Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military Successes Benefit Bush
NYTimes ^ | 4/5/03 | R. W. APPLE Jr.

Posted on 04/04/2003 9:10:09 PM PST by RJCogburn

Even by the standards of the Third Army's headlong dash across France under Gen. George S. Patton in World War II, the allied invasion of Iraq has accelerated with stunning speed in less than a week.

No less remarkable has been the transformation of the political atmosphere at home and, to a lesser degree, abroad. The dramatic, lightning-like thrust of the tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, their way eased by the devastating application of air power to the Republican Guard, has taken the political heat off President Bush and his hard-nosed Pentagon boss, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The burgeoning debate over the size of the American force in Iraq has been tamped down. Should taking Baghdad prove easier than expected, that debate may re-emerge when American and British troops turn to the chore of occupying and administering a postwar Iraq.

But for the time being, domestic discussion of the war is going in favor of the Bush administration, and there are signs that some heat is easing from the debate in Europe. It remains to be seen what problems the expected fall of Saddam Hussein's government will cause for the United States in the Arab world.

Last weekend, only the first tentative probes toward Baghdad were under way. Military officers in Washington and the Middle East spent the day fending off suggestions that coalition forces had executed an "operational pause." There were widespread suggestions that the American battle plan was fatally flawed, and that insufficient troops were available in Iraq.

As this weekend begins, the picture has changed out of all recognition, if not necessarily definitively. Elements of the Third Infantry division are encamped at the Baghdad airport, a cab ride from the nexus of Mr. Hussein's power; other American troops stand at the gates of the ancient capital. They have arrived there faster than either critics or supporters of the war imagined that they could, after only episodically heavy fighting, suffering only relatively light casualties.

"By any standard," former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said tonight, "it is a remarkable military achievement."

On Monday, officers on the battlefield were criticizing Mr. Rumsfeld, comparing him to Robert S. McNamara, one of the architects of failed United States policies in Vietnam. One colonel said Mr. Rumsfeld had got what he wanted — a war fought "on the cheap."

The next day the secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, hit back, commandos rescued an American prisoner of war for the first time since World War II and American columns pulled within 50 miles of Baghdad.

The tide turned. Not that the war was over, by any means. Mr. Rumsfeld cautioned that though weakened, parts of the Iraqi forces remained lethal.

As the Iraqis threatened to surprise the Americans at the airport with something "unconventional" — suicide attacks, perhaps, or some other new tactic — leaders of the coalition forces were still debating how best to complete the job and ensure the ouster of Mr. Hussein and his lieutenants.

What changed? It is too early to say with any certainty, especially with the battle for Baghdad still to come, whatever shape it takes, whether a protracted war of nerves or a more rapid clash of arms.

But so far at least, the vaunted Republican Guard has proved to be a washout for the second war in a row. Some units may yet fight fiercely, but many have melted like blocks of ice in the desert sun.

Some commanders reported that fighting was stiffening as they neared central Baghdad. In extremis, with the war lost, Mr. Hussein might try almost anything, up to and including weapons of mass destruction, Pentagon officials warned. One said: "The last hours could be the most harrowing."

Still, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a man who chooses his words carefully, said today that "the day of liberation is drawing near."

Politicians and reporters began turning their attention to the structure of postwar Iraq, perhaps prematurely. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, reflected a bit ruefully on the change of tone at his daily briefing.

"Just days ago," Mr. Fleischer complained, "people were saying we were bogged down, and now they're saying, `Describe for us and give us the names of the government that's going to be running Iraq in the future.' We're still in the middle of war."

For his part, President Bush felt relaxed enough to leave again for Camp David for the weekend, and to plan a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, to be held near Belfast in Northern Ireland on Monday and Tuesday.

The meeting has the earmarks of a further bid to help Mr. Bush's most reliable ally: Mr. Blair is pushing hard for an expanded role for the United Nations in postwar Iraq, just as he pushed hard for its involvement in the run-up to the war.

In addition, the two leaders will be able to point to the successful Anglo-American peace efforts in Northern Ireland, a useful symbol at the moment.

European criticism of Mr. Bush has eased somewhat as the battlefield situation improves for the coalition, but anti-American sentiment in Arab countries appears to have hardened.

A bloodbath in Baghdad could inflame Arab opinion, one reason the allies are moving gingerly there.

Already, King Abdullah II of Jordan has felt constrained, probably as a result of domestic pressure, to say: "No country has supported Iraq like Jordan. We had said `no' to attacking Iraq when many said `yes.' "


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraqifreedom; pollsoniraq

1 posted on 04/04/2003 9:10:09 PM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"By any standard," former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said tonight, "it is a remarkable military achievement."

I agree, Huzzah!

2 posted on 04/04/2003 9:14:13 PM PST by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Gosh, I didn't read anywhere in the "Times" article where they apologized for being wrong, given the side they took in LAST WEEK'S controversies.
All of you fellow conservatives and libertarians who were outdoing each other in crying and hand wringing over the conduct of the war last week have some comeuppence due, also. Why don't you go back and refresh your memories and re-read what I had to say!
This, so far, has been one of the most remarkable and stunning military successes in world history. So amazing, in fact, that tabloids like the "Times" have downgraded their assessment of our enemies prowess considerably. Last week they were elite supermen. This week they're not. But you see, the "Times" minimizes the enemy, because in so doing they want to decrease the stature of our great military and great President. Aint gonna happen!
3 posted on 04/04/2003 9:26:05 PM PST by Nucluside (82d Airborne Division, America's Guard of Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Amazing. This NYT clymer wrote one of the worst of the gloom and doom "hard news articles" just last week. Now he doesn't bother to say he might have mistaken the course of the war.

I read somewhere this guy's "beat" at the times is cooking or something similar. How does he rate a try as war correspondent and strategy guru for the national paper of record?
4 posted on 04/04/2003 9:29:01 PM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
The burgeoning debate over the size of the American force in Iraq has been tamped down.

Translation: *ssh*oles like Apple have had to shut up since the "stalled" American columns surged forward.

5 posted on 04/04/2003 9:29:28 PM PST by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"A bloodbath in Baghdad could inflame Arab opinion, one reason the allies are moving gingerly there."

The NYT reporters don't read their own rag. This left-wing fish wrapper has been trumpeting how "inflamed" the Arabs are since 911. At least now the "inflamed" bastards have solid reason to fear and respect Amercan power.

6 posted on 04/04/2003 9:43:59 PM PST by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
This reporter's problem is that he still doesn't realize that he was duped by the military's disinformation campaign...
7 posted on 04/04/2003 9:51:16 PM PST by phothus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spectre
"A bloodbath in Babhdad could inflame Arab opinion, one reason the allies are moving gingerly there."

"This left-wing fishwrapper has been trumpeting how 'inflamed' the Arabs are since 911."

You're very right; bunches of Arabs have been inflamed in the last couple of weeks.
8 posted on 04/04/2003 10:10:19 PM PST by Nucluside (82d Airborne Division, America's Guard of Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nucluside
>>bunches of Arabs have been inflamed <<

Sounds like a a case for Preparation A.
9 posted on 04/04/2003 10:59:23 PM PST by Jeff Chandler ( ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Boy, Apple Boy is really CYA'ing. I don't think I have ever seen the Slimes CYA so fast.

Maybe the fools got the message that the majority of this country is tired of the anti-American, Pravda style propaganda that they, the Washington Commiepost, the LA Slimes and ABCNBCCBSCNN print and broadcast on a daily basis.

May they become more irrelevant !
10 posted on 04/04/2003 11:10:52 PM PST by The South Texan (The TV Media (save FOX News,) is our worst Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nucluside
Gosh, I didn't read anywhere in the "Times" article where they apologized for being wrong, given the side they took in LAST WEEK'S controversies.

That's because they bought the U.S. disinformation campaign hook, line and sinker. And so did Iraq. Suckers.
11 posted on 04/05/2003 10:45:14 AM PST by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson