Regards, Ivan
Posted on 04/02/2003 3:18:23 PM PST by MadIvan
The American advance to the gates of Baghdad is not the end. It may not even be the beginning of the end. But it is undoubtedly the end of the beginning.
The fact that one can, after less than a fortnight, already echo Churchill's tentative assessment after El Alamein, more than three years into the Second World War, tells us something about the magnitude of the allied achievement.
The term Blitzkrieg, or "lightning war", was invented by the Nazis to describe their campaigns of 1940, which astonished the world by their swiftness. Yet it took the Germans twice as long to reach Paris (a much shorter distance) in May-June 1940 as it has for American forces to arrive outside Baghdad. And this blitzkrieg, unlike Hitler's, has taken great pains to spare civilians. Historical comparisons are always inexact and often misleading (the inequality of forces in this case is much greater), but the rout of Saddam Hussein's forces has been remarkable by any standards.
It is true that the Republican Guard has not yet been defeated in battle. That is because none of the six divisions positioned around the capital has so far been ready - or, perhaps, able - to engage the allied forces in anything more than skirmishes. The astonishingly light American casualties tell their own story.
It may be that elements of these formations have retreated in good order into Baghdad, hoping to draw coalition troops into street fighting. Even if a siege is now in prospect, however, the irreparable losses sustained by the cream of Saddam's forces, their abandonment of irreplaceable equipment, and not least the blow to their morale, should all serve to weaken resistance.
It is worth recalling the reasons for this sudden breakthrough. The most important is air supremacy, established long before this war began. No less crucial is the qualitative superiority of the allied troops, clearly demonstrated whenever Iraqi forces have stood their ground. The allies do not only enjoy a technological advantage, overwhelming as that is, but also a moral one.
While many Iraqis are brave warriors, allied soldiers have shown far more enterprise and esprit de corps. Such daring operations as the rescue of Pte Jessica Lynch may not win battles, but they do wonders for morale, in the field and at home.
Even if the collapse of Saddam's regime is not imminent, its fall cannot long be postponed. Here at home we may enjoy a brief respite from the defeatist chorus that has filled the airwaves over the past week, with its denunciations of the American political and military high command.
As this newspaper has consistently argued, the war is going well. Reinforcements may be needed to win it, and the hardest fighting may yet be to come. Even before the liberation of Iraq is complete, however, an even greater challenge for the allies is emerging: to create a strong, legitimate and representative Iraqi government.
To defeat Saddam's tyranny may take weeks. To build a democratic Iraq will take years.
Regards, Ivan
/1/ Burn their oil fields.
/2/ Blow up their major river bridges.
/3/ Use chemical weapons (at least not yet).
This leads me to believe the heralded "Battle for Baghdad" may be an anticlimax. I don't believe Iraqis, exhausted after 25 years of Saddam's brutal misrule, are going to destroy their capitol city to prop up the Ba'ath parties dying days.
Some say that Saddam's "statement" which was read yesterday contained a coded chem attack reference, something about "take away the coalition's last breath."
Of course, there could be a transfer of portable quantities of anthrax or bio weapons to terrorist groups as the regime falls. The counter strike could come months from now in NY or LA. But it's all conjecture.
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.