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.
That being said, anything can happen in a war and we should all be praying very hard that this all goes well and is over quickly.
Thank goodness for taglines, huh?!;o)
In fact, a handful of Amecricans kicked a$$. We captured 6 top officials from the warlord.
Was the operation poorly planned? Yes. Did the sad sacks of s--t in DC deny the commander on the ground the appropriate armor and helicopters for the mission? Yes.
We did it anyway, at the loss of 21 American lives vs. 1000-5000 Somalis. I'm not happy about the loss of life on either side, but it was the cowardice of the Clintoon admin that turned a victory on the ground into defeat.
Imagine how this story hade been played if the POTUS had mentioned that only 1 SF company had gone into a portion of Mogadishu filled with hundreds of thousands of hostiles and grabbed 6 top scumbags in any case. Sounds like a different story put that way, doesn't it? What's the moral? The fruits of 48 hours of valor in the field can be squandered in minutes of fecklessness by cowardly political leadership.
The coming struggle is not goinmg to be cost free. But I don't think their valor will be sacrificed upon the ego the current POTUS.
You think we can easily and quickly defeat the Repulican Guard (they sound like Bush-Bots,don't they?) if they decide to dig in and fight house to house in the cities? Ever heard of Stalingrad? Remember,these people will be the ones with nothing to lose by fighting because their lives and maybe even the lives of their families depend on Hussein and them staying in power.
No,he's not,and neither is anyone else in his inner-circle. Not a one of them has spent a day as a soldier,or ever been in combat. The Colonel has,and even more importantly so have people like General Norman Swartzkopf,who is also oppossed to the upcoming war with Iraq for the same stated reasons. Ali Bubba-2 is going to war with Iraq DESPITE the opposition of the majority of the senior leadership of the US military that has combat experience. And I'm not the one who said that,Swartzkopf was.
Actually, their lives depend on their not fighting. They will be slaughtered if they fight.
1000 dead Somalis was
He does,and he has. He is currently backing the upcoming war with Iraq because "I realized that the war is going to happen despite what I think." You can read this on the transcript from "Meet the Press" appearance about two weeks ago. Please note that Russert got him to admit that he had been oppossed to the war for the very reasons in this article,as had "almost every senior officer in the Pentagon that I know who has ever been in combat."
The valid issues I see deal with the historical truth of neglect and falsehoods fostered by the Clinton administration concerning our military. The military is still suffering from the decisions and policies of the Clinton administration. The Somali operation should not have been viewed as a military defeat because the entire concept was political in nature not military.
The constraints and invalid use of military force required by the Clinton administration set us up for failure. However, what is important in this article is to understand that the mistakes made during the prior administration will still haunt us today, primarily in the area of the civilianization and contracting efforts made by that administration to reduce the active duty military support in the area of logistics.
The United States military has been crippled in its ability to operate long logistic lines in hostile environments. The majority of our logistical support due to the downsizing must be in the form of contractors.
Yet, we do not have enough security forces to guard every contractor or their employees. This is our real vulnerability.
Chemical and biological attacks against the logistical nodes by terrorists infiltrated into the same companies could have the effect of large scale casualties.
This responsibility has largely been removed from the militarys' concerns. The individuals in charge of the military forces of today made their rank by believing and supporting the policies of the prior administration. Policies which have been proven to be flawed in our operations in Kosovo and Bosnia.
Therefore, some are not likely to fully recognize any dangers concerning the structural decisions made in the past. Our logistic support from corps to division in the army is fairly well protected, however, the support from port/airhead to the corps is primarily civilian.
These areas are ripe targets. There is nothing we can do about this now except to recognize that these companies and employees will be on a battleground and therefore are at risk.
Hopefully, most of these individuals have had some military training and can protect themselves but the vast threats involved would produce casualties in any scenario no matter what the circumstances.
If this were widely understood as a reality then a backlash by the American public of civilian casualties in this area would not detract from an overwhelming military victory.
If it were widely understood that the civilians operating in these areas are at risk and cannot be totally protected by the military forces employed then hopefully it would reduce the negative spin the press and enemies of the Bush administration would place on any of these type of casualties suffered.
Hopefully, this will not happen or our new leadership has already recognized this danger.
Because the media would be in there broadcasting photos of children dying from disease and starvation,and people killing their puppies and kittens to eat. It would be a PR nightmare. So would going in and trying to take over by force. It's a no-win situation unless we can manage to bribe the senior Republican Guard leadership to turn on Saddam and surrender the city.
It wasn't a Special Forces company,it was a Ranger company.
You forgot the most important difference:
Clintoon was in office and refused to provide overwhelming support power in Somalia even though US advisors asked for armor before going in. He denied the request
I doubt President Bush is ignoring any advice or questions.
Make that was.
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.