I have had concerns that we are not giving Iraq everything we have and are capable of giving.
This article brings up many points.
What do you think?
EDIT: Or do you think perhaps we are purposely holding back?
If so, WHY would we do this? It doesn't seem to be working....
Analysis: Shock and Worry
Christopher Ruddy
Monday, March 24, 2003
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...23/134629.shtml
Shock and yawn – that’s probably the real reaction to the American aerial attack the world is witnessing live on television.
With the war for Iraqi liberation just days under way, we have been told of “mass surrenders,†“decapitation of the leadership,†a “crumbling regime†and so on.
But the Iraqis don’t see it that way.
After “shock and awe†– and the expenditure of billions of dollars of cruise missiles and bombs (each cruise missile costs $500,000 to $1 million) – the net result is that we have bombed many buildings that were evacuated weeks ago.
Yesterday a friend of mine said, “My god, the missiles are more valuable than the buildings they are destroying.â€
Meanwhile, as we saw on “Meet the Press,†the Defense Ministry in Baghdad has yet to be hit. In fact, the Iraqi military still gives briefings there.
The presumed reason, Andrea Mitchell says, is that we are secretly talking to high-ranking military personnel there. We wouldn’t want to disturb their routine.
The Iraqi vice president is holding press conferences. The foreign minister just left the country for a conference. Saddam Hussein is depicted regularly on Iraqi TV.
(No, we haven’t bothered to knock out Iraqi TV. For some reason, we would still like Iraqis to think Saddam is still in charge, even though our Pentagon believes he may be dead.)
Press leaks before the war released the details of America’s secret plan – dubbed “Shock and Awe†– a massive, precision-guided aerial bombardment that would lead to the quick unraveling of the Iraqi regime.
So far, the plan has not worked.
In fact, if there is any “awe†it’s the spectacle of the U.S. expending billions of dollars on empty buildings.
Life goes on as usual in Baghdad, and at night America taxpayers shell out for a fireworks show better than one Grucci can offer up.
No doubt the Iraqis sit on their rooftops at night alongside the world press, drinking camel juice and watching the show.
In the morning life goes on, everything works: telephones, TV, electricity, cars.
What an interesting war. This is looking like the equivalent of the Vietnam War, one where, because of political considerations, we couldn’t chase the enemy across the DMZ. Now we won’t hit anything save those deemed “official†buildings and presumably empty.
The media say that the reason for this new warfare is that we don’t want world opinion against us if civilians are harmed or suffer – and we don’t want to have to rebuild large parts of the city as soon as we take over.
Therefore, the Iraqi “civilian infrastructure†must be kept intact.
All of this sounds nice and good – except in a military-police state like Iraq, the civilian infrastructure is inextricably linked with the military one.
Sadly, war is about victory – as Gen. MacArthur said so eloquently, there is no substitute for it. It is not about political considerations, as we are seeing today.
The poor general must now be turning over in his grave as we again are delaying victory and consequently risking the lives of American soldiers by conducting a politically correct war.
Those American soldiers coldly executed this weekend – could they have been saved? Could their deaths have been avoided if we really had used “shock and awe†– an action that put Iraq back into the Stone Age, knocking out telephones, electricity, TV and radio broadcasts, food and water supply, bridges, all communication and transport?
I am not suggesting indiscriminate carpet-bombing of civilians.
I am calling for a war that inflicts immediate damage on an enemy – that either disables its ability to fight or leads to its surrender.
I do think a more standard military attack would have been more effective. A massive aerial bombardment that cuts off the enemy’s armies, isolates them, starves them – followed much later by a ground invasion. Why the rush to bring our forces to Baghdad?
Instead of rushing our ground troops to the capital, let's soften up the enemy. When the lights don’t go on, the water tap is silent and the toilet won’t flush, when food dwindles, when chaos reigns because the leaders are fleeing or dead, that’s when the regime has maximum pressure to be ousted from within. This "war lite" won’t cause it.
Incredibly, what’s happening has been lost on Americans, who are mesmerized by the “reality TV†from the “embedded journalists†and the “rooftop journalists.â€
Meanwhile, by watching the continuous live press coverage, one would think we won this war two days ago. In fact, I was surprised to hear Gen. Tommy Franks, for all the talk of mass surrenders, say we had only 700 POWs in custody as of Saturday. That’s 700 out of a nearly half-million-man Iraqi army.
Franks also said Saturday that "this will be a campaign unlike any other in history," noting the deep penetration of U.S. forces.
So far it has been like any other American war: We hit empty buildings and they execute our soldiers. They execute our soldiers and some Arab TV crew drives back to Baghdad to satellite-uplink this shameful video to the world.
As for the “deep penetration†Franks speaks of, has anyone considered that we are moving so deeply into Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his leadership want us deep in Iraq? Concentrated. Easier to hit. Closer to his elite troops.
Col. David Hackworth said he worries that with U.S. troops so close to Baghdad, Saddam won’t need missiles. His Republican Guard can just pump artillery shells laced with chemical weapons upon our troops. A scary thought.
Similarly, Donald Rumsfeld admitted on “Meet the Press†Sunday that as we get closer to Baghdad, the possibility the Iraqis will use mass destruction weapons “grows.â€
If there is a chance that the Iraqis will use such weapons (my guess is 50-50 they will), shouldn’t we have taken every step by now to incapacitate all of Iraqi society, especially its nerve center in Baghdad?
But it seems the standard approach to war is being lost. MacArthur is dead.
I believe part of the folly we are seeing is based on a presumption we should not be making.
Our American leadership firmly believes that the Iraqis really want to be liberated by America and won’t fight for Saddam. Americans, who love freedom, can easily be deluded into thinking this.
But previous military commanders who battled tyrants in Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union, Korea and Vietnam know that native populations can and will fight tooth and nail for their dictators.
We should not base military strategy on presumptions and political considerations.
From the beginning, we should have been focused on killing Saddam and disarming him, rather than winning the approval of the U.N.
We should have been more concerned about swiftly defeating Iraq’s ability to fight, rather than trying to micromanage from the Pentagon. (We are told that the U.S. is trying to orchestrate, via telephone, a regime change as we wage war. Instead, we should wage war and create a pressure so intense it leads to such a change.)
In a military-police state like Iraq, we need to disable the society as quickly as possible. We can’t be focused on collateral damage.
Secretary Rumsfeld told Tim Russert that we can’t hit certain targets because Saddam has mixed civilian facilities, such as hospitals and schools, with military installations. In previous wars we dealt with such problems simply. We gave fair warning by dropping leaflets announcing the site would be bombed and all should evacuate. We then bombed those facilities. We did not delay.
This is way beyond what we should be expected to do, especially when our adversary, Saddam Hussein, announced that the Geneva Convention would not apply. When the first groups of Americans were captured and summarily executed, we see the danger of this new war.
This is the new trend in politically correct and managed warfare. We see it in Israel, where, in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the Israelis will first call the PLO and tell them what PLO building they plan to bomb.
The Israelis alert their TV cameras and the Israeli Defense Forces arrive for the show on schedule with tanks and jets. Of course, the mission is a great success for the politicians: The empty building is destroyed.
It’s no wonder Israel has yet to solve its terrorist problem.
America will win this war against Iraq. I have no doubt.
But I fear more American casualties than are necessary. I also fear the precedents that may be set from this war, ones that will make the world a more dangerous place for Americans.
This article brings up many points.
What do you think?
EDIT: Or do you think perhaps we are purposely holding back?
If so, WHY would we do this? It doesn't seem to be working....
Analysis: Shock and Worry
Christopher Ruddy
Monday, March 24, 2003
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...23/134629.shtml
Shock and yawn – that’s probably the real reaction to the American aerial attack the world is witnessing live on television.
With the war for Iraqi liberation just days under way, we have been told of “mass surrenders,†“decapitation of the leadership,†a “crumbling regime†and so on.
But the Iraqis don’t see it that way.
After “shock and awe†– and the expenditure of billions of dollars of cruise missiles and bombs (each cruise missile costs $500,000 to $1 million) – the net result is that we have bombed many buildings that were evacuated weeks ago.
Yesterday a friend of mine said, “My god, the missiles are more valuable than the buildings they are destroying.â€
Meanwhile, as we saw on “Meet the Press,†the Defense Ministry in Baghdad has yet to be hit. In fact, the Iraqi military still gives briefings there.
The presumed reason, Andrea Mitchell says, is that we are secretly talking to high-ranking military personnel there. We wouldn’t want to disturb their routine.
The Iraqi vice president is holding press conferences. The foreign minister just left the country for a conference. Saddam Hussein is depicted regularly on Iraqi TV.
(No, we haven’t bothered to knock out Iraqi TV. For some reason, we would still like Iraqis to think Saddam is still in charge, even though our Pentagon believes he may be dead.)
Press leaks before the war released the details of America’s secret plan – dubbed “Shock and Awe†– a massive, precision-guided aerial bombardment that would lead to the quick unraveling of the Iraqi regime.
So far, the plan has not worked.
In fact, if there is any “awe†it’s the spectacle of the U.S. expending billions of dollars on empty buildings.
Life goes on as usual in Baghdad, and at night America taxpayers shell out for a fireworks show better than one Grucci can offer up.
No doubt the Iraqis sit on their rooftops at night alongside the world press, drinking camel juice and watching the show.
In the morning life goes on, everything works: telephones, TV, electricity, cars.
What an interesting war. This is looking like the equivalent of the Vietnam War, one where, because of political considerations, we couldn’t chase the enemy across the DMZ. Now we won’t hit anything save those deemed “official†buildings and presumably empty.
The media say that the reason for this new warfare is that we don’t want world opinion against us if civilians are harmed or suffer – and we don’t want to have to rebuild large parts of the city as soon as we take over.
Therefore, the Iraqi “civilian infrastructure†must be kept intact.
All of this sounds nice and good – except in a military-police state like Iraq, the civilian infrastructure is inextricably linked with the military one.
Sadly, war is about victory – as Gen. MacArthur said so eloquently, there is no substitute for it. It is not about political considerations, as we are seeing today.
The poor general must now be turning over in his grave as we again are delaying victory and consequently risking the lives of American soldiers by conducting a politically correct war.
Those American soldiers coldly executed this weekend – could they have been saved? Could their deaths have been avoided if we really had used “shock and awe†– an action that put Iraq back into the Stone Age, knocking out telephones, electricity, TV and radio broadcasts, food and water supply, bridges, all communication and transport?
I am not suggesting indiscriminate carpet-bombing of civilians.
I am calling for a war that inflicts immediate damage on an enemy – that either disables its ability to fight or leads to its surrender.
I do think a more standard military attack would have been more effective. A massive aerial bombardment that cuts off the enemy’s armies, isolates them, starves them – followed much later by a ground invasion. Why the rush to bring our forces to Baghdad?
Instead of rushing our ground troops to the capital, let's soften up the enemy. When the lights don’t go on, the water tap is silent and the toilet won’t flush, when food dwindles, when chaos reigns because the leaders are fleeing or dead, that’s when the regime has maximum pressure to be ousted from within. This "war lite" won’t cause it.
Incredibly, what’s happening has been lost on Americans, who are mesmerized by the “reality TV†from the “embedded journalists†and the “rooftop journalists.â€
Meanwhile, by watching the continuous live press coverage, one would think we won this war two days ago. In fact, I was surprised to hear Gen. Tommy Franks, for all the talk of mass surrenders, say we had only 700 POWs in custody as of Saturday. That’s 700 out of a nearly half-million-man Iraqi army.
Franks also said Saturday that "this will be a campaign unlike any other in history," noting the deep penetration of U.S. forces.
So far it has been like any other American war: We hit empty buildings and they execute our soldiers. They execute our soldiers and some Arab TV crew drives back to Baghdad to satellite-uplink this shameful video to the world.
As for the “deep penetration†Franks speaks of, has anyone considered that we are moving so deeply into Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his leadership want us deep in Iraq? Concentrated. Easier to hit. Closer to his elite troops.
Col. David Hackworth said he worries that with U.S. troops so close to Baghdad, Saddam won’t need missiles. His Republican Guard can just pump artillery shells laced with chemical weapons upon our troops. A scary thought.
Similarly, Donald Rumsfeld admitted on “Meet the Press†Sunday that as we get closer to Baghdad, the possibility the Iraqis will use mass destruction weapons “grows.â€
If there is a chance that the Iraqis will use such weapons (my guess is 50-50 they will), shouldn’t we have taken every step by now to incapacitate all of Iraqi society, especially its nerve center in Baghdad?
But it seems the standard approach to war is being lost. MacArthur is dead.
I believe part of the folly we are seeing is based on a presumption we should not be making.
Our American leadership firmly believes that the Iraqis really want to be liberated by America and won’t fight for Saddam. Americans, who love freedom, can easily be deluded into thinking this.
But previous military commanders who battled tyrants in Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union, Korea and Vietnam know that native populations can and will fight tooth and nail for their dictators.
We should not base military strategy on presumptions and political considerations.
From the beginning, we should have been focused on killing Saddam and disarming him, rather than winning the approval of the U.N.
We should have been more concerned about swiftly defeating Iraq’s ability to fight, rather than trying to micromanage from the Pentagon. (We are told that the U.S. is trying to orchestrate, via telephone, a regime change as we wage war. Instead, we should wage war and create a pressure so intense it leads to such a change.)
In a military-police state like Iraq, we need to disable the society as quickly as possible. We can’t be focused on collateral damage.
Secretary Rumsfeld told Tim Russert that we can’t hit certain targets because Saddam has mixed civilian facilities, such as hospitals and schools, with military installations. In previous wars we dealt with such problems simply. We gave fair warning by dropping leaflets announcing the site would be bombed and all should evacuate. We then bombed those facilities. We did not delay.
This is way beyond what we should be expected to do, especially when our adversary, Saddam Hussein, announced that the Geneva Convention would not apply. When the first groups of Americans were captured and summarily executed, we see the danger of this new war.
This is the new trend in politically correct and managed warfare. We see it in Israel, where, in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the Israelis will first call the PLO and tell them what PLO building they plan to bomb.
The Israelis alert their TV cameras and the Israeli Defense Forces arrive for the show on schedule with tanks and jets. Of course, the mission is a great success for the politicians: The empty building is destroyed.
It’s no wonder Israel has yet to solve its terrorist problem.
America will win this war against Iraq. I have no doubt.
But I fear more American casualties than are necessary. I also fear the precedents that may be set from this war, ones that will make the world a more dangerous place for Americans.
