Posted on 03/28/2003 4:50:08 AM PST by bdeaner
WASHINGTON Last week's euphoria over a quick start to the invasion of Iraq has now been almost entirely overtaken by gloom. Pentagon officials are on the defensive when discussing their war plan; images of sandstorms and black-masked Iraqi irregulars and American prisoners of war fill TV screens here and abroad; the looming battle for Baghdad has made many feel a deep sense of foreboding.
Perhaps the Bush administration deserves it. It did not begin to emphasize the potential for a difficult war until hostilities began. Pentagon advisers like Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman have been promising a cakewalk to Baghdad for 18 months; in the late 1990's, Paul Wolfowitz, now the deputy defense secretary, argued that a small American force fighting in conjunction with the Iraqi opposition could quickly overthrow Saddam Hussein.
But despite this week's proof that war is not always easy, the invasion is not going badly. As President Bush said at his news conference yesterday, "Coalition forces are advancing day by day in steady progress against the enemy." Here's why things are going well and why they will soon go even better:
The battle of Baghdad will be quick. That's because coalition forces will probably not enter Baghdad until they have destroyed half the Republican Guard stationed on the city's outskirts. Mr. Hussein made a mistake putting several of his divisions outside the capital. That mistake helps the coalition, giving it more leeway militarily by reducing the potential for civilian casualties. The guard's Medina Division and other forces south of Baghdad have resisted Apache helicopter attacks, but they will not be able to fend off the combination of ground forces and helicopters and combat jets.
The coalition won't enter Baghdad in a plodding fashion and then take it block by block. Instead, it will gradually learn where Iraqi forces have set up provisional headquarters and strong points, and then destroy or seize them in a nighttime operation akin to an urban blitzkrieg. There will probably be bloody street fighting, but with Iraq's command centers fractured, the opposition forces will be piecemeal and isolated.
Crucial troops are on the way. Perhaps it was a mistake to begin the war without the Fourth Infantry Division or even the 101st Airborne Division fully in place, but it is a mistake from which the coalition will soon recover. The delays imposed by sandstorms and fedayeen militia resistance in the southeast may be a blessing in disguise, giving the Fourth, which had been waiting in the vain hope it could enter Iraq via Turkey, time to arrive in Kuwait.
Saddam Hussein can't cause lasting problems in the south. He can intimidate populations with his fedayeen, but that group is limited in size and ability, and it will not be able to convince most Iraqis to fight with it. Sustained resistance has come only from the elite forces and fedayeen, not Iraq's conscript army, which constitutes three-quarters of the country's total military strength. As for Basra, in a worst case it could pose a challenge similar to Baghdad, but it would be on a far smaller scale.
There tends to be a period of public impatience in modern wars, with Kosovo and Afghanistan being recent examples. Now we are going through our period of impatience, if not downright pessimism, during this operation. But the main elements of the strategy are sound, and the enemy is still basically weak. This war will cost a price in lives, and the administration should have done a better job to prepare the country for that sober fact. But it will be won, and won decisively.
Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
That's not true. In fact, the Bush administration has said from the beginning that the American people must be prepared for a battle that is longer than predicted, as well as American casualities.
Nevertheless, the rest of the article: seems like a pretty good analysis.
Yes, at last someone at the Times realizes that people are getting pissed at their grim negativism. The above is a point I've not heard anywhere but on FoxNews until now. It's correct, though, and an important fact in evaluatiing the attackst that have "destroyed our supply lines", or, using plain English and not Times-speak, have ineffectively harrassed a convoy or two.
Beware, though. The Times doesn't give like this unless it's planning to sink its teeth into Bush at another point.
Now that makes a lot more sense. It still seems like an Enemy At The Gate situation though.
Beware, though. The Times doesn't give like this unless it's planning to sink its teeth into Bush at another point.
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read that the source of this column was the Times. However, remember they they haven't been able to sink their teeth into Bush yet.
The people have taken the measure of the man, and they like what they see.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
A military mistake, undoubtedly--but in reading it I realized that it may have been a political necessity. When Saddam is in his bunker at the end, he doesn't want anyone of limited political reliability guarding it.Maybe there is a political, not just military, opportunity for us in that deployment. We should point out to that Republican Guard unit that they have been sent out to die in futility while the tyrant and his henchmen hide behind the skirts of the women. A fact which can scarcely have escaped them . . .
I sure would like to know what the Media's definition of "cake walk" means?
No war is easy .. but I think in one week, our miltiary has done a damn good job
the looming battle for Baghdad has made many feel a deep sense of foreboding.
|
Now that makes a lot more sense. It still seems like an Enemy At The Gate situation though.
Something about Stalingrad has been lost among the chattering classes in our media.
If you look at a map of Stalingrad you'll notice that the Germans faced an enemy that could reinforce the city at will. Yes, the Red Army had to get troops accross the Volga, but they were still able to get them there.
By the time the Sixth Army had taken Stalingrad, it had been seriously degraded as a combat force because the Red Army was able to reinforce and attrit the Germans.
When time comes to get at Baghdad, we'll be in a position in which reinforcement of the Iraqis will be out of the question. For the time being, limited numbers of Iraqi troops are being attritted by the Air Force and Naval Aviation.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
More importantly, let us discuss that BILL CLINTON said this very thing, IN PRINT, in the London Times. Here is the article:
Here is the operative paragraph:
In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.
He also said this in at least one speech. I want to make sure everyone knows that CLINTON raised expectations.
Well true .. but when has the NYT actually gotten their facts correct
I notice that so far we have lost fewer men than a single days worth of traffic accidents which would be about 110. I'd sure rather die in combat for a good cause than in a car accident or a miserable Great White fire.
As for the alleged chemical weapons being seen delivered, I assume they are trying to figure out how to eliminate the delivery mechanism without destroying the evidence.
It is such a contrast to watch NBC and then watch Fox. You'd almost think you were in some country that hates the USA while watching NBC. I watched a Fox special last night and it was great. They were chewing out Hollywood and my whole family was loving it.
My family was asking why we left their TV station operational and I said that our psy opps guys have engineered this for some reason. I couldn't say exactly why but we know exactly what they say about us, we also know how it is received and that may be the key. I've heard Hellen Thomas is allowed in the whitehouse to be a contrast to reality. I keep learning that people are not as stupid as the media makes them look.
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.