Posted on 04/01/2003 9:21:48 PM PST by Pokey78
LAKE OSWEGO, Ore. — British and American ground forces are drawn up south of Baghdad in what the press, much to the displeasure of the White House, is calling a "pause." After all, hesitation looks bad, owing to the previous sunny pronouncements about how we would be received in Iraq. But the last few conflicts should have taught us that in warfare, winning sometimes involves looking bad for a while.
First, let's consider the Pentagon's plan. Using long-range air against an opponent whose only strength is in short-range ground power is "asymmetrical" warfare in our favor. That is why in the 1991 Persian Gulf war we put up a 39-day air campaign before ground forces jumped off. Thus the critics have a point asking why things seem to have been reversed this time around.
But do they? Instead of holding back in Kuwait while we bombed the Iraqi Army as in 1991, we put ground troops on the road to Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division at the spearhead losing only one soldier during the advance. For a time it looked as if the troops might even make it to the city. But those pesky unpredictables, in this case the weather and a motivated militia force, got in the way.
Now 50 miles short of the city, the troops are being resupplied — the pause that refreshes — and we've begun something that looks remarkably like an air campaign. Flying about a thousand sorties a day, we've lost a total of zero war planes — in itself an amazing performance. The Republican Guard can either hunker down outside Baghdad and die slowly, or maneuver and die quickly. Looks like pretty good tactics to me.
If there is a criticism to be made militarily, it concerns the shortage of air support from land bases. We are relying to a great extent on cruise missiles, of which we have a limited supply; long-range bombers, which are not great against moving forces; helicopters, which are vulnerable to ground fire; and air strikes from carriers, which can carry only so many planes. Land-based tactical air is the First Team. Yet we don't have enough of it — largely because diplomatic failures cost us the use of air bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. (Here, I mean no criticism of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who played the cards the White House dealt him as well as can be imagined.)
This means that a decisive air campaign may take longer than it would otherwise. Still, in every recent engagement — Kosovo and Afghanistan come to mind — the criticism about long air campaigns hit full voice just before the other side collapsed. So Americans should be patient. We can continue air attacks as long as we wish. At some point our ground forces will be large enough for the next job.
The key is, and has always been, Baghdad. Our reception there, whether they throw bouquets or hand grenades, will determine our success or failure in the days ahead. Taking a pause was the right thing to do.
Merrill A. McPeak was Air Force chief of staff, 1990 to 1994.
How many retired generals can the NYT dig up?!
It's going to look pretty silly as the headline of the day on 2 April will be tonight's advance through the Iraqi positions in the Karbala Gap.
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.