Will They Fight? Iraqi officers recount the "mother of all battles."

Opinion Journal (WSJ) ^ | Saturday, March 15, 2003 | STUART HERRINGTON

[aculeus]

Twelve years ago, I led a top secret team of interrogation specialists in a covert location "somewhere in the Middle East." Our mission was to interrogate Saddam Hussein's senior officers, whom we expected to capture as a result of the fierce ground offensive of U.S. and coalition forces. We were confident of a swift victory, in spite of the bombardment of prewar hype by defense and media pundits. We were told our coalition forces would face a million-man, battle-hardened Iraqi army whose soldiers were masters of defense. Had not Iraqi artillery harvested Iranians by the tens of thousands in the recently concluded Iran-Iraq War? Saddam's ruthlessness would mean chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons might rain down on coalition forces. Thirty thousand Americans might die. The Iraqi dictator would unleash the mailed fist of terrorism world-wide, and the world economy would be destabilized as oil prices skyrocketed to $200 a barrel. Israel could be drawn into the conflict, which would engulf the entire Middle East in a doomsday-like scenario.

[ConservativeMan55]

Very nice article! Bump! This was an excellent read.

[aculeus]

Very nice article! Bump! This was an excellent read.

Immodestly agreeing bump!

[Enduring Freedom]

Saddam attempting to use the WMD he claims to not possess (how ironic is that!) will mean total political victory for Bush and Blair and massive retribution for Socialists, Democrats and resistive Iraqis.

Not using WMD will mean he will expire rapidly by his own people's hands.

A lose-lose proposition for Saddam.

His only hope remains diplomatic, with tyrant-supporters France, Germany and Russia on the side of Evil once again.

Bush, thank you for dumping Powell and the mad quest for world approval.

Undeserving as they are, you have saved the world, again.

[First_Salute]

one officer was distraught. "You have just made a big mistake, Colonel," he intoned. "When you try to kill a snake, you must strike the head, not the body. You should have done to Saddam what you did to Noriega." Another told his debriefer with sadness in his voice, "If you had sent your troops to Baghdad, the people would have welcomed them as liberators, and Saddam's security forces would have melted away. You have missed your big chance."

Will it be different this time; with the French interfering?

Our conditions for Iraq's surrender are what? They are not unconditional.

Suppose Iraq surrenders after 24 hours, offering no resistance on condition that all Allied forces stay put? How will Bush proceed?

[Cultural Jihad]

An excellent article.

[cake_crumb]

Excellent summary of the media rerun of prewar hype being forcibly jammed down our throats by the same darned suspects, some of whom are toting the SAME DARNED PROTEST SIGNS and chanting the SAME DARNED CHANTS that they did 12 years ago.

[mercy]

To my mind it is very hard to understand how Sadam can put up any fight at all. There is one and only one way for any upper echelon officer to survive the next week. Make a deal with the American military NOW not later. Every officer is a marked man in post Sadam Iraq unless they help us now. They have too many victims in-country. They have no place to hide or run to. I don't think there is even going to be any real war.

[ghostrider]

Saddam's attitude about the value of people is so clintonesque.

[Kay Ludlow]

must read bump!

[RWG]

A few months later, after a 39-day air campaign and barely four days of ground combat, the Iraqi army was routed as perhaps no army in modern times, all with negligible coalition casualties.

I listened to an author historian, Richard Marbury (sp?), discuss the last gulf war and why the job wasn't finished. He quoted both Powell and Schwartzkopf as saying that the US decided not to follow the fleeing iraqi army because it was a trap, a 'tar pit' in which the US would be trapped and targets of saddam's wmd. The army that was destroyed was described as saddam's throw aways, those least likely to support saddam.

[Happy2BMe]

Par Excellente!

We learned much from 1991.

So did the Iraqis. My step-dad was U.S. Army and had been in southern Iraq for six months. He loves recallilng how the surrenderring mass Iraqi soldiers (some even surrenderred to a porta-john) were so petrified from the B52 bombings, their hands were shaking so violently for almost two days they couldn't even hold a cup of water.

Go Home To Yo' Mamma!

[deport]

the US decided not to follow the fleeing iraqi army because it was a trap,

---

Did he source those quotes?.........

[cake_crumb]

"I listened to an author historian, Richard Marbury (sp?), discuss the last gulf war and why the job wasn't finished. He quoted both Powell and Schwartzkopf as saying that the US decided not to follow the fleeing iraqi army because it was a trap, a 'tar pit' in which the US would be trapped and targets of saddam's wmd. The army that was destroyed was described as saddam's throw aways, those least likely to support saddam."

As a precondition of US military staging from other Arab countries (like Saudi) into Iraq for the Gulf War, we had to promise not to take Saddam out, because killing him and forcing regime change would 'destabilize the region' Another Arab 'fear' ws that if we took out Saddam, whomever took his place might be worse.

Allied forces tried rather hard to get Saddam 'accidentally,' and once on purpose. That time Saddam pulled a switcheroo and left some of his family members hiding in the palace targeted, while Saddam slipped away.

We now know that leaving Saddam there sure as heck hasn't promoted stability...that it has in fact promoted instability due to Saddam's illicit weapons programs and publically admitted financing of international terrorists.

[RWG]

He claimed to have heard them directly from Powell and Schwartzkopf.

[aculeus]

Help! I love Boosh!

Boomp!

[deport]

Thanks. I guess I figured that if they were made then more than one person heard them and they would be documented somewhere.... was just curious is all..... again thanks.

[Texas Eagle]

There was a report last week that said Iraqi soldiers were already surrendering to British troops. The troops told them to go back, the war hadn't started yet.

[walden]

"Suppose Iraq surrenders after 24 hours, offering no resistance on condition that all Allied forces stay put? How will Bush proceed? "

I think we will have arranged not to receive such a communication-- it's my guess the phones in Baghdad might be out of service?

[First_Salute]

Haven't been able to call there all weekend ... funny, that.