And Now, the Good News

New York Times ^ | 3/28/03 | MAICHAEL O'HANLON

[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.

[The Wizard]

nice piece

[PGalt]

The good news throughout history is that the enemies of life have always been defeated by life.

[stands2reason]

bttt

[PhilipFreneau]

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.

Agree. It is the media who is continually raising the bar. Shortly after the initial bombing, a panelist on PBS's "Washington Week", Tom Gjelten of National Public Radio, spun it this way: "Gwen I--here's what I think. I think if we--if there--if the war is continuing next week at this time--and this is where I go out on a limb--if the war is continuing a week from tonight, it's bad news."

[HiTech RedNeck]

We rightfully complain that "NATO" Turkey won't let us march in through them. But consider, that given this war had to happen today, Saddam did us a big favor in 1991 by invading Kuwait and making a sworn enemy out of them. Had Saddam simply kept to himself while brewing up his WMD, Kuwait would be giving us at least as much grief as Turkey, and we'd have virtually no effective way to attack Iraq at all.

A BIG THANK YOU TO KUWAIT

[HiTech RedNeck]

As far as Baghdad and Saddamnation is concerned, WE are the ones who are looming....

[cyncooper]

I found yet another statement from clinton dated March 14 that says:

"The former president also said he believed Iraq's army would crumble within days in the event of a U.S. invasion, given the battering it took in the 1991 Gulf War."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/864435/posts

[cyncooper]

Actually,the article is dated 3/14. Speech given the 3/13.

[Miss Marple]

Thanks for adding that! I am dedicated to making sure that gets out. Bubba has put his foot in it this time!

[Neets]

Might it not add fire to the fuel by emailing those quotes/links to all media outlets???

[cyncooper]

You are most welcome. I think you are on to something. We all know whose words the media hangs on.

[PISANO]

Nevertheless, the rest of the article: seems like a pretty good analysis

I agree for the most part and I believe GW did tell us all along that the war would come at a heavy cost. It was the "RETIRED MILITARY and CIVILIAN PUNDITS" that gave the false impression it would be a cake walk. Also if the administration would have done what this author seems to suggest and present a 'doom and gloom' scenario to the public, there would never have been the support necessary for this war to be undertaken.

All in all I would say that what I heard from the C-in-C and what is happening now is in sync. It is the NEWS MEDIA that is going apoplectic.

[cyncooper]

It was the "RETIRED MILITARY and CIVILIAN PUNDITS" that gave the false impression it would be a cake walk.

See Miss Marple's and my links above. Clinton himself was setting the bar for a military campaign taking only a few days.

[Jim Noble]

>>Yes, the Red Army had to get troops accross the Volga, but they were still able to get them there<<

When was the last time the Tigris froze?

[cyncooper]

Rush talking about clinton NOW, sowing the seeds of the a quick military action!

He quoted from a speech. Not sure if it's the speech I found referenced earlier today.

[bdeaner]

The Times doesn't give like this unless it's planning to sink its teeth into Bush at another point.

That's a good point. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Then again, the opinion of this author could reflect the reality of a split among liberals. Just one more issue to splinter the Democraps into irreconcilable, increasingly irrelevant and insignicant fragments.

[bdeaner]

I spilled my coffee when I read this.The NYT is printing a positive article

It really does happen sometimes. Rarely. But it does happen. And when it does, well, that's very, very interesting. That speaks volumes.

[bdeaner]

Seems things have gone pretty DAMN GOOD

I agree. Things have gone remarkably well, considering the fact that we are fighting an enemy who does not play by the usual rules of battle, that we are supposedly fighting against international opinion (which is very debatable), and against the potential use of WMD's. Anyone who thought this battle would be a "cake walk" (and they won't be found in the Bush administration) was setting themselves up for bitter disappointment. Given the circumstances, the U.S. military has made significant gains in a very short amount of time.

[ctdonath2]

We're about to enter Baghdad...just in time for a new moon.

Could have been the plan all along: our troops "own the night", and what better way to do urban operations than when the opposition can't see a thing. Explains the full-moon start of the war that baffled people.