|
Report: U.K. Troops Have to Stay 5 Years After Saddam’s Removal
LONDON,
July 14 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) – U.K. senior defense
officials told a U.K. daily newspaper Sunday, July 14, that British
troops will remain stationed in Iraq for up to five years as part of
an “occupation force” once the Iraqi president has been removed
from power.
Last
week, this warning was issued to the U.K. cabinet and the officials
said that it will be necessary for a significant force to remain in
Iraq to prevent the post-Saddam state from fragmenting into anarchy,
reported U.K. daily newspaper, the Telegraph.
According
to the paper, intelligence reports have been saying that Al-Qaeda
terrorist cells are regrouping in the Middle East and North Africa.
Officials
from the U.K. Ministry of Defense believe that up to 30,000 British
troops will be required to fight alongside America if the Prime
Minister wants to be a “power player” in the action, reported the
Telegraph.
Up to
half of those troops would have to remain in the region for several
years to help support the post-Saddam government, in much the way as
an international stabilization force now operates in Afghanistan, it
said.
There
is concern in the Foreign Office and at Cabinet level that Saddam’s
removal could precipitate a civil war if the Kurds attempt to annex
homelands in northern Iraq, reported the paper, adding that there is
also worries that the Marsh Arabs in the south of the country, who
have been victimized by Saddam’s regime for years, may also demand
an autonomous region.
The
cost of keeping up to 15,000 British troops in Iraq for five years
would be prohibitive, but it is hoped that friendly nations who will
not commit troops to the ground war, such as Japan, will help foot the
bill as they did 11 years ago in Operation Desert Storm, said the
Telegraph.
The
paper quoted a senior U.K. MoD official said yesterday: “The reason
why George Bush Snr didn’t go all the way to Baghdad in 1991 was
because he knew he would be stuck there for five years. You can’t
remove Saddam, destroy his army and then pull out - that would be a
disaster. The importance of nation-building has been impressed on the
Americans.”
The
Telegraph also said that the reason why American military chiefs would
prefer a war in 2003 rather than later this year is that stocks of
their most sophisticated weapons such as cruise missiles and
laser-guided bombs were seriously depleted by the war in Afghanistan.
Although
the production of both weapons has been in full swing for several
months, stocks have yet to reach pre-Afghanistan levels, said the
paper adding that cruise missiles are vital to any attack plan because
they allow the U.S. to destroy Iraq’s air defense capability without
putting pilots at risk.
Meanwhile,
the official Iraqi News Agency said Saturday, July 13, that U.S
and British warplanes coming from bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
continue to violate Iraqi airspace.
A
spokesman for Iraqi Air Defense Command told INA that the warplanes,
supported by AWACS violated Iraq airspace on Friday and carried out 28
sorties from bases in Kuwait.
The
spokesman said that the warplanes flew over areas of Artawi, Afek,
Bissiya, Jeleba, Jebayish, Nassiriya, Shatra, Rafa’I, Qal’at
Suker, alhay, Lassif, Ashbicha, Samawa and Salman.
Since
December 1998 up to July 12, 2002, the U.S. and British warplanes
carried out a total of 40368 sorties from Saudi, Kuwaiti and Turkish
airspace, of which 13932 sorties came from Kuwaiti airspace, the
spokesman said, reported INA.
U.S.
Central Command reported Saturday, July 13, that U.S. and British
warplanes patrolling the sky over southern Iraq struck Iraqi air
defense installations in response to anti-aircraft fire.
The
planes fired precision-guided weapons at unspecified air defense sites
at approximately 3:50 am (0750 GMT), the statement said, Agence
France-Presse (AFP) reported.
The
statement said the counterattack was launched because the Iraqi
facilities “helped direct air defenses attacks today against
coalition aircraft.”
“Coalition
strikes in the no-fly zones are executed as a self-defense measure in
response to hostile Iraqi acts against coalition forces.”
|
