The way to beat Iraq

On Wednesday, U.S. General James L. Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps, a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the incoming Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, told the Washington Times it would be "foolish" to invade Iraq using the same techniques employed to liberate Afghanistan. Many media outlets cited the news as evidence that resistance to an attack on Iraq is increasing among Pentagon staff. That is an incorrect interpretation: The General's comments are part of an ongoing debate over the way the United States will fight future wars -- including the one that may soon be launched against Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, is a passionate proponent of what is called the "Revolution in Military Affairs." Its architects believe future wars should rely more on information technology and long-distance guided weapons -- so-called "push-button warfare." Gen. Jones, on the other hand, embraces a more Pattonesque school, and believes large armies with heavy weapons are still necessary to beat well-organized enemies. Afghanistan was a war in the Revolutionaries' mold -- featuring the use of small groups of highly trained special forces, but no large concentration of infantry or armor. Mr. Rumsfeld would like to see that model pushed further: Each GI would be issued his own portable computer, GPS locator, laser-sighted rifle and satellite communication system. In the sky, unmanned fighter jets and bombers would be flown videogame-style by joystick-jockeys miles from the fighting.

Gen. Jones's complaint is that the reformers want to use the invasion of Iraq as a showcase for emerging new technologies, a move, he says, that may jeopardize soldiers' lives. Whether he's right as regards Mr. Rumsfeld's plans, we can't say: No one, including Mr. Rumsfeld we suspect, knows for sure what strategy the United States will ultimately select. But the general's view is generally correct. While innovative tactics and technologies inevitably find a place in every conflict, the Joint Chiefs should not make them the centrepiece of an upcoming war in Iraq.

Two important things will be at stake in Iraq -- the lives of soldiers and civilians and the future of Western-Arab relations. Given the decrepit state of Iraq's army, there is a good chance that most of it will switch sides or melt away when U.S. forces get close. But war is unpredictable, and we can't count on that outcome. Moreover, if the Iraqis do fight, they will probably fight hard; unlike the armies that occupied Kuwait in 1990, these will have nowhere to run. If they embarrass the West by fighting to a draw, or if they weaken the American public's will to wage the war by killing many thousands of U.S. soldiers, militant Arabism will gain a massive boost, Saddam will get to keep developing weapons of mass destruction unhindered, and the world will become a more dangerous place. Thus, if and when the United States attacks, it must ensure that overwhelming force is an option, and that its campaign won't stall because of an over-reliance on commandos and lasers.

Gen. Jones wasn't arguing against invading Iraq, but rather against using the invasion as a proving ground for untested schemes and systems. He is right to be cautious with so much on the line.

"U.S. General James L. Jones, Commandant of the... blah, blah, blah.... told the Washington Times it would be "foolish" to invade Iraq using the same techniques employed to liberate Afghanistan.

Duh. In other news, if you'd like to purchase a new phone, you do have other options besides Nokia and Qualcomm.

Interesting article. I feel that both men's viewpoints are valid to a certain degree. That being said, this war will be fought and MUST be won by whatever tactics necessary. I have faith that American military leaders with dissenting opinions will present their arguments to the powers that be, and all will add something of value. It is just this type of collaboration which makes our country great.

America will prevail. It's in our hearts, our souls, our very existence. We might squabble among ourselves, like any family, but there is no greater nation on earth. Those who think otherwise are foolish and will be enlightened.

What way to fight Iraq?

My choice: Cut off the head!
Take Maddman and his top generals out - try to "hold down" civilian casualties,
but collateral damage "will" happen because its unavoidable.

The important thing is that the military etc will collapse with its dictator gone.

How to take him out?
Spec ops maybe? Hired assassin? Missile placed on the top of his head? Nuked Baghdad? City under siege?

WE'RE COMING FOR YOU SADAAM - AND YOU'LL NOT KNOW HOW, WHEN OR WHERE....UNTIL ITS TOO LATE!

Moreover, if the Iraqis do fight, they will probably fight hard; unlike the armies that occupied Kuwait in 1990, these will have nowhere to run.

It took months to move the men and equipment for 1991; a total force over 500,000 warriors. We can expect little of the regional-arab cooperation, this time, unless Bush reveals some serious truth to Bandar at the ranch.

The menace of world muslim terror will be defeated, have no doubts.

We are dealing with a race, cultures and a religion of irrationality. As such, we should shed as little blood as possible, while getting the mission done.

To show our strength and power, both high tech and sufficient conventional power should be deployed, lest the outcome be uncertain. One major demonstration in the gulf region should leave any doubter quaking in his sandals, that he could be next, under the blow of the hammer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.