NYT. 29 July 2002. U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option.
Excerpts.

WASHINGTON -- As the Bush administration considers its military options
for deposing Saddam Hussein, senior administration and Pentagon
officials say they are exploring a new if risky approach: take Baghdad
and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of
cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the
government.

The "inside-out" approach, as some call this Baghdad-first option, would
capitalize on the American military's ability to strike over long
distances, maneuvering forces to envelop a large target.

Those advocating that plan say it reflects a strong desire to find a
strategy that would not require a full quarter-million American troops,
yet hits hard enough to succeed.

One important aim would be to disrupt Iraq's ability to order the use of
weapons of mass destruction.

The advantages and risks of strikes aimed deep inside the country and
radiating outward are now under active discussion, according to senior
administration and Defense Department officials.

No formal plan has yet been presented to President Bush or the senior
members of his national security team, and several officials cautioned
that a number of alternatives were still under consideration.

The inside-out ideas are essentially the reverse of the American
strategy in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, which dislodged Mr. Hussein's
occupying army from Kuwait.

The aim would be to kill or isolate Mr. Hussein and to pre-empt Iraq's
use of weapons of mass destruction, whether against an incoming force,
front-line allies or Israel. Those weapons are the wild card in all the
outlines of a military confrontation

Officials say it may be possible to paralyze an Iraqi
command-and-control system that is highly centralized and authoritarian.

Under such a system, midlevel officers are not taught to improvise,
should they be cut off from commanders. It is also possible that those
midlevel officers, if they fear that Mr. Hussein has been killed, would
not bother to fire weapons of mass destruction.

If that can be accomplished with a smaller invasion force than the
250,000 troops suggested in early drafts, the approach could appeal to
skittish gulf allies whose bases would be required for a war.

Those states are quietly advocating the quickest and smallest military
operation possible, to lessen anti-American protests on their streets.

In that sense, the war planning includes the political dimension of
trying to tip reluctant allies into supporting, tacitly at least, the
operation.

A plan to immobilize the Iraqi leadership would draw from lessons
learned on maneuver warfare in the invasion of Panama, which Dick Cheney
and Colin L. Powell directed, and on the surprise Inchon Sea landing in
Korea in 1951, according to officials who monitor the internal debate.

Pentagon officials warn however that tracking Mr. Hussein with any
certainty is difficult if not impossible, as shown by the global manhunt
now under way for Osama bin Laden.

Something nearer the 250,000 figure might have to be deployed to the
region anyway, to make sure that any forces that drop into Baghdad do
not become isolated or surrounded, bereft of a land line providing
military support, food and ammunition.

The Defense Department deputy spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said the
Pentagon would have no comment on potential military plans for Iraq.

But it is clear that the debate over whether and how to dislodge Mr.
Hussein is gaining speed within the administration and on Capitol Hill.

No timetable has been set for military action, however, and if President
Bush decides to go ahead, his aides say, he will have to make a public,
convincing case about why Mr. Hussein poses an intolerable threat to the
United States and its allies.

Some members of Congress, including conservative Republicans, are
beginning to urge Mr. Bush to explain his reasoning and goals before
committing American forces to topple a foreign government that has not
attacked the United States.

"The time will come to do all of that," a senior administration official
said in an interview on Friday.

"And no one is opposed to doing it."