American
Arsenal Being Built to Confront Saddam: Report
 |
|
The
U.S. is using cargo ships to carry armored vehicles,
helicopters, ammunition, tanks and ambulances |
WASHINGTON,
August 19 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - A U.S. daily newspaper
said Monday, August 19, that the Pentagon is sending weapons and other
supplies to the Middle East in preparations for a strike against Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein.
The
New York Times quoted officials from the U.S. Defense Department and
other military officials saying that the Pentagon has hired two giant
cargo ships to carry armored vehicles and helicopters, among other war
materiel, and eight additional cargo ships capable of carrying
ammunition, tanks and ambulances.
In
addition, the paper said, the U.S. Air Force is stockpiling weapons,
ammunition and spare parts, including airplane engines, at depots in
the Persian Gulf region and in the United States.
Arsenals
of Air Force and Navy precision-guided weapons, which proved
devastating in Afghanistan, should be fully replenished by autumn,
military officials said, reported the Times.
However,
according to senior Pentagon officials, these movements should not be
interpreted as a deployment or as evidence that a campaign against
Iraq is imminent, said the paper.
The
paper said that because of the U.S.’ recent war in the region, a
certain amount of replenishment is to be expected.
“The
Pentagon is contracting for one ship to move troop-carrying combat
vehicles from Europe and the United States to the Persian Gulf to join
equipment for four armored brigades already stored there. Another will
carry vehicles, helicopters and ammunition to a Red Sea port for a
military exercise this year.
“The
Defense Department also has awarded a contract to Maersk Line to
operate eight cargo ships capable of carrying ammunition and tanks.
The ships will be positioned near the Indian Ocean island of Diego
Garcia, home of a British base used by the United States as a staging
point,” the paper reported.
Senior
officials acknowledge that the shipments could support war options
that Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the chief of the military’s Central
Command, has recently presented to Mr. Bush, the Times said.
“Indications
of American resolve and advance placement of weapons are intended to
reassure skittish gulf allies and Iraqi opposition groups, officials
said, and to convince Iraqi officers and their troops that the
Americans would win - especially the Iraqis responsible for weapons of
mass destruction and the missiles or artillery to deliver them.
American planners hope that Iraqi officers will not pull the trigger
after calculating the punishment awaiting them if they unleash weapons
on behalf of a crumbling government,” the paper added.
Meanwhile,
the Christian Science Monitor, reported Monday that unlike in the Gulf
War, this time around, the U.S. would be largely alone in picking up
the tab, amounting to nearly $ 100 billion for military preparation
and the war itself.
“The
U.S. is not finding much keen support for this war, so it would almost
certainly have to be funded by the U.S. on its own,” says Mark
Stoker, a defense economist at the Institute for Strategic Studies in
London, CS Monitor said.
But
experts differ on what impact a war would have on the world’s oil
market. Some economists are warning a war that stopped Iraqi oil
production and threatened disruption of neighboring producers could
send increase oil prices, the paper reported.
“If
we plan right, any run-up in oil prices should be short-lived, and we
should be able to keep down the impact on the world economy,” says
Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research
Foundation in New York, CS Monitor reported.
According
to the newspaper, experts say that the Bush administration is already
looking for actions it can take at home to avoid a repeat of the Gulf
War-recession pattern.
“They
say the U.S., for example, has been filling the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve with up to 150,000 barrels of oil a day since early this year.
If millions of barrels of reserve oil are then released daily in an
emergency, the Bush administration may be able to avoid at least one
key mistake that some economists say the first Bush presidency made:
not releasing oil reserves early and generously enough,” it said.
|
