launching a war on Iraq, causing the Pentagon to retreat from its plans to strike, a U.K. daily newspaper reported Saturday.

The Times reported that General Tommy Franks of the U.S. Central Command told defense chiefs and the White House that an invasion on Iraq would need at least 200,000 troops, could not be launched until next year at the earliest and might force Saddam Hussein into a “no-win” situation in which he might use chemical and biological weapons even at serious risk to his own troops.

A concerted push by General Franks and the heads of each armed service, together with European and Russian concerns over a possible U.S. invasion appeared to have taken effect yesterday, the Times reported.

Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defense Secretary, said at a Pentagon briefing that he had no plans to invade Iraq or anywhere else, and that talking publicly about future military operations would be “dumb”.

Saddam might not exercise the caution with chemical and biological arms that he showed during Operation Desert Storm, said General Franks, adding that if U.S. ground forces became bogged down in a battle for Baghdad, the operation could cost thousands of American military lives as well as those of Iraqi civilians.

His invasion plan would require the steady build-up of troops to roughly half the 541,000 that was assembled in the Gulf for Desert Storm. Almost 90 per cent of munitions would be “smart” weapons capable of being targeted with a margin of error of only a few feet, compared with the 10 per cent in the Gulf War, the Times reported.

The plan would require the use of air force bases in Kuwait, Turkey, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman as well as Saudi Arabia, according to provisional outlines leaked to U.S. media last month. It would involve the biggest mobilization of National Guard reservists since 1990, as well as tens of thousands of combat troops.

General Michael Rose, Commander of the U.N. Protection Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 1994 to 1995 wrote an analysis in the Times saying that invading Iraq would be an error similar to Hitler’s attack on Russia during the Second World War.

“To launch a ground offensive against Iraq at this time would represent an enormous and terrible strategic blunder in the war against terrorism. Even if such a second front could be justified in terms of the suppression of terrorism [and there is no certainty that President Saddam Hussein was involved in the events of September 11], the risks and potentially negative consequences far outweigh any possible benefits,” said General Rose.

Meanwhile, another U.K. newspaper, The Guardian, also reported that joint chiefs of staff have assured the White House their forces could successfully invade Iraq - or anywhere else - if instructed. But they have warned that such an invasion would be extremely fraught, given the resources depleted by the war in Afghanistan.

“One of the factors most alarming the generals is the possibility that their troops could be drawn into street fighting in Baghdad, without support from the local population, leading to heavy U.S. casualties,” the paper said.

It is understood that the country's senior generals - the heads of the army, navy, air forces and marines - agreed with the chairman of the joint chiefs, Richard Myers, and his deputy, Peter Pace, in their assessment, reported the Guardian.

At a Pentagon briefing yesterday, General Pace sounded what was, by military standards, an uncertain trumpet.

Turning to his boss, the defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he assured him: "Your military is ready today to execute whatever mission the civilian leadership of this country gives us to do." But he added: "The fact of the matter is, the more time you have to prepare for that kind of mission, whatever it is, the more elegant the solution could be."

The head of the air force, General John Jumper, was blunter. "We never sized ourselves to have to do high force-protection levels at home and overseas at the same time. We're stretched very thin in security forces," he was quoted as saying by the New York Times.

The Telegraph also reported that the U.S.'s most senior military commanders have staged a joint rebellion against calls for a swift strike against Iraq.

They said United States forces would face appalling casualties as they fought their way into Baghdad "block by block" if President Bush went ahead with an early

invasion.

Although the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush would love to topple the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the White House has no plans to attack the country right now, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"I have no war plans on my desk, and it's the truth," Bush said at a joint press conference in Berlin Thursday with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

But Bush said the Iraqi leader remained a threat as a "dictator who's gassed his own people" and who is working to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

In the meantime, European allies of the United States are opposed to a war aimed at forcing Saddam out of power, as are many Arab allies of the United States -- accusing it of being too supportive of Israel in the Middle East conflict.