HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
Britain and the United States have all but fired the first shots of the second Gulf War by dramatically extending the range of targets in the flight-exclusion zones over Iraq to soften up the country for an allied ground invasion.
Allied pilots have attacked surface-to-surface missile systems and are believed to have hit multiple-launch rockets.
Targets hit in recent days include the Ababil-100, a Soviet-designed surface-to-air missile system adapted to hit targets on the ground, and the Astros 2 ground rocket launcher with a range of up to 90 kilometres. These would be used to defend Iraq in the event of an invasion or to attack allied troops stationed in Kuwait.
Britain and the US insist publicly that the rules for enforcing the flight-exclusion zones over the north and south of Iraq have not changed - pilots open fire if only targeted. But defence officials admit privately that there has been an aggressive upping of the ante to weaken Iraqi defences ahead of a ground invasion.
Analysts confirm there has been an intensification of what is known as "the undeclared war".
The allied action will prompt allegations that Britain and the US have unilaterally changed the rules of the flight-exclusion zones. These zones were established after the last Gulf War to protect Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north.
John Warden, a retired US air force colonel who was an architect of the 1991 Gulf War air campaign, gave a taste of the change in tactics when he said: "We have added a new category of targets, and those were some of the Iraqi multiple rocket launchers and some of their relatively short-range surface-to-surface missiles."
Loren Thompson, a defence analyst with the US Lexington Institute, said: "The US military is taking advantage of the no-fly zones to prepare the battle space for war. There's been a sporadic war occurring in the air over Iraq for a dozen years now. This merely ratchets up the intensity."
The intensification of the Anglo-American attacks is likely to be seized on by Iraq, which has long complained that Britain and the US have abused the flight-exclusion zones.http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/03/1046540131919.html
Allied pilots have attacked surface-to-surface missile systems and are believed to have hit multiple-launch rockets.
Targets hit in recent days include the Ababil-100, a Soviet-designed surface-to-air missile system adapted to hit targets on the ground, and the Astros 2 ground rocket launcher with a range of up to 90 kilometres. These would be used to defend Iraq in the event of an invasion or to attack allied troops stationed in Kuwait.
Britain and the US insist publicly that the rules for enforcing the flight-exclusion zones over the north and south of Iraq have not changed - pilots open fire if only targeted. But defence officials admit privately that there has been an aggressive upping of the ante to weaken Iraqi defences ahead of a ground invasion.
Analysts confirm there has been an intensification of what is known as "the undeclared war".
The allied action will prompt allegations that Britain and the US have unilaterally changed the rules of the flight-exclusion zones. These zones were established after the last Gulf War to protect Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north.
John Warden, a retired US air force colonel who was an architect of the 1991 Gulf War air campaign, gave a taste of the change in tactics when he said: "We have added a new category of targets, and those were some of the Iraqi multiple rocket launchers and some of their relatively short-range surface-to-surface missiles."
Loren Thompson, a defence analyst with the US Lexington Institute, said: "The US military is taking advantage of the no-fly zones to prepare the battle space for war. There's been a sporadic war occurring in the air over Iraq for a dozen years now. This merely ratchets up the intensity."
The intensification of the Anglo-American attacks is likely to be seized on by Iraq, which has long complained that Britain and the US have abused the flight-exclusion zones.http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/03/1046540131919.html
