US takes a different tack to undermine Iraq

AFTER THE airstrikes of December, Britain and the US have apparently lapsed back into a Cold War with Iraq, punctuated by challenges to the allied aircraft in the no-fly zone. But behind the scenes, something is happening: the US seems to be preparing the ground for a new strategy.

General Anthony Zinni, the head of US Central Command, America's most senior military representative for the Gulf, has made it clear that one of the central aims of the air campaign against Iraq was to undermine the regime, and that the US is watching and listening very carefully to see whether it has had any such effect. He has also given the clearest hint yet that the US could be prepared to intervene to support a revolt against Saddam Hussein.

As Gen Zinni addressed us at the Pentagon on Friday, the State Department was giving details of what it said were reports of executions and instability in the country. These briefings confirm that the US believed some time before the December airstrikes that there was instability in southern Iraq.

Separately, the revelations in New York about the intelligence role of Unscom show that back in March - when it was clear that the useful life of the weapons inspectors was coming to an end - the US decided to go for broke in gaining as much intelligence as possible about the regime. That information was employed during the air raids, in particular for targeting the infrastructure of the Iraqi security services. These organisations are used both for internal security and protecting the development of weapons of mass destruction.

But the US also struck to weaken the regime. A special effort was made to cripple the Republican Guard. Both of its corps headquarters and all the divisions were apparently hit, with a special emphasis on two divisions in the south.

"There are some brigades and divisions right now that are operating out of tents," said Gen Zinni. "They don't have barracks to go back to. They don't have a headquarters. They don't have the comms equipment.... They're being given missions for internal security and other things they have to execute under some very tough situations."

Secondly, the US military aimed for - and believes it hit - some of the regime's key figures. The general went on: "We are looking at reports that certain senior leadership targets were hit, that there were senior leadership members in there who were part of the casualty lists, especially in the special security organisations and in the Republican Guard."

Thirdly, the US sought to capitalise on what it believes is dissent within the regular army, and is monitoring signs that this might be spreading. "We have seen executions in the south," he added. "One division in particular lost its commander and several others. The reports we're getting is that that was as a result of not obeying orders. I think there's some confusion in the ranks, and there's some disgruntlement with how this is done and who they answer to."

He was also clear about what might happen next. "I would follow the special security services, the Republican Guards themselves, look at their activities," he said. "I would look for any signs of disloyalty or breaking ranks in the regular army, in other military.

"I would look for signs that key leaders who may not be supportive of Saddam's policy would suddenly disappear from the scene, or for reports of executions or jailings."

The US has backed plenty of insurgencies before, and has supported the Kurds in northern Iraq. Indeed, a team of British and American officials were to meet Kurdish leaders in the region this week.

So Gen Zinni may have been a little disingenuous when he suggested that "I think I would look in places where there's been traditional dissident activity, in the south, in the north, that might increase ... that there might be acts of sabotage."

Gently, the US has also started to develop a rationale for intervening in Iraq militarily to support insurgents.

Gen Zinni was asked what, if the Iraqis launched a major offensive or action against the Shias in the south, would be the rules of engagement?

"If it were major, that assumes [Saddam] would have to bring additional forces in. He would be in violation of the no-drive zone. If they were air forces, he'd be in violation of the no-fly zone" - both actions that the US could use to to justify the use of military force.

"That could be perceived as a threat even to Kuwait, you know, and we're obviously committed to the defence of Kuwait. So ... if I get your question, the rationale for taking action would be based on those."