Posted on 03/16/2003 9:32:38 AM PST by Hoppean
A former military aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf has warned that a US-led war against Iraq could turn into a disaster that echoes the bloody debacle of Somalia rather than the relatively painless 1991 Gulf war.
Retired Colonel Mike Turner, who also served as military planner with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes the Bush administration is ignoring potential risks – some that could cost the US dearly.
"There's a saying in military circles: We always fight the last war. It means that too much focus on past enemy behaviour can easily lead to misjudging an enemy capability in the future," he said.
"So I asked myself today which war will this be: Desert Storm or Somalia? In 1991, we had four iron-clad prerequisites for war with Iraq: a clear political end state, overwhelming force to achieve a quick and decisive victory, a viable Arab coalition to avoid empowering Arab extremists, and absolutely no Israeli involvement to avoid a global holy war.
"In Somalia, we ignored the most critical of these lessons. Mission creep turned our original objective of humanitarian aid into simply 'Get Aidid,' the Somali factional leader we were battling. We committed US troops to a high-risk military operation in an urban area with extraordinarily dangerous variables in play on the battlefield, and with insufficient firepower."
Colonel Turner said the US had made the mistake of fixing its sights early on ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. This plan had met stiff opposition from the uniformed staff within the Pentagon, but the administration had chosen this focus regardlessly.
Colonel Turner outlined a worst-case scenario: "Within hours of our attack, Saddam launches Scuds on Israel. Israel's government launches a full-scale attack on Iraq, creating a holy war. Saddam, threatened with his own survival, uses chemical and biological weapons and human shields. He torches his own oil fields, thousands of his own people are killed. Photos of US soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US."
He then envisaged the US left to administer a post-Saddam Iraq with minimal international co-operation and open to terror attacks from al- Qa'ida. North Korea could take advantage and start exporting nuclear weapons.
"These are not remote possibilities, but in my view reasonable, possibly even likely outcomes," he concluded.
Another is that all the Muslim states we dislike - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Egypt - will be drawn into the conflict and smashed. The carcasses would then be divided among the conquerors, with the carrion going to the vultures who stayed on the sidelines during the conflict.
War always entails risk. Unless you believe the current leadership - led by the son of the President who presided over the war which Turner so admires - are complete morons, you have to know that they are well-aware of Turner's arguments and have decided to reject them because they believe the war must be fought regardless of the risks.
The president has specifically said that the mission is to "disarm Iraq and institute regime change." They have specifically said that capturing Saddam was not the mission. It is an objective somewhere down the line of objectives.
I hope your hubby and son, personally, have the opportunity to do just that!
God bless them! And, God bless you!
DC2K Former Navy Pilot/Viet Nam Vet's Wife
DC2K Wife of former Navy Pilot/ Viet Nam Vet
We're still married...;o)
Not to be a wise ass, just curious.....btw, I am NOT worried about this battle
You are dreaming. I hope and pray that you are correct, but that's like expecting the Democrats not to pull a DWI or S. Dakota vote fraud in a major election. Wishful thinking.
I have long suspected the US will not engage in urban combat in downtown Baghdad.
If Awe and Shock does not percipitate a regime collapse we will lay siege to Baghdad and seek international cooperation to resolve the city's fate.
Our immediate goal is to secure Iraq's resources, percipitate the collapse of Saddam's government and liberate its non-Shiah population.
Why wouldn't they just try to do what the Nazis tried at Leningrad. (The heroic Russian defense notwithstanding) Starve them out.
When you have the tactical advantage and can surround that city without letting so much as a flea get in...it certainly makes more sense than trying to take it by force. Good old siege warfare á la the Middle Ages.
Wasn't Hillary's husband Commander in Chief then?
And didn't a guy come along who said "help is on the way".
The guy is a former aide to "Stormin' Norman". Turner is not in on the planning of this operation and thus does not have any inclination as to the plan, the goals, or the implemetation of the schematics of this campaign. Therefore he is totally in the dark and knows not of which he speaks and should shut up.
Desert Breeze.
The wind-swept panoramic desert evoking scenes from Lawrence of Arabia will be the order of the day.
The two-bit hustling lying Iraqis decrying this and that to Petey (I sleep with ugly terrorists) Jennings and Christiane (does my face look like a camel's ass?) Amanpour will be largely ignored.
The road trip's next stop: Iran.
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.