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

Skip to comments.

A war unlike any we'd ever seen
Toronto Sun ^ | April 13, 2003 | Peter Worthington

Posted on 04/13/2003 6:04:55 PM PDT by Clive

America, if it so chooses, can now remove despots with pinpoint precision

By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun

VIENNA-- Looking back on the three-week war against Saddam Hussein, what was astonishing - as well as the speed and efficiency of the victory - was how so many commentators and "experts" were wrong about how the war would go.

While it's fair to say hindsight is 20/20, it should have been obvious the vaunted Republican Guard, with some inevitable exceptions, was mostly a sham.

They were not "crack" troops and, given how the homicidal Iraqi regime worked, would never be much good against real soldiers - which the Americans, British, Australians and Poles irrefutably are.

The one imponderable of the three-week war that neither "expert" nor amateur could predict, was whether Saddam had bio-chemical weapons, and if he would use them.

Even last week, speculation from some who should have known better was the Republican Guard would retreat into the rabbit warren streets of Baghdad and wage house-to-house warfare that would inflict horrendous casualties.

"Stalingrad" was a vision many who opposed the war invoked. They were as wrong in their way as the hordes of Soviet experts prior to communism's collapse who blamed the Cold War on the West for not trusting the good intentions and humanity of the Soviet system.

When the USSR collapsed, many who used to defend the system changed their tune and accepted that it was indeed an "evil empire" as former U.S. president Ronald Reagan had insisted. A succession of Russian foreign ministers has since agreed.

Those who once warned of American casualties in Iraq maybe reaching 50,000, plus hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, now insist the Iraqi army had no chance against the technological might of the U.S. military.

None are so blind as those who will not see, unless it's those whose hate for America clouds their judgment.

What we witnessed on TV was a war unlike any that's ever been fought. For the first time in history, an invading force was more concerned with saving civilian lives and not causing unnecessary damage than the defending troops.

Throughout the war, nightly air attacks avoided targeting Baghdad's water supply, its power plants and civilian areas. Coalition soldiers left buildings intact and risked their lives to spare civilians.

Life went on, more or less normally, until American tanks penetrated the heart of Baghdad.

Casualties were nothing compared to World War II. The precision of air attacks and the restraint and resolve of coalition troops made it clear Saddam would not bounce back as he did after 1991. When this was realized, the "invaders" were welcomed as liberators.

Yes, there was fighting, but total coalition casualties will likely be less than the 1991 Gulf war.

There is valid concern about what happens next. One hopes President George Bush and British PM Tony Blair mean it when they insist Iraqis are quite capable of running their own country now that Saddam is history.

Some "experts" who now worry about the effect of the war on the Arab or Muslim world - some 40 countries - tend to knee-jerk reactions.

As someone who has spent a large part of a career attending crises in the Third and Muslim Worlds, I'd argue there will be two overall effects of this astounding victory.

Misguided concerns

First, concerns about the Arab "street" are largely misguided. The Arab "street" is largely a myth - something generated and manipulated by demagogues with agendas.

The "street" will see the fall of Saddam on TV - even slanted Arab TV - is popular in Iraq. It will see American soldiers doling out their rations, being kissed and hugged by the people to chants of "Thank you Mr. Bush" and "Saddam an enemy of God." It will occur to Arabs in other countries that Iraqis may well be the lucky ones to be rid of a tyrant.

At the same time, leaders of Muslim countries and other dictators will be uneasy. Clearly, if America chooses, it has the capability to remove despots without inflicting horrendous casualties on the populace or destroying cities. Tyrants can be pin-pointed and eliminated.

That has got to give pause to tyrants everywhere - especially those who reside in Pyongyang, Damascus, even Riyadh. This reality may prove a greater incentive for reform than UN Security Council resolutions which have promoted appeasement and rhetoric more than peace and security.

The "new" world order, if that's not too strong a phrase, is likely to congeal around American, British and Australian leadership, supported by the likes of Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, Latvia, Holland and former communist countries of East Europe which understand that appeasement rarely deters dictators or promotes human rights.

France has proved itself irrelevant; Germany is weakly led; Russia is repairing relations with the U.S. As well as Saddam Hussein, the big losers in this war are the UN, which has lost prestige, and those who think dictators can be appeased.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: armchairgenerals; dontmesswithtexas; iraqifreedom; newnwo; victory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 04/13/2003 6:04:55 PM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Great Dane; liliana; Alberta's Child; Entropy Squared; Rightwing Canuck; Loyalist; canuckwest; ...
-
2 posted on 04/13/2003 6:05:26 PM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Hi mom!
3 posted on 04/13/2003 6:08:21 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Interesting article. Maybe the "walk softly, but carry a big stick" saying should be amended to "walk softly, but carry a big scalpel".
4 posted on 04/13/2003 6:09:41 PM PDT by wimpycat ('Nemo me impune lacessit')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
There is hope for the world yet.
5 posted on 04/13/2003 6:09:47 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
"Russia is repairing relations with the U.S."

Uh, no they are not. They are putting their lot with the weasals. Russia is going to be France Jr. soon, along with Canada.
6 posted on 04/13/2003 6:10:20 PM PDT by Beck_isright ("QUAGMIRE" - French word for "unable to find anyone to surrender to")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
The Chicken Littles in the media should consider the old saying (in regard to the two Persian Gulf Wars): "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
7 posted on 04/13/2003 6:11:59 PM PDT by Kenno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive; Badabing Badaboom; Mitchell; Allan; Fred Mertz; aristeides
Russia is repairing relations with the U.S.

Interesting how little heat Russia has taken from the administration. I have a suspicion Bush went to Putin 18 months ago and told him, "Vlad, we have a situation. Here's how you can help..." And Uncle Vlad said, "Okay, not a problem."

8 posted on 04/13/2003 6:17:18 PM PDT by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Badabing Badaboom; Mitchell; Allan; bonfire; Fred Mertz; aristeides; birdwoman; oceanview; ...
Of course, Saddam is nowhere to be found. If we cut a deal with him, that would itself explain the amazingly rapid collapse of the regime, not to mention the absence of any resort to WMD.

Now, we do know that, shortly after 9-11, both the US and the UK publicly threatened to respond to any biological attack by Saddam with nuclear weapons. We also know that the US administration publicly offered Saddam an exile deal up until the 48 hours before the first bombing. We don't know what happened privately after that. We do know that the administration has gone to great lengths to keep Saddam's authorship of 9-11 and the subsequent anthrax threats ambiguous, through mechanisms which include but are not limited to the preposterous Amerithrax-Hatfill charade. We do know that the United States dressed up an a priori implausible and clearly ineffectual "assassination" attempt on Saddam with a bunch of disinformatzia about mistresses, ear prints, dopplegangers, med-evac gurneys, homing pigeons, etc. And, again, we do know that Saddam is nowhere to be found.

My guess is we laid it on the line for Saddam. I think we told him, "We know what you did, we know what you're threatening, and we're not going to let you get away with it. So, play by Marquis of Queensbury rules and you can have your Stalingrad -- if your people want to go to the barricades for you -- and you and your club-scum brats will get away with your lives, and a bit of pocket money to spend on hookers and gold-plated bathroom accessories. Follow through on your threat, and say goodbye to this earth." And Saddam said "You're bluffing." And we gave him and his minions a lot of time to think about it in a more-or-less rational frame of mind, we put them in a situation where there was no way they were going to come out covered in glory, we did what we could on the risk-containment side, we worked with the Russians to keep tabs on their psychological state and keep them focused on the carrot ("We don't use the stick"), and then we called Saddam's bluff. But we called it only when we knew he was ready to fold. Anything else wouldn't be prudent.

9 posted on 04/13/2003 6:42:55 PM PDT by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
IMHO, Castro and Mugabe should be next with Chavez in the on deck circle. If that makes me a chickenhawk neocon, so be it. Somehow I think the 4th is going to make a wrong left turn on there way to Tikrit and wont stop until they hit water.
10 posted on 04/13/2003 6:42:59 PM PDT by MattinNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Yes, I am afraid that Canada has done untold damage to over a century of good relations. But then the PM's son in law is the major shareholder in France's top oil company...the one with big contracts in Iraq....so it was all about oil, up here in Canada anyway....
11 posted on 04/13/2003 6:43:02 PM PDT by remitrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
None are so blind as those who will not see, unless it's those whose hate for America clouds their judgment.

This should be the war cry for all conservatives in the next round of elections.

12 posted on 04/13/2003 6:47:17 PM PDT by txzman (Jer 23:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
"Walking softly but carrying a big stick" is easier to do with 18 divisions than 10. Thanks, Bill, Hill, and Al.
13 posted on 04/13/2003 7:01:48 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
We should press the UN to revoke voting privileges for all the "rogue states" that dont live up to minimal standards with respect to human rights, representative government, and freedom (free speech, property rights, and freedom of religion, etc.)
14 posted on 04/13/2003 7:06:10 PM PDT by WOSG (All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MattinNJ
And don't forget the FALN terrorists armed to the teeth by the drug barons in Colombia. They are way overdue for annihilation. Colombia might have a chance as a country if FALN were to be eliminated with a concentrated attack a la Iraq.

Then teach Fox and the Mexican army a lesson in American power, sending the illegals home in droves and guarding the border against more invasions from the south. Keep in mind that the Mexicans did all they could to destroy our Embassy in Mexico City and are still parading around showing their hate for the US. Why should we be benevolent to such people and governments?

CSPAN today showed a big Latino protest in Los Angeles that had Mexicans and Anglos screaming the worst anti-American slogans I've heard yet. Why is CSPAN still helping the protestors? It's galling!

15 posted on 04/13/2003 7:38:00 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Remember the name. Peter Worthington, of the Toronto Sun. No, not the less than brilliant Toronto Star. Please do not confuse them. For those who cannot purchase the Sun, it is a conservative leaning newspaper. The style though is almost enough to make an old style conservative blink. Tabloid in size, easy to carry on a subway or bus, it also carries outrageous young female persons scantily clad. Just to keep things even, it shows certain males in poses. (I ignore them, of course).

Peter is trying to undo the damage the Prime Minister of Canada has done. Yes, Chretien seems hell bent on trying to sink our ship. What the heck, he is well fixed anyway. Keep on bashing away Peter.

16 posted on 04/13/2003 7:46:47 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Thanks, Clive.

Peter Worthington is A-OK!

17 posted on 04/13/2003 7:53:46 PM PDT by Exit148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: remitrom
Here's a response from yours truly, a very embarrassed and angry Canucklehead:

DECLARATION FROM A CANADIAN CITIZEN

Mr. Chretien, I disown you.

You are not my leader, if you ever were. I withdraw from you my consent, my allegiance and my obedience, as if you ever had it. I denounce you for sacrificing the economic and political interests of all Canadians in the manner in which you have trashed more than a century of partnership and reciprocity with the United States of America simply to save your son-in-law's investments in a European oil firm. Trust, Mr. Chretien, is slowly built but quickly lost, and the rest of us will be a long time paying for you and your clan's tribal-minded self-interest. You are nothing but a contemptible mountebank, fouling the air of Parliament, without the saving grace of being even mildly entertaining. That also goes for your ministers, all the backbenchers who grovel under your 'party discipline,' your appointees in the Senate and in the courts of our so-called democracy, which is nothing but a kleptocracy in constitutional clothing.

I would tell you to go to a very low and very warm place, but after this I am not even speaking to you any more. I will respect the laws you and your minions pass of course, and all your enforcers... as I would 'respect' any dangerous predatory beast, but that doesn't mean I'm going to embrace it or support it or work for it, not now, not ever. Living on the streets and picking through garbage would hold much greater dignity for me than being your government's collaborator. Why would I soil my hands with you? I'd rather vote for the Natural Law Party; at least they're somewhat amusing. When I look at the rape of personal income, the erosion of individual freedoms, denial of the innate rights of self-defense and possesion of the means of self-defense to honest, peaceable citizens (while bloodthirsty foreign terrorists are endlessly coddled), the horrendous mismanagement of resources such as the Atlantic fisheries, the desecration of what was once one of the world's finest armed forces and the systematic disenfranchisement of everyone who doesn't live in southern Ontario or Quebec, my blood boils. This serviceman's daughter has no patience or forbearance left for you, cuchon . I know many people agree with me, although they aren't saying it out loud quite yet. But I am, because I've had it with you. You no longer exist to me.

Get out of my face, my wallet, my head and my life, Mr. Chretien, and take your trained seals with you.

18 posted on 04/13/2003 8:00:49 PM PDT by coydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Clive
There are people who hate America. They mistake this hatred for patriotism and justify this delusion by reciting events without context and exaggerating every flaw.

I believe this was called the counter-culture revolution that took hold of a disappointing number of baby boomers.
19 posted on 04/13/2003 8:04:59 PM PDT by optimistically_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra
Those young females are hardly outrageous in this day and age. No nudity like the british tabs and are usually girl next door types. They will be in bikinis on occasion but are just as often fully clothed as well. Updated daily on this link http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoSunshine/home.html
20 posted on 04/13/2003 8:24:06 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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