[Hanson] Anatomy of the Three-Week War: It was more that we were good rather than they were bad.

National Review Online ^ | April 17, 2003 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Ronzo]

VDH is the MAN.

I encourage all Freepers who haven't already done so to run rigtht out and buy VDH's "Carnage and Culture" and actually read it. But be warned, he does not write at a 5th grade level; as a matter of fact, you best know your classics and ancient history (or at least be aware of it) if you want to get the most out of his book. It's one of the most intelligent and well written books on warfare that have been written in the past few years.

Tankers, transport, and other logistical craft — what Cicero would probably now call the sinews of war — deserve more investment and concern.

Here, here! I've been arguing the same thing for years. We need to dramatically improve our capabilities in this regard. Continuing to use the cargo capacity of the fifty year old C-130 as the design parameter for our armored pesonal carriers is just plain stupid.

[Gritty]

Excellent article.

My only complaint is he seemed to leave the Marine ground forces out of the equation. They are no longer primarily an amphibious force, isolated unto themselves and with their own specific and tailored support and missions, but an integrated and extremely flexible machine quite capable of doing what a heavy mechanized division does, only with older and sometimes amphibious equipment.

That's quite a feat!

[AzSteven]

My only complaint is he seemed to leave the Marine ground forces out of the equation.

I think that was part of what he was getting at with the comment about no longer having true distinctions between the various branches of the military. With all of the coordination of Command, Control and Intelligence systems, Army and Marine forces were able to operate both separately and together in a coordinated fashion never before seen in US military operations.

Personally though, I would hate to see the Marines lose their unique identity. Despite their use in this war, it seems to me they continue to have a mission and role that is distinct from the Army. And that is speaking as an Army vet.

[vikingcelt]

Totally agree. Victor Davis Hanson IS the man. I have been reading every one of his columns and every one is a treasure of quiet sophisticated intelligence.

[angkor]

Wow! I saw Hanson for the first time on a cable news channel a few weeks back, and it was amazing. He's not only intelligent and articulate, but also a very forceful pro-American historian.

[Paradox]

Something that I think is often forgotten in all of this is that one of the reasons the US has been remarkably successful in its military campains of late, is that they were the RIGHT THING to do. In these cases, we LIBERATED people. Kuwait, Afganistan (Taliban were foreigners), and now Iraq (from the Baathists). The people there, while they might not have loved us, they hated the powers in charge at the time, so when push came to shove, they didn't fight for them.

No doubt the US could invade just about any country at this moment, but if we aren't in the Right, it won't be that easy.

[discostu]

My only arguement with him is on the friendly fire/ mechanical mishap. I don't think our numbers there are going up, but the percentage is climbing because our ability to avoid enemy fire is increasing. This happened in GW1 also. It would seem that a certain number of friendly fire casualties are unavoidable, they gain more visibility when we're avoiding enemy casualties and these are the only casualties to report. The rule of news is "if it bleeds it leads" and that's even more true during war (when they know there's going to be blood). The longer we go inbetween casualties the more the press will emphasise the last set.

[FirstFlaBn]

in a few thousand square acres

Uh, acres are already square. Embarrassing for an educated person. He could have used an editor.

[RLK]

Why we won. Opposing a force that has air superiority, satellite observation, computer guided missiles accurate to five feet, and so forth in open terrain is impossible.

[MHGinTN]

My favorite line came at the last ... and it bears repeating because those brave, honorable Soldiers are our Soldiers:
We of an often cynical and ironic society at the least owe them a commensurate idealism. It is time to put an end to the PC driven denegration of our moral stewardship as Americans.

[arthurus]

Opposing a force that has air superiority, satellite observation, computer guided missiles accurate to five feet, and so forth in open terrain is impossible

Opposing a force can read all of your electronic communications is not real easy, either.

[The Great Satan]

The real question is, what did we offer Saddam to fold? Until we know the answer to that -- which means, until we know what happened to Saddam, Uday, Qusay, Aziz, etc. -- any military analysis is meaningless and beside the point.

[A Simple Soldier]

Just to pee in your cornflakes, VDH voted for Clinton in 92 and 96. He mentioned it on a CSPAN Book TV talk he was giving on Sep 15, 2001 for his Culture and Carnage book tour

I have seen him on TV and was at a CJCS Lecture at the Pentagon recently, where he was the featured speaker. Never got a chance to ask him why.

[sinkspur]

Uh, acres are already square. Embarrassing for an educated person. He could have used an editor.

You're a niggler. No doubt you red-line Bush's grammar mistakes as well.

Get invited to lots of parties?

[sinkspur]

The real question is, what did we offer Saddam to fold?

What evidence do you have that we offered him anything?

[rebmiami]

I loved his column the long riders. Best thing I have seen written on the war.
"VDH voted for Clinton in '92 and '96"
NO!! oh well. Maybe he has come around.

[Mitchell]

The real question is, what did we offer Saddam to fold?

We may not have offered him anything to fold. Here are two other possibilities:

1. Saddam was just an incompetent military tactician and strategist. This is what the captured Iraqi general implied.
2. The Russians offered Saddam something to fold, without our involvement. Putin may have decided that he preferred the appearance of an unsurprising U.S. victory over a weak country (notwithstanding world opinion prior to the war that Iraq had a strong military) to the alternative -- which would have been a hard-fought, bloody U.S. victory over a well-prepared Iraqi army, with the probable use of WMD. The latter would have sent the clear message that we can (and have the will to) defeat countries like North Korea; as things stand, the message may simply be that Iraqi military capabilities were overestimated.

Possibility 2 is not unlike what Haselkorn says may have happened to end the first Gulf War.

[The Great Satan]

What evidence do you have that we offered him anything?

In the first place, we know for a fact that we have been offering him an exile deal since at least the middle of 2002. Bush publicly offered him an exile deal 48 hours before hostilities opened. What happened privately after that we don't know, but it has become clear that our two purported assassination attempts were strictly PR exercises, fleshed out with blatant falsehoods (ludicrous crap about ear prints, mistresses, doubles, oxygen masks, homing pigeons, etc.) -- which is exactly what they appeared to be at the time, if you looked at them carefully. We know that none of the top leadership -- Saddam, Aziz, the entire cabinet, Usay, Qusay, has been publicly located, dead or alive. If we had firm evidence that even a single one of them were dead, we would be shouting it from the roof tops. OTOH, the administration does not seem overly concerned about these individuals being at large -- we just lowered the terror threat level for instance. That doesn't make sense, unless you believe Bush & Co. were simply lying about Saddam's biological weapons. Therefore, I infer that these people are most likely neither dead nor at large. Their fate has been taken care of in a manner that is compatible with our safety from revenge attacks using biological WMD, the threat Bush outlined in his SOTU. Most likely, Mr. Putin was our intermediary, and indeed this is consistent with a number of press reports which have emerged since Saddam disappeared. Such an outcome would explain Bush's behavior, Putin's behavior, Saddam's behavior, and the Iraqi command's behavior. All the alternatives I see run into major problems with the facts as we know them, including the behavior of the principals here. But, by all means, set up an alternative explanation and let's see how well it fits with the facts.

[Mitchell]

But, by all means, set up an alternative explanation and let's see how well it fits with the facts.

Look at the Russia-did-it-on-its-own explanation (possibility 2) in #18 above. Once it was a done deal, the results would have been acceptable to us, especially since we would have no further choice in the matter. As in your scenario, Saddam would be alive but not at large.