March 26, 2003 [LINK]

Second guessing

The fact that the U.S. blitzkrieg has encountered resistance has shocked some observers who lack a solid background in military affairs. Obviously, this won't be the kind of "cakewalk" that some warhawks such as Paul Wolfowitz expected. If a large number of Iraqi people are indeed hostile to the Coalition liberators, this casts doubt on prospects for pacification and eventual democratization. Nevertheless, British military historian John Keegan warns against hasty gloom in response to the minor battlefield setbacks. Many Westerners are under the illusion that modern war is a fast, clean "video game," when in most ways war is as ugly and dirty as it ever was. Winning on the battlefield is still ultimately up to "grunt" infantry soldiers lugging rifles through often-harsh conditions. In fact, the 3rd Infantry Division's advance of over 250 miles in only four days ranks as one of the most superlative executions of "blitkrieg" tactics ever. Keegan does caution, however, that the amazingly swift early advance has concealed the thinness of the Coalition forces, who are now spread out across a vast area, exposing their supply lines to sabotage.

Retired General Barry McCaffrey has questioned whether the Coalition had sufficient forces on hand in Kuwait to launch a successful attack into Iraq. I don't always agree with McCaffrey, but this time I think he's right. There is only one heavy U.S. Army division (the 3rd Infantry) in the entire Iraqi theater right now, and the second one (the 4th Infantry) apparently isn't expected to be ready for combat until mid-April. (That was the unit that was originally intended to travel through Turkey on the way to northern Iraq, until the Turkish parliament turned down the proposed agreement.) The news that it will take three more weeks to get ready surprised me, because the ships carrying the 4th Division's equipment should have passed through the Red Sea by now, and presumably will dock in Kuwait within four days or so. The division's soldiers have begun arriving in Kuwait via air transport from the United States, and it will probably at least a week to "marry up" the troops with their equipment. After that, there are two other heavy divisions slated for deployment to Iraq.

I am hugely relieved that U.S. forces have not targeted "infrastructure" targets such as the electrical power grid or water distribution systems. That was one of the most shameful aspects of the 1999 U.S. war to liberate Kosovo from Yugoslavia. Protests notwithstanding, U.S. bombing attacks have been extremely precise and discriminating military from civilians thus far. Of course, there will be human errors and technical failures, as U.S. commanders have frankly acknowledged. The more that Iraqi "Fedayeen" irregular forces hide in off-limits civilian facilities such as hospitals and use civilians as "human shields," the higher civilian casualties will be. Comparing how the two sides abide by the Geneva Convention should leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to who the "good guys" are. Nevertheless, the casualty-avoiding conduct of the war thus far raises doubt about U.S. determination. American combat deaths thus far total about 30, a small number when you consider the huge accomplishments on the battlefield, though the that figure could rise sharply if Baghdad and other urban centers are assaulted. Inasmuch as one of the main objectives of the war is to demonstrate U.S. and Western will to prevail over terrorism, reluctance to finish the job in short order may help the Arab-Islamic fascist movement recruit new fighters.

The bulk of British forces have remained in the south and may soon launch an assault on Basra, which is populated mainly by Shiite Muslims who are hostile to Saddam Hussein. The last time the British Army marched into Iraq was in 1916, when the region was called Mesopotamia, and the defenders were the Ottoman Turks. The British troops advanced from Basra to the city of Kut, where they were soon cut off from their supply lines and forced to surrender.