A War
Conspiracy Documented
By John Prados
02/21/07 "TomPaine"
-- - The
now-infamous Downing Street documents showed how
President George Bush managed his move to war by fitting
intelligence to his policy, and by refusing to accept the
reports of United Nations inspectors who could find no Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction. Now there is a new hot document
that confirms that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony
Blair intended to sucker Saddam into war. It demonstrates
that this aim was present long before the Bush-Blair talks,
and indeed that provocation formed an integral feature of
the U.S. war plan.
A January 31, 2003 meeting
between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair clearly
shows the two leaders discussing ways to provoke Saddam
Hussein so as to justify war, indicating premeditation. Last
week the National Security Archive in Washington posted the
U. S. war plan—the
set of briefing slides used by Central Command (CENTCOM)
chief General Tommy Franks to brief President Bush on “Polo
Step,” CENTCOM’s Iraq invasion scheme. The PowerPoint slides
were prepared for a series of presidential meetings held
from December 2001 to August 2002. The slides summarized
CENTCOM’s buildup and maneuver concepts for Bush’s
deliberations. Bush backed Franks’ concept of “adjusting”
Iraqi defenses by executing what amounted to a covert
offensive air campaign. They would use forces already in the
Persian Gulf region for the ostensible purpose of enforcing
no-fly zones created after the first Gulf War. TomPaine.com
has previously covered this operation (“The
War Before the War ,” June 24, 2005), but the new
evidence establishes an explicit link between the aerial
offensive and the Iraq war plans.
The no-fly zones were originally
designed to prevent Iraqi government interference with
humanitarian efforts in northern Iraq (“Operation Northern
Watch”) and against Shiite minorities in the southern region
of the country (“Operation Southern Watch”). They used
aircraft based in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and on aircraft
carriers in the Gulf. Until 2001, it had been standard
practice for U.S. and British aircraft participating in
these missions to retaliate against Iraqi anti-aircraft
guns, missiles, and radars that had fired at the planes.
CENTCOM had a plan it called “Desert Badger” that
established standard operating procedures for such strikes.
In early 2002, General Franks
and his aerial component commanders revised the old
arrangement. CENTCOM created a set of “response options”
from 1 to 5, providing successively higher levels of
violence. The Polo Step briefing slides make clear that U.S.
planners envisioned using response options in the case of
“triggers,”—Iraqi actions—and specified 16 different
possibilities to lead to retaliation These ranged from
simple interference with flights to major threats or attacks
on friendly regional neighbors. One of the Downing Street
documents reveals that the British realized the no-fly zones
had no basis in international law and the contemplated air
campaign no justification as “self defense.” A May 2002
CENTCOM slide noted that “contingency plan execution is
tailored to match strategic timing and current strategic
environment.”
Several additional scales of
action were denoted by colors (blue, white, red). Response
Option 5 and Level Blue were to be triggered by a
“provocative posture” or limited violence and envisioned as
small scale warfare. By August 2002, “small scale” activity
was defined in the Polo Step briefings as attacks over a
48-hour timeframe on a hundred targets by up to 300
aircraft. The “white” action level, an August briefing slide
reveals, would “begin to shape [the] battlefield.” Tommy
Franks notes in his memoirs that another color level
actually became the “running start” war option once CENTCOM
planners began calling it that and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld fell in love with the concept.
Southern Watch air attacks
resumed in May 2002, coincident with one of the Polo Step
briefings, following a six-month period in which there had
been virtually no air action. In August, when Franks
presented near-final versions of his war plan, Rumsfeld
changed the rules of engagement for the air forces and
Southern Watch became Southern Focus. Suddenly, in early
September, there followed a four-day series of sustained
strikes hitting Iraqi military communications, headquarters,
anti-ship missile and air defense communications facilities,
all considered key targets in “adjusting” Saddam’s defenses.
Two-thirds of more than 21,000 attack sorties, or flights
counted by single aircraft, that took place before the
invasion occurred in the Southern Focus timeframe beginning
in August.
The September strikes
corresponded to the White level that General Franks
described in May and August slides. That was described as an
air operation of five to seven days’ duration involving
about 1,000 flights by coalition aircraft. This effort was
supposed to have been triggered by the shootdown of a U.S.
aircraft, an Iraqi link to a terrorist act, or confirmed
weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) within Iraq. After that
strikes concentrated overwhelmingly upon shaping the
battlefield rather than their supposed purpose of countering
interference with the no-fly zones. In January 2003, it was
reported that there had been almost two attacks on higher
echelon Iraqi military targets for every one aimed at air
defense or radar sites.
We know from history that
Saddam’s air defenses never did destroy an aircraft in the
no-fly zones—not even a Predator drone. Nor were there Iraqi
terrorist attacks or prewar confirmations of WMDs. Saddam
refused to supply the provocation that Bush wanted. Not to
be put off, Bush simply dispensed with the triggers and
moved ahead on his aerial offensive. When, at the height of
the 2004 electoral season, President Bush told reporters
that before the war his administration had been dealing only
with Desert Badger, he was being disingenuous. This
decoupling of the air attacks from any relation to actual
Iraqi activity is the smoking gun that makes plain Bush’s
aggressive intent. Of course, an actual invasion of Iraq
could not be done covertly, and that fact led directly to
the Bush-Blair conversation in the Oval Office on January
31, 2003. Some justification for war remained necessary.
Bush never got it. The prewar air campaign was purposeful,
targeted and premeditated, one more manipulation on the road
to tragedy.
John Prados is a senior
analyst with the National Security Archive in Washington,
DC. His current book is Safe for Democracy: The Secret
Wars of the CIA. The Polo Step slides can be examined on
the National
Security Archive website.