War starts: Your questions

War starts: Your questions

Our panel of guests - military expert ex naval commander Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold and Blaine Greteman, London based correspondent with Time magazine took your questions.

Click here to read the transcript

---

The war against Iraq is now underway with overnight strikes in an operation that President Bush says will disarm Iraq and free its people.

As dawn broke in Baghdad, anti-aircraft artillery peppered the sky as deep, heavy thuds were heard in the outskirts of the city.

Is war the best course of action? What are the likely implications of a sustained military attack?

---

Transcript:

Susanna Reid:
Hello and welcome to this Interactive forum. The war against Iraq has begun with a wave of limited air strikes by American-led forces. Bombs and cruise missiles were used on the capital Baghdad. American officials said the attacks were intended, in their words, to decapitate the Iraqi government by killing senior figures. In retaliation Iraq has fired a number of missiles into northern Kuwait

We've received many questions from our audience here in the UK and abroad and to help answer them is Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold, a former naval commander and now director of the Royal United Services Institute. And from our World Service studio, the London-based American journalist, Blaine Greteman, who works for American news magazine Time. Welcome to you both and thank you very much indeed for coming in.

Let me put a question to both of you. This is from Charles Stuart-Hunt, England: What exactly are the aims and objectives of the coalition? Is disarmament the primary objective or regime change or both?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
From my point of view I think that the British Government still wants disarmament but I think the reality is that the coalition as a whole wants regime change - and I think actually the two have now blended together and that it's inconceivable you'll get disarmament now without regime change.

Susanna Reid:
Blaine do you broadly agree?

Blaine Greteman:
At this point really all you're hearing about is regime change. The argument about disarmament sort of started to fade away once they weren't trying to make a UN case for it anymore. So when he says the coalition is now looking towards regime change, that's basically the US that's looking towards regime change.

Susanna Reid:
Brian Taylor, UK asks: How long is it likely to be before we see the "shock and awe" tactics that we've all been told were going to be the beginning of this campaign? How long is it before we see those deployed?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
I think this is an interesting question. I think the limited attacks last night were actually done very much on short notice as a result of some information that came in. Having done them, I think the United States particularly will want see what the effect of those is - partly in the reaction of the Iraqi government and also whether or not it causes a rush of surrendering by Iraqi troops. So it may be that the shock and awe attacks will come a little bit later

On the other hand, if, for example, the Iraqis fire more scuds into Kuwait, the coalition may feel that it needs to start the shock and awe really very urgently.

Susanna Reid:
So what sort of timescale do you anticipate?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
Well it certainly could be tonight or tomorrow night. I suspect it won't be more than that.

Susanna Reid:
Mohammed, UK asks: How can we trust US and British forces who killed so many Iraqis in the last Gulf war - how can we trust that these are targeted attacks?

Now Mohammed has put a figure on those who died in the last Gulf war at 20,000. Now obviously that is just his opinion. Perhaps you can assess how many were killed in the last Gulf war and talk about targeted attacks this time around.

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
Well there's no doubt that the attacks this time will be well targeted. Last time I believe the figures were substantially lower but I don't have specific figures - I'm not sure anybody has agreed figures.

I think one important factor is that in the Gulf war only 10% of the munitions fired by the coalition were precision munitions - in this conflict, 90% will be precision. So I think one can expect far greater accuracy. But if Saddam does hide his, for example, artillery in school yards to take an obvious case, then there is a danger of terrible things happening.

Susanna Reid:
Let me ask you Blaine because obviously that goes right to the heart of international opinion doesn't it about this war. Neil Aitken, UK asks: How can the US and UK go into Iraq against such strong international opinion?

And obviously if anything happens as a result of the targets perhaps hitting civilians, that will inflame international opinion against any military action.

Blaine Greteman:
To some extent I have to say that it's already inflamed. The most recent survey that came out from the Pew Research Council in the US - a really respected research body - showed the favourability of the view towards the US dropping right across Europe and Turkey - so that's already happened.

I think that this has been the big gamble for the Bush administration all along. They're thinking if this goes well - if, as they think, the regime collapses quite quickly and people just lay down their guns and cross over, which may actually already be starting to happen a little bit - then I think they can get in there and actually make their case. That's the point at which they feel like they can be seen as liberators instead of invaders. It's going to be a tough argument to make and it's going to take a long time to rebuild these multi-lateral coalitions - they really have been damaged.

Susanna Reid:
John R Migrino, Philippines: Does the US have the right to attack Iraq just because they don't like the leadership of Saddam Hussein?

Aren't the more worrying threats directly to US security? For instance nuclear weapons held by North Korea.

Blaine Greteman:
The nuclear weapons in North Korea are obviously a huge issue right now. There's some interesting arguments in terms of that - in some ways that makes the case for going in and attacking now to some extent because obviously part of the problem with disarming North Korea is that they have much more serious capabilities and it's much more difficult to do and that makes them more dangerous. So the US administration their view is that they don't want Saddam to achieve that kind of power.

In terms of legality which that sort of addresses, that's a really hotly debated topic in the US right now. A lot of legal scholars are looking at it - and the view is actually pretty dubious. Kofi Annan has said this violates UN law. A lot of legal scholars are saying it's a real threat. It's a real tough case to make that this is actually a legal action although the administration feels confident that they can base it on previous UN resolutions that were passed over the past 12 years.

Susanna Reid:
Jason Bloomfield, UK: Could Bush and Blair in theory be tried in an international court if it's ruled that this conflict does break international law?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
I think that whatever the theory might be, that the practise is that they certainly will not be.

The Government has very clearly taken legal advice from its own law officers. The law officers have very clearly said that the attacks are legal. It's doesn't mean to say they're morally good but they are legal. This is primarily based, I think, on two things: one is the humanitarian aspect which is not so strong but the other is the sequence of binding Security Council resolutions up to and including Resolution 1441.

Susanna Reid:
This morning already we've seen on our television screens troops having to don masks because of fears of a gas attack and in Kuwait city as well there were sirens sounding - they're on high alert for exactly the same reason.

Will Ridler, London asks: How likely is it that Iraq would deploy bio-chemical weapons against US or UK troops?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
Well it is a possibility - it's a worse case scenario that the troops must protect against and what you're seeing now is them doing the drills which are absolutely right and proper.

In the last Gulf war, Saddam did have chemical weapons. He could have loaded them into his scuds and fired them against Israel. He fired scuds against Israel and did not use chemical warheads. Scuds have already been fired into Kuwait city again without chemical weapons being fired.

I think what one may deduce from that is that he is not going to do that and indeed interestingly the French reaction to the possibility of the use of chemical weapons - they're saying that all bets are off if they fire chemical weapons they will come in on behalf of the coalition straight away.

Susanna Reid:
John Tanner, Malvern, UK asks: What is the likelihood of nuclear retaliation by the US should the allied forces come under chemical or biological attack?

What's the chance of us seeing nuclear weapons used by any side in this conflict?

Blaine Greteman:
I think it would be highly unlikely. The US has been careful not to rule out any options but this is already a precedent-setting war in so many ways because it is a pre-emptive strike. Unless Saddam's current capabilities were a lot more than what US intelligence actually thinks they are, I can't see that happening.

You talk about inflaming world opinion - that very clearly would do it in a way that I don't think that even the Bush administration, with its penchant for unilateral action, I don't think that they're going step down that road.

Susanna Reid:
Alex Swallow, England asks: The last thing that we want is to be drawn into a protracted war in the streets of Baghdad because that would play right into Saddam's hands. How confident do you think the military is that this can be avoided?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
I think there's a spectrum of outcomes from the benign to the malign and clearly not having to fight in Baghdad is very much in the benign side of that. Having said that, it is very possible and Saddam has said that he will fight in Baghdad. He has the special republican guard, which are most loyal to him, surrounding him as he retreats into the heartland - so it is possible.

If he does do that then there are also a number of options open to the coalition - one of which is, as it were, putting a ring of steel around Baghdad because Baghdad on its own, without the ability to have commander control over forces outside Baghdad, becomes comparatively speaking irrelevant and it can wither on the vine.

So I don't think it's necessary that the coalition troops will be doing a Stalingrad - which is rather what one gets the impression Saddam is trying to provoke the coalition forces into doing. I don't think that is necessary and I don't think it will be the outcome.

Susanna Reid:
Anon, UK asks: I've received communication from my brother fighting with one of the companies out there advising he's losing weight fast as they don't have enough food. Why don't the troops have the basic necessities they need?

We've had a number of e-mails at the BBC on specifically this point. Where families back here have heard that their boys have not been getting the food that they need to fight and that's a worry isn't it?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
Well it may be a worry. I think that it is a comparatively few examples of people who have complained. But the word I'm getting from the official channels is that the food is fine. The food isn't luxurious by any extent. They are training very hard. They're not drinking large amounts of beer - it is very possible, and I hate to say this, that some of the people who are losing weight fast, actually it's no bad thing.

Susanna Reid:
Sam, Sweden: Does the UN have any meaning or value left?

Let me add to that a question from Yukiko, USA who asks: Why did the UN withdraw its inspectors immediately after the ultimatum was declared when the UN Security Council hadn't decided whether the inspections should be halted?

I wonder if you can address those concerns about the way the UN's been operating?

Blaine Greteman:
On the first question it was really just a basic matter of safety I think. They realised at that point that all signs were pointing to the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn't going to step down and that bombs would start falling relatively soon and of course the first priority of the UN with its staff has to be protecting them and so that's exactly what they were doing there.

On the second question - the relevance of the UN - it's currently been damaged at least from the American perspective. They are several high ranking members of the US administration who have thought that the UN was actually fairly irrelevant from the get-go and if not for a couple people like Colin Powell and Prime Minister Tony Blair, probably would have skirted it in the first place - that's at least what they wanted to do.

So from that perspective it's definitely been damaged. It's probably going to prove its worth in the reconstruction of Iraq. It's almost certain that the US is going to want the UN's help in reconstructing Iraq - they don't want to foot that bill by themselves. And I think it's almost certain that the UN would want to be involved with that and probably the Iraqi people would want them to be involved with that as well. I think it's preferable all round. So I think we'll start to see the UN rebuilding its credibility at that point.

But there's no doubt at all that at least from the US - a lot of people in the US' perspective - it has been really, really damaged . It's yet to see if it's ever going to be something that going to be considered a really key instrument of international law and diplomacy again from the US side.

Susanna Reid:
Last question from Uma, India: What is the timeline set by George Bush for the end of the war?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
It's interesting that on both sides of the Atlantic the leaders have been saying - don't expect this to be quite as quick as some may think. There's been some speculation that its all going to be over very quickly - the first bombs go in and all the Iraqi soldiers will lay down their arms - I don't think that is necessarily so.

However, I don't think we're going to see an air bombardment of the 38 days that we saw in the first Gulf war and I think we're talking more about three, four, five days. Then you have the drive through by ground forces and that is going to take time too. So I think one may be talking of say three or four weeks which would be a lot shorter than the first Gulf war but not the 48 hours that some are speculating.

Now if it is 48 hours that they do lay down then we can all be very happy that that is so. But I think we should be prepared for a slightly extended war.

Susanna Reid:
Weeks rather than days?

Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold:
That's right.

Susanna Reid:
I'm afraid that's all we have time for. Thanks to my guests, Blaine Greteman from Time magazine and Rear Admiral Richard Cobbald from the Royal United Services Institute. From me, Susanna Reid and the rest of the Interactive team, thanks for joining us and goodbye.