Mar. 31, 2003
The opening weeks of the Second Oil War against Iraq - aka Operation Iraq Freedom - produced the advertised `shock and awe' all right, but it came in Washington rather than bomb-blasted Baghdad.
The immediate uprisings against Great Satan Saddam, the quick, almost effortless `liberation' of Iraq, and the joyous reception by grateful Iraqis promised by the neo-conservatives who misled America into this increasingly ugly war have been exposed as a farrago of lies or distortions.
So much for VP Cheney's claim that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a `house of cards' that would collapse at the first shock, and the Bush Administration's Rasputin, Richard Perle, who promised the Iraqis would run like rabbits at `the first whiff of gunpowder.' The only part of the campaign that was on plan was the occupation of most of Iraq's oil fields. Contracts are already being given to US firms for their operation and maintenance
Iraqis, very clearly, do not want to be `liberated,' even many who had long opposed Saddam's brutal regime. To the contrary, the US-British invasion appears to have ignited genuine national resistance among 17 million Arab Iraqis, just as the 1941 German invasion of the USSR rallied Russians and Ukrainians behind Stalin's hated regime.
So far, regular Iraqi army units, militia groups, and guerillas have been delaying and harassing the northward advance of US forces by assaulting overextend American supply lines, then retreating into cities and towns. Any 18th century general worth his snuff would tell you never leave enemy garrisons athwart your communications(supply lines). Napoleon said lines of communications were the most important factor in war, a lesson US forces are painfully re-learning in Iraq.
So 100,000 more US troops are being rushed to Iraq, meaning almost half of the US Army will be stuck in Mesopotamia at a time when North Korea is threatening war. And this before US forces have even closed with Iraq's Republican Guards. Last week, an ashen-faced Tony Blair admitted British forces have been forced to lay siege to Basra, Iraq's second city - a `humanitarian' operation he laughably claimed - after British shelling and bombing destroyed Basra's water and electricity systems. The nasty, bloody urban warfare the Americans and Brits sought to avoid at all costs is now confronting them.
CIA and many American generals warned for months that a. there might be no mass uprisings against Saddam's regime; b. over-extended US communications would be vulnerable; c. the invasion force lacked sufficient ground troops to conquer Iraq; d. Turkey's refusal to admit the US 4th Division would wrong-foot the campaign.
In his eagerness for war, President George Bush ignored these warnings. So did the civilian neo-con hawks running his administration, few of whom, save Sec Donald Rumsfeld, had ever served in their nation's armed forces. The president's military background - a few appearances in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War - were unlikely to have taught him much about the art of war.
The Bush Administration, Pentagon, and tame media are already calling Iraqi guerillas `terrorists' and, inevitably, `linked to al-Qaida.'
The White House has issued orders to avoid at all costs any mention of guerrilla warfare, as this term suggests both popular resistance and conjures memories of Vietnam. The Administration will continue efforts to convince the public that invading Iraq is part of the so-called war on terrorism, and attacking its cities an act of `humanitarian aid.' Saddam is already being downgraded as a menace in the event he, like bin Laden, escapes death or capture..
The US media, with some notable exceptions, too often simply parrots Pentagon PR handouts, and shields Americans from the indelicate realities of war. Ironically, Russia's media is delivering far more accurate reporting on the conflict that America's self-censoring media.
US and British casualties may be under-reported, a practice the US is following in its guerilla war in Afghanistan, where six US soldiers were recently killed when their helicopter was shot down. The Pentagon described it as a `hard landing.' The Pentagon stoutly denies under-reporting losses, though some foreign intelligence sources contradict its claim.
Iraqis, quite clearly, have rained on President Bush's victory parade. No matter how the Pentagon spins Iraqi resistance - `Saddam's thugs force Iraqis to fight at gunpoint' …`Iraqis use human shields'…`civilians fire on US soldiers' etc, it seems clear that non-Kurdish Iraqis of all sorts are resisting the invasion. Their growing and surprisingly aggressive fight against vastly superior forces suggest that a long guerilla war may be in the offing, even after US-British forces occupy Baghdad. US attacks on the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala could also spark even more fierce resistance by Shias Muslims, or even Iran.
In a further irony, the US believed it could re-fight the 1991 war against Iraq, assuming the Iraqi Army would disintegrate under fire. By contrast, the Iraqis learned from their 1991 disaster and gained much knowledge from friendly Serbia, which had been extremely successful in tactical deception and spoofing US technology. Most important, Iraq learned to hide under urban shelter and avoid exposing its troops and armor to lethal US airpower.
The White House and Pentagon have forgotten the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam was a close American ally. Iraq fought ferocious battles against numerically superior Iranian forces, suffering 500,000 casualties. In open desert, Iraq's forces, bereft of air cover, are sitting ducks; in urban areas, they have fought, at least in the past, with skill and courage. Many of Iraq's current soldiers are veterans of the war with Iran. This does not bode well for the upcoming US attack on Baghdad.
Foreign Correspondent