And Now, the Good News

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.

Perhaps the Bush administration deserves it. It did not begin to emphasize the potential for a difficult war until hostilities began.

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.

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.

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.

Am I missing something

Did the coalition not use a Blitzkrieg like maneuver to PREVENT Saddam
from blowing the oil fields
flooding the Gulf with oil
blowing the bridges across the rivers
Launching Scuds on Israel

Seems things have gone pretty DAMN GOOD

The only problem has been a State Dept one
We should hyave pulled the ships out of the Med the first day Turkey started their BS
Those other 2 divisions that were activated weeks ago would now be in Kuwait and probably Iraq

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.

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

Perhaps the Bush administration deserves it....

This second paragraph satisfies the perfunctory Slimes leap from facts (and feely stuff), to a blast on the Administration. Does the "blame the Admin" line even remotely apply to the the beginning?! Seems to me that a good writer should know how to transition, to bring the reader along with the flow of the story.

Gray lady is more like a bitter, vituperative hag who can't suppress the urge to spew ugly, disconnected thoughts. I can't even get through more than three sentences, and the bull$hit flag goes up. :-( </rant off>

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.

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 . . .

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.

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, why on Earth would that be? The word "looming" in relation to Iraq has appeared 205 times in the last week, in the major newspapers.

loom intransitive verb 1.be seen as large shape: to appear as a large or indistinct, and sometimes menacing, shape 2.be about to happen: to be imminent, often in a threatening way noun appearance of something large: an appearance of something, usually something large and threatening (literary)

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

Let me also point out that NO ONE within the administration said it would be a cakewalk. Perle and Adelman are not IN the administration.

More importantly, let us discuss that BILL CLINTON said this very thing, IN PRINT, in the London Times. Here is the article:

Trust Tony

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.

Let me also point out that NO ONE within the administration said it would be a cakewalk. Perle and Adelman are not IN the administration

Well true .. but when has the NYT actually gotten their facts correct

Iraqi forces provisional headquarters

I am beginning to believe that the key to winning this war in a reasonable time frame is black ops.

(1) Eliminate all key Bath party officials and their terrorist associates. This probably is a thousand or so of the key figures. Kill them one at a time unless they are kind enough to collect in a group.

(2) Shut off all enemy communications inside Iraq. That may mean kidnapping and physically removing hostile reporters so they can't blabber on about US atrocities and show Iraqi propaganda skits. One hostile reporter is more dangerous than a company of enemy soldiers since they promote anti-Americanism at home and abroad and could sap our leaders will to win should the war be viewed as unpopular at home.

(3) Fight the war under Baghdad. Destroy the tunnels and bunkers and the people in them. Use whatever works to get it done.

(4) Set up our communications network (YV, radio) in Iraq to tell our story.

What we civilians can do is begin calling, writing, and emailing the media that has chosen to give aid and comfort to the enemy (you know who they are) and let them know we are very angry and will do all we can to convince their advertisers to drop them.

My concern is the ease that snipers could take our soldiers down while in the city. Every single man we lose is politically magnified by a thousand which is good in a way but also makes it a politically charged situation.

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.

I suspect that once it became clear that the RG would fight, the U.S. generals are happy to pick them apart for a week or so. It will make things easier after the war.

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.

What we civilians can do is begin calling, writing, and emailing the media that has chosen to give aid and comfort to the enemy (you know who they are) and let them know we are very angry and will do all we can to convince their advertisers to drop them.

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.

Someone pointed out on another post somewhere that the term "weeks, not months" which Bush used to talk about how much time the UN had and when the war was going to start is now being unfairly and inaccurrately applied to the duration of the war. Could be the case I think.

Prairie

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.