Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
We Can't Do It Without You!  
     
Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives
   
 
   Featured Views  
 

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
 
 
Building a War: As Some Argue, Supply Lines Fill Up
Published on Sunday, November 10, 2002 by the Los Angeles Times
Building a War: As Some Argue, Supply Lines Fill Up
by William M. Arkin
 

WASHINGTON -- In all the to-and-fro of debate over whether the United States should or will wage war against Iraq, almost no one was paying attention to Maj. Gen. Kenneth Privratsky. Outside the tight little world of the Military Traffic Management Command, almost no one had even heard of him. Yet Privratsky's former assignment may tell us more about the true intent and direction of the Bush administration than all the diplomatic pronouncements, political maneuvers and United Nations debates put together.

Privratsky was busy shipping thousands of tons of military equipment and supplies to the network of new U.S. bases that have sprung up like dragon's teeth across Central Asia and the Middle East. Among the resources he was using was the Russian railway system.

"I never imagined that I would be involved in shipping cargo through Russia," the former Traffic Command chief says, seeming a little awed to have found himself running Army supply trains through the heartland of his former Cold War enemy.

An army marches on its stomach, Napoleon famously observed. There is no more voracious military stomach than the U.S. armed forces. And since the war on terrorism began with Americans fighting in Afghanistan, the Defense Department has moved with notable agility to extend its globe-girdling capacity to march. It is this massive buildup of military capabilities -- and the way it ropes in reluctant partners, sometimes publicly and sometimes privately -- that shows where senior officials in the Bush administration are headed.

Some analysts have suggested that U.N. weapons inspections may reduce the likelihood of war. That is not how senior White House and Pentagon officials see it. None believes Saddam Hussein will permit effective inspections, but they see the U.N. effort as a win-win situation: The inspections process will improve the political climate for eventual action and buy time for the Pentagon to get ready. The war that Bush and his team think is necessary and inevitable will thus come with the approval of both Congress and the U.N. Meanwhile, one of the main practical obstacles to war with Iraq will have been dealt with: The enormous infrastructure needed to supply and sustain today's armed forces against Iraq is being constructed on the foundations of the system created for the war in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan war, initiated just 26 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, set in motion the third-biggest airlift effort in history, after the Berlin airlift of 1948-49 and the allied buildup following the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But it was not enough. Sea-lift and surface shipments were needed too. Ships carried ammunition, military supplies and humanitarian aid to Persian Gulf and Pakistani ports for American and coalition forces to the south and west. In the north, containers were unloaded at ports in the Netherlands and Germany, in the Russian Arctic, on the Black Sea, and in Vladivostok in the Russian far east.

These shipments made their way to U.S. forces operating for the first time in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and the jumble of other 'stans, using a complex system of rail lines that included those of the former Soviet Union and its old satellites. The Russian system was especially fragile, ground down by decades of communist mismanagement and neglect. But U.S. logistics specialists and U.S. materiel made it work. The new system could not only handle vastly larger quantities of material but do so at substantially lower cost. For example, flying the first 1.4 million humanitarian rations into Afghanistan cost more than $7 per meal; sending the next million rations via surface transportation cost just 15 cents per meal.

By the time Privratsky and his colleagues had the surface routes fully operational, they were handling 92% of all military cargo used in Afghanistan. Today, that system is being retooled for Iraq. Many bases in the Persian Gulf region can serve as well for war in Iraq as they have for Afghanistan. And the reduced scale of military operations in Afghanistan -- along with greater allied military involvement there -- is freeing up resources for the next conflict.

To understand the scale of the effort underway, one must look at the Pentagon's evolving war plans. Prior to Sept. 11, Central Command's blueprint for war with Iraq, OPLAN 1003-98, calculated that 10 airfields and six seaports would be needed to sustain air, ground and naval forces. As the plan has evolved, force levels have grown and the requirement for airfields and seaports has risen to 18 and 13 respectively. OPLAN 1003-98 calls for more than 60,000 short tons in supplies a day, the equivalent of some 3,500 tractor-trailers driving the distance from Tampa, Fla., to Savannah, Ga., every day -- or 5,000 flights by C-130 Hercules cargo planes.

It is the logistical equivalent of loading up, moving and unloading everyone and everything in the city of Norfolk, Va. -- population 230,000 -- including all the automobiles, to the Middle East. Fortunately for the Pentagon, Kuwait has given carte blanche for the use of its airfields, ports and warehouses in any upcoming war. Thanks to operations Southern and Northern Watch, which have patrolled the "no-fly" zones in Iraq for the last 12 years, the United States also has well-tended and continually expanded bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

Qatar formally entered the mix when Operation Enduring Freedom began last year. The base at the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean also stands ready to host heavy B-2 and B-52 bombers.

Not everyone is on board. Jordan has made it clear to Washington that it cannot overtly host American forces on its soil. Also, Saudi Arabia is uncomfortable with the direction of U.S. policy. Pentagon leaders, however, remain confident the Saudis will ultimately allow everything except the launching of offensive strikes from their soil. But even if the United States were to lose its modern command center and air base at Prince Sultan, the lineup of alternatives is impressive.

Though media attention has focused on the new U.S. base at Al Udeid in Qatar, the buildup in Oman looms largest in Pentagon calculations. Oman was not much used in Desert Storm, but it now has three major bases that could serve as alternatives to other bases in the Arab world. For years, the Pentagon has been stockpiling munitions in Oman. In December, B-1 bombers operating from Diego Garcia moved to Thumrait, Oman. That reduced the need for shipping munitions to the more distant British base, and it brought the planes closer to Iraq. Moreover, munitions have been moved to Oman from Azraq in Jordan.

Beyond the Middle East, U.S. bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and other parts of Central Asia add to the capabilities against Iraq. Many of these bases had just become fully operational as the fighting in Afghanistan ended. Moreover, U.S. units stationed there are being augmented, and in some cases replaced, by French Mirages. F-16s are also expected from Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. More allied aircraft in Afghanistan means more U.S. planes free for duty elsewhere. If necessary, these planes and some of the new bases, with their established ship and rail supply lines through Russia, could even play a direct role against Iraq.

Remember, F-15E Strike Eagles flew combat missions from Kuwait around Iran into Afghanistan. There is no reason why similar missions could not be flown from Central Asia to Iraq. Aerial tankers stand ready at 17 locations, including places like Bulgaria. Next month, the U.S. Central Command will send a mobile command post and a staff of 600 to Qatar for "Exercise Internal Look." Their mission: to test the networks of communications and computers needed to link together air, naval, ground, special operations, intelligence and coalition partners' assets during an Iraq war.

The Pentagon, said CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, wants "to be sure that we have the right bandwidth lined up, to be sure that we can talk to our components." Even the laborious task of bringing in the heavy weapons and large formations of Army and Marine Corps troops is well advanced. Much of the heavy gear is already positioned in the region. Ships are bringing in more. The Dahl, for instance, left Charleston, S.C., on April 14 bound for the Persian Gulf with the largest shipment ever loaded on a Navy roll-on, roll-off transport.

Last week, as the United Nations Security Council debated and approved a resolution on Iraq, it is worth remembering that the best guide to White House intentions may be deeds, not words. By all signs, the necessary pieces of the great logistical puzzle are settling into place for war in early winter.

The Iraqis may chatter about whether the U.S. armed forces have what it takes for another war. The answer is just over the horizon, in all directions. And for those who worry about unilateralism, the Bush war machine seems to enjoy a surprising number of compliant, if not vocal, partners. Just look at Brig. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody, Privratsky's replacement, and her Russian railroad.

William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-Mail: warkin@igc.org

Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times

###

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
 
     
 
 

CommonDreams.org
Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community.
Independent, non-profit newscenter since 1997.

Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives

To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.