Pol – Where War Went Wrong

Ok, I’m as against war as the next person, but I’ve started to think(as I have thought before of government), that I could run the military better than some of the so called planners that they have on the payroll.

I questioned the purported ‘Shock and Awe’ idea from the first moment I heard it. I secretly chuckled at the hints of plans to clear a corridor into Baghdad for the scores of surrendering people they though would need to be dealt with.

As usual, being right isn’t fun and I’m not laughing now.

I’ve mused before that I doubt they had a real foreign strategy analyst or expert on the Iraqi people in any of their little war planning sessions. I doubt they’ve taken into account any suggestion, save that the poor little Iraqi people and their toy military would do anything but fold. It’s obvious that the war planners underestimated Iraqi tenacity and bravery, as well as overestimated how scary all their big bombs are.

Or, at least, what effect that fear would have.

If anything, the fear seems to have created a wariness on the part of the Iraqi people. One thing they likely remember is the time in 1991 where they dared hope the US would aid them in an uprising. They weren’t aided and it was crushed. I’m not going to debate anything about those events, save that they happened.

Now in 2003, we’re expecting the Iraqis(feeling betrayed by that lack of assistance), to give up the devil they know for the devil they don’t. Did anyone in power pause to think that, perhaps, trust would have to be earned from the majority of the Iraqi people? Personally, I don’t think they did. After all, we Americans are the good guys and everyone loves the good guys right? Right?

Now on Shock and Awe, which I consider to be a blunder in the deepest sense. The entire theory behind it is to generate fear that will provoke the enemy to back down and give up without a fight. Now, on a small scale, against foes that aren’t on their home terrain that might have worked and worked well. But this is, supposedly, the means to pacify an entire country. I think planners neglected to consider the most basic of human and animal behaviors. When they feel their back is to the wall, with danger before them, they fight back against it with desperate fury.

Shock and Awe got the fear in the Iraqis, but that fear was a thing uncontrollable(fear is hard to control by its very nature). That fear has manifested, in the people of Baghdad at least, the sense of being trapped. Thus they snap back. Hard.

This war, like everything else surrounding US dealings with Iraq since 2002, have been rushed. Ever since the WMD question popped up again, the US has been all about pressure and ultimatums. And once action got underway, despite Turkey’s refusal to be used as a stepping stone, US military strategists didn’t change their plans(as far as I can tell). All considered, had the US a 60k troop northern front, they might have ended this fight quickly. I think it would have been more likely.

Instead, they stuck with a southern approach and, when the flag flashed down, started to race across Iraq. Thus started a two day drive across the desert, with only sporadic resistance. Officials and news agencies crowed about their excellent progress and no doubt the back patting started in earnest behind the scenes. It was remarkably easy. In fact, it was too easy.

Meanwhile, ships off the coast launch plans and missiles to wear down Baghdad. Started with the botched attempt to take out Saddam before the real fighting started. This was a bad idea. Why? Because while someone that looked like Saddam might have been killed in the strike, that could have been one of his many body doubles, which Saddam has used to help keep himself alive for the last few decades.

Even if it was the real one, top Iraqi military officials had a host of body doubles to use in Saddam’s stead to keep the ruse up that he was still alive. Thus as the CIA futilely sought to see if the video of Saddam after the attack was real or not, the issue itself was already moot due to the mass uncertainty that would have reigned either way. For all we know, the real Saddam has been holed out in a bunker for the last decade, with his body doubles running around on the surface.

And now, over a week in, we have administration officials backpedaling as they up the time table to month(s) and sending in more troops. We have a forward force deep in Iraq with enemy territory on all sides and a thin, vulnerable supply train trailing hundreds of miles behind them. We have missiles blowing up what they shouldn’t be, like busses full of Syrians, portions of Iran and perhaps even that Iraqi marketplace. And we have angry Iraqi civilians that could well be shooting at solders, who shoot back and generally up the casualty figures and resentment of the Iraqi people.

The last a considerable possibility as we look at this link, which hints that Iraq civilians are responding to soldiers with bullets, who then respond with bombs that kill families on farms. Is this true? Potentially and perhaps even likely as Iraqi troops start to dress as civilians as part of deceptive guerilla tactics against a larger, stronger foe.

But what would critique be without constructive comments? I’ll tell you how I would have done this war, were I a military planner. Rule #1. Never underestimate your enemy. I would have marshaled a significant force and inserted into part of Iraq with access to water. First, secure the area around the insertion point and form a solid base of operations. Extend a net of patrols(ground and air) to watch for any flanking maneuvers. Have humanitarian aid planned and ready two steps behind to supply civilians in the area, who will be treated with respect.

Afterward, expand outward to a limited area and completely secure the area, flushing out any Iraqi forces. Then bring in the aid and make sure the people there are settled before moving on to another area to repeat the process. It would have been slow, but it would have done two things.

#1. Reduce the danger to forces by not charging into the thick of enemy territory without making sure your ass is covered. #2. It would have provided for better relations with Iraqi civilians who are now getting angry with the deaths and the lack of aid because, apparently, the spot they wish to land aid ships at is still mined.

Bottom line, whether you’re for or against, you have to agree that the administration screwed this one up seriously. They charged ahead blindly and now, while the rest of the world simmers hot, much of our military will remain entrenched in a war we can win from a statistical standpoint, but one that we’ve already lost in the eyes of a skeptical world.