To the victor belong the I told you so's

New York Daily News ^ | 4/08/03 | Michael Kramer

[kattracks]

He doesn't smoke and he doesn't drink, but I'd bet that President Bush is thinking about sipping some champagne and smoking a cigar. In fact, if he ever does light up, no one could fault Bush for uttering the line made famous by George Peppard as he pulled a stogie from his pocket in the hit 1980s TV show "The A-Team": "I love it when a plan comes together."

For that's exactly what's happening. Despite the intense second-guessing from a slew of retired generals when Tommy Franks' Army seemed bogged down south of Baghdad, the plan is indeed coming together. The war in Iraq is being won. In less than three weeks, it is almost over - with mercifully few allied and civilian deaths.

Sure, some of Saddam Hussein's loyal fanatics - the "dead-enders," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calls them - will hold out for a while longer and take some more, perhaps many more, U.S. casualties as they do.

There's still a chance, too, that the Iraqis will use some of their chemical weapons. If the early reports are true and some of the banned poisons have indeed been found, why would Saddam even try to preserve the fiction that he doesn't have them?

So, yes, some more unfortunate surprises may come. But the die is cast - and the big "I-told-you-so's" are coming.

For the military, and especially for Rumsfeld, the vindication will be especially sweet. The combination of precise air power and speedy ground forces appears to have done the job, which means military doctrine will never be the same. More high-tech weapons will be the norm. Special operations will become a staple of future conflicts rather than a sideshow. The Powell Doctrine of massive force - so successful in Gulf War I - will be deep-sixed, perhaps forever.

Those Democrats who've criticized the war while it's been waged will be out in the cold. The presidential candidates among them, and particularly Sen. John Kerry, the early front-runner who stupidly called for a "regime change" in the U.S. last week, might be best advised to postpone his dream until after Bush can't run again.

Of greatest importance as the "I-told-you-so's" roar forth, the other rogue states in Bush's sights will have to engage in a major rethink - or risk Saddam's fate. As the naysayers held sway last week, many predicted that the major consequence of Iraq - no matter the victory there - would be a loss of fortitude. It was said that the difficulties in Iraq would kill Bush's appetite for any similar adventures.

But the reverse will probably be true.

In Iran, another "axis of evil" regime might think twice before rushing to acquire nuclear weapons.

In Syria, where President Bashar Assad misread the course in Iraq and sent equipment to Saddam, it'll be fun to see how Damascus maneuvers to get off Bush's merde list.

In North Korea, Kim Jong Il might realize he should deal away his nukes before the Iraq distraction is over and Bush turns his attention to the crisis brewing there.

In Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Arab world, there could finally be some serious assistance aimed at rooting out Osama Bin Laden's thugs.

On the West Bank, the Palestinians may understand that they should grasp whatever peace proposal the administration's latest Middle East road map ends up offering.

At the UN Security Council, even France might come to believe that following Bush's lead will prove a more astute policy than standing against the U.S.

None of these outcomes is certain, but all of them are now possible - or soon will be.

To many on the outside, President Bush took a huge risk. To him, the war against Iraq - a war made necessary because Sept. 11 demanded that the U.S. set an example - was no more than a duty imposed by his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" our liberty.

In other words, in whatever formulation he eventually adopts - and it won't be "I told you so" - the President will be saying, "We did what we had to do in Iraq, and we'll do it again elsewhere if we must."

Originally published on April 8, 2003

[The_Victor]

I told you so!

[hchutch]

I think the Rumsfeld Doctrine has proven it can work in some situations, albeit I tend to lean towards having the ability to do the Powell Doctrine as well.

This is America, why should we have to pick one or the other? I think we can pull off BOTH. :)

[theDentist]

"I love it when a plan comes together."

[Registered]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

[BibChr]

If the early reports are true and some of the banned poisons have indeed been found, why would Saddam even try to preserve the fiction that he doesn't have them?

I don't know... because even they're not suicidally stupid enough to want to be nuclearized??

Dan

[Miss Marple]

Actually, I think this is more of a combination of both the Powell and Rumsfeld doctrines. We have a mobile light force moving around the country, but we also have overwhelming force as well, both in the air and on the ground as forces continue to pour into Iraq.

President Bush won't ever say "I told you so," but I will be happy to take that role for him.

Also, I am willing to say "Neener, neener!"

[patriciaruth]

Giggle.

[sinkspur]

Special operations will become a staple of future conflicts rather than a sideshow.

And this should scare the hell out of terrorist regimes.

At any time, at any place, out of nowhere---BLAM!!!

Why kill many when one assassination can send the message?

[PhiKapMom]

Coming from the military side of the house, I support the Rumsfeld doctrine instead of the continual diplospeak coming out of the State Department. Sometimes the "let's just get along" doesn't work!

That last month with the 2nd resolution was a diplospeak nightmare and never should have happened.

The Rumsfeld doctrine will now make it easier for the diplomats but there is too much talk about having the UN involved in helping more than just humanitarian. The UN failed miserably in their humanitarian efforts as well in Iraq when the warehouse was found with all the UN aid supplies not distributed. Just what were the UN aid workers doing?

At Strategic Command B-52 bases their motto has always been Peace through Stength which is now extended to the entire Air Force. It was true in the Cold War and it is still true today. You have to have a strong military and be willing to back it up or diplomacy will fail.

[ex-Texan]

*BUMP* ! ... very good, so very good.

[Cosmo]

Anyone else think the warm afterglow of victory will remain long enough to ensure GW's victory in 2004 , economy be damned?

It seems to me that this ongoing war on terror --so successful as it is -- speaks well to the old HW Bush's "don't change horses in midstream" re-election campaign. None of the democratic hopefuls have shown any real interest in continuing with the prosecution of the war on terror. Americans, i think, see that it is going as well as can be expected and would like to see it through. And they know that it will be as long as GW is in the driver's seat.

feel the gin

[hchutch]

The Powell Doctrine referred to was "overwhelming force."

That is one I can support as well. High-tech is good, but high-tech and large numbers is much better than high-tech alone. ;)

[Pontiac]

Anyone else think the warm afterglow of victory will remain long enough to ensure GW's victory in 2004 , economy be damned?

Personally I believe Syria will be the next domino to fall in Bush’s game of topple the dictator. And that operation should keep the glow of success shining well in to 2004.

In my opinion Syria is a much bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iraq and perhaps should have been taken first anyway.

[3AngelaD]

I would like to second those two neeners.

[PhiKapMom]

I agree with the overwhelming force -- airpower cannot do it alone. You need all units working together!

What I dislike are the diplomats with their diplospeak!

[demosthenes the elder]

agreed.
flexible response capacity is a key component in military planning.

[DCPatriot]

Last night FOX or CNN told how they pin-pointed the location of Saddam Hussein.

It seems they used the "Vanguard System", a program having to do with cell phones, which the British sold Hussein about 10 years ago.

Well, they broke the code, enabling the Coalition Forces to actually know where Saddam Hussein was standing (within 6 meters).

Now, because he has body-doubles...they had to make sure than a visual target was acquired to go along with Saddam's personal cell phone conversation.

They reported that Saddam and his "Higher Government Officials" were conversing about which escape routes to use out of Baghdad.

"What time is the van going to be here, you swine of a camel?, screamed Saddam.

"Yes Sir! The van is going to be there at.....".

"EXCUSE ME! We have the President of the United States on the line for a Mr. Saddam Hussein"?

As Saddam took seconds to remove the shock and surprise on his face, a voice said.....

"Hey Saddam! This is George W. Bush....son of George Herbert Walker Bush. I TOLD YOU I WOULD GET YOU!

Yippee Ky-Aye muther***ker!"

[Cosmo]

I think Syria probably has much of Sadaam's WMD's in their possession, so you could very well be right. Iran might very well face an insurrection very soon, so to insert ourselves into the mix might not be necessary

[hchutch]

For the present that is the case, albeit I think that John Warden's theories will make the key to military success a Rumsfeld/Powell fusion focusing primarily on air power.

Since World War II, wars have been decided at 35,000 feet betwen aircraft. No nation has ever lost a war on the battlefield when it controlled the air.