[iwar] Air strikes delayed as allies express doubts

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-03 19:57:05


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2671-1002164090-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13170 invoked by uid 510); 4 Oct 2001 02:57:11 -0000
Received: from n33.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.83) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 4 Oct 2001 02:57:11 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2671-1002164090-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.220] by n33.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Oct 2001 02:57:07 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 4 Oct 2001 02:54:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 64897 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2001 02:54:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 4 Oct 2001 02:54:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Oct 2001 02:57:05 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id TAA22661 for iwar@onelist.com; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:57:05 -0700
Message-Id: <200110040257.TAA22661@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] Air strikes delayed as allies express doubts
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

iwar spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited site and thought you should see it.

To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site,
go to http://www.guardian.co.uk

Air strikes delayed as allies express doubts

Blair and US in mission to repair holes in alliance
Julian Borger in Washington, Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour
Wednesday October 03 2001
The Guardian

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and Tony Blair embarked
yesterday on emergency missions to repair holes in a shaky
anti-terrorist coalition, after nervousness among key regional allies
pushed back the launch of air strikes on Afghanistan. 

American officials yesterday confirmed that the governments of Saudi
Arabia, Oman and Uzbekistan had had last-minute doubts about allowing
their territory to serve as a base for military operations aimed at
Osama bin Laden, his al-Qaida terrorist group and the Taliban in
Afghanistan. 

The three governments, together with Pakistan, have "serious problems"
about allowing the US to establish bases for special forces and military
hardware on their territory, according to American officials. 

The apparent deadlock in negotiations about the bases has prompted a
flurry of diplomatic activity.  Mr Rumsfeld arrived in Saudi Arabia
yesterday for talks with King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdullah and the
defence minister, Prince Sultan.  Earlier this year, the US completed a
state-of-the-art command centre at the Prince Sultan air base near
Riyadh, which could be vital in a sustained aerial campaign. 

Talking to journalists during the flight, Mr Rumsfeld said: "We are not
going to be making requests of the Saudi Arabian government.  We have a
long-standing relationship with them."

Mr Blair has also embarked on a diplomatic round.  Today he will brief
MPs for a second time since the crisis broke, before flying to Moscow
for talks with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.  He is expected to
probe Mr Putin on the extent of likely Russian tolerance for military
action, as well as assure the Russian leader that President George Bush
does not see force as the solution to the crisis. 

A US news agency, Knight-Ridder, yesterday reported that the US and
Britain were close to launching air strikes before the three allies
expressed their doubts.  Asked about the report, an administration
official said: "It's going too far to say we were ready for take off,
and nobody is going to tell you that.  Put it this way - keeping all
these people on board at the same time is a complicated business."

Uzbekistan has also become a sharp issue because any mission that
involves sending special forces into Afghanistan will require search and
rescue units to be stationed close to the border of Afghanistan - and
Uzbekistan is the most likely place.  The Pentagon has placed 1,000
soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division on deployment alert at their base
at Fort Drum in New York.  The light infantry division is trained in
search and rescue missions and there had been speculation that it was
due to be sent to Uzbekistan. 

Uzbekistan has given permission for US planes to fly over its territory,
but has balked at the proposed use of American infantry on its soil.  If
the 10th Mountain Division is eventually sent to the central Asian
republic, it would mark the first time that Nato troops have taken part
in operations on territory of the former Soviet Union.  However, the
government in Tashkent was reported to be holding out yesterday for a
"status of forces" agreement, intended to put legal parameters on US
military activities there. 

Charles Fairbanks, a central Asian expert at the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins university, said: "It could be a
negotiating tool.  Its very much the old Soviet style - to agree until
the last moment and then ask for more."

Diplomats in Washington say the Saudi government has asked Washington
not to make requests it cannot fulfil, for fear of aggravating
anti-western sentiment among the Saudi population. 

"We are respectful of the circumstances of the countries in the region;
we understand that," Mr Rumsfeld said. 

British defence sources told the Guardian last night that no Arab state
near to Afghanistan - including Oman, a close ally of Britain - was
likely to allow its bases to be used for attacks.  The only Arab country
that would do so was Kuwait, but it was too far from Afghanistan. 

This is one reason behind the massive build-up of US ships in the
area,which could be used as alternative, floating, bases.  There will
soon be five aircraft carriers - four American and one British - in
striking distance of Afghanistan. 

One of the carriers, the USS Kitty Hawk, has been deployed without its
full complement of aircraft, allowing it to serve as a platform for
marine or special forces missions. 

Mr Rumsfeld is due to leave Riyadh today for Oman and Egypt, before
flying to Uzbekistan tomorrow.  Last month, Oman hosted British naval
exercises and was the launching pad for an abortive US hostage-rescue
mission to Iran in 1980.  But it has reportedly expressed misgivings
about the scale and targets of President Bush's war on terrorism. 

As a further indication of Washington's concern about the risks of
military action, the US has asked its allies to provide "Nato assets"
for the operation.  These could include surveillance aircraft, airborne
tankers to refuel bombers, and aircraft equipped to suppress radar and
search for targets at night. 

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:53 PST