Posted on 09/26/2002 12:55:56 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:09:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20020920.asp
Goood Morning, Baghdad! - The Saddam Show
by Tom Holsinger
September 20, 2002
American electronics wizards, both military and in Hollywood special effects, might win our pending war against Iraq without our having to fire a shot. Plans exist to knock out Iraqi television transmitters and replace their networks with our own, broadcast from special aircraft. Publicly known plans of our proposed replacement programming would be greatly improved by bringing Adrian Cronauer back, but greater opportunities exist. British psychological warfare in World War Two broadcast fake German (sometimes fake fake German) radio shows, and sometimes took over real ones. Sefton Delmer's Black Boomerang is the funniest book on that. These impersonations were effective even when the fakes were identified.
American video technology creates impersonation possibilities undreamt of sixty years ago. We could transmit a fake but technically perfect "live" official Iraqi government news broadcast in which a most realistic-appearing Saddam orders his armed forces to surrender as a part of a deal with the U.S. in which he then resigns and goes into exile. Computerized special effects can be that good given the backing and resources of the United States government. See the current movie, Simone, for a depiction of this not-quite commercially feasible technology.
Impersonations of this sort have been possible for a few years, but their use was inhibited by fear of our enemies returning the favor given the notoriously low character of former President Clinton. There were concerns that the American people might believe faked videos of Clinton snorting cocaine and molesting squirrels. Any inhibitions surviving his retirement died on 9/11.
It is unlikely, though, that we'd broadcast a fake surrender order from Saddam. Important orders such as surrender generally require written, if not coded, confirmation. Other, almost as rewarding, possibilities exist of which the most popular would be fake videos of his assassination - hopefully in several different gruesome ways. We might also obtain interesting results by broadcasting fake videos of Saddam ordering the execution of traitors who happen to be his most loyal henchmen, or those not so loyal.
We need not confine ourselves to the Saddam Show either. Iraqi officials might experience the thrill of watching themselves declare a rebellion against Saddam on national television. Iraqi news announcers might suddenly start telling the truth. Hollywood at war can make failure to immediately rebel against Saddam outright suicidal for many important Iraqis once the U.S. invasion starts, and might even win without firing a shot by inspiring the real assassination of Saddam. The confusion, fratricide and surrenders these impersonations inspire would at least materially aid American conquest.
Low trust bureaucratic states are extremely vulnerable to electronic psychological warfare using this emerging technology. The 2002 Iraq campaign will likely be its proving ground.
The mere threat of American electronic/communications warfare is already driving the shape of this campaign, and that ties into our ability to broadcast to Iraqi televisions. Saddam is backing his defenses into Baghdad so he can maintain control of his regime protection forces despite American air attack. His own people are the biggest immediate threat to him, not us, so they have Saddam's priority in defensive measures.
We severed long-distance communications with his forces in 1991, and Saddam knows that we've gotten much better at that. The threat of as yet unproven American non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons, allegedly capable of destroying electronic equipment over areas several miles across, requires that he be prepared to use couriers to control his military and security forces. Communication by courier won't be effective outside Baghdad, though, so we are limiting Saddam's span of control to Baghdad without firing a shot.
Saddam's means of control, however, is not confined to shooting people. He has used nerve gas in the past too, and his special regime protection forces have sole control of the stuff. This is important for his "defense" of Baghdad because he has deterred overt military rebellions by threatened use of nerve gas on rebellious forces. That won't stop when he is attacked by us.
Nerve gas attack launched by multiple rocket launchers against area targets is Saddam's favored means of deterring military rebellion (as opposed to assassination). His special regime security forces need only minimal military competence to do this. Inciting an Iraqi military rebellion against Saddam requires that we protect them from such attack. These special regime protection forces can maintain the ability to perform their mission for a while in the Baghdad area, despite American air attack, by hiding out in hollowed out buildings, communicating by courier, etc. Locating and destroying them will be difficult, and we can count on Saddam blowing up a lot of Baghdad himself and blaming that on us. He won't hesitate to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians by soaking large areas of Baghdad with nerve gas to fight off rebellious Iraqi troops and invading American soldiers.
But there is always more than one way to win. We might obtain necessary intelligence information, and the chemical warheads themselves, through purchase. The Saddam Channel can carry advertising as well as entertainment and news, and we should offer rewards for things besides chemical weapons.
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.