Replies

We were told by the primary authors of this war that the whole thing would be a "cakewalk," (Kenneth Adelman and Richard Perle) and that the Iraqis would "welcome us with roses" (Donald Rumsfeld). That was the principle reason why PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (PNAC) eggheads wanted to use only 64,000 troops for their invasion of Iraq. The generals balked, and the initial force level of 250,000, with only 75,000 actually engaged in combat, was a compromise. Perle actually advocated dropping 5,000 paratroopers on Baghdad, and that a force of that size would be sufficient.

There are many problems with the present deployment, and if there are any "armchair generals" around, it was the bunch that came up with this jerryrigged plan, the Perles, the Wolfowitzs and that gang. Let's take a hard look at all of the problems, keeping in mind that the advance is halted for SIX DAYS as the forward troops are short of food and water, with only ONE MEAL PER DAY rations at present. That is that messy supply line problem again.

1. Kuwait is a very small country, as contrasted with Iraq, which is as large as California. You invade Iraq from Kuwait and what you have is a "funnelling" effect, with the funnel actually upside down. You are feeding troops and material from the thin pipe of the funnel out through the thick end. This is not unlike moving troops through mountain passes as we did in Korea as MacArthur approached the Yalu. As the units pass through the thin neck of the funnel, they are vulnerable as you move from a thin front to a wide front, but can only do it one unit at a time. The unit at the other end of the funnel is exposed without support. They got away with it only because Hussein is using Fabian tactics. He let us move in deep with little opposition, trying to let us stretch our supplylines. He is using the cities as fortresses. He could do this for a long time, as Hitler held most of the Channel ports in France to the end of the war.

Kuwait's port is not the best place to bring in supplies, either, and they have to work their way all the way to south of Baghdad.

2. After the first Bush Administration not only abandoned the southern Shiites, but also temporarily lifted the No-Fly Zone, thus allowing Saddam to use helicopter gunships to annihilate them, it is puzzling why any of them would trust us. Even the Kurds, after being betrayed by Kissinger and Nixon in 1975, Bush in 1991, and Clinton in 1996, are somewhat distrustful and are not accepting "the bit" of US control very well. They want Kirkuk, and they will take it whether or not we approve. The Shiites intend to sit on the fence for this fight, and some are still angry about 1991, so they have not been as enthusiastic as our leaders thought they would be, particularly with Iraqi troops holding Basra and other Shiite cities fanatically as fortresses.

British troops have not been able to advance north, thus exposing the right flank of our troops. They have to stay in the south and watch the large force at Basra.

3. Just as the Neo-Cons thought we would not need a large force, they did not think our troops needed the mobile rocket launchers used in Desert Storm, and the Army only received a fraction of them. It would have been difficult to move them along this thin a line of advance anyway, but it would be very useful to have them, as they are good in destroying enemy positions and armor rather than "shocking and awing" them.

4. We have been told that the number of "smart" bombs is anywhere from 90% to 80% of the total bombs being used in this effort. If that is so, I would suspect that there may not be enough bombs for a prolonged campaign, as "smart" bombs are more difficult to assemble, and more expensive, than cast iron or cluster bombs that are just as effective in destroying troop concentrations. I suspect that the Neo-Cons, with their fixation on Baghdad, preferred the "smart" bombs for use on that city, and emphasized that over Air Force close support of infantry. That has been a complaint of General Wallace and others.

5. Remember the "Help Is On the Way" slogan of the 2000 campaign? That was the slogan Bush directed at the military, and was aimed at the eight years of systematic neglect of the needs of the military in equipment, spare parts, and even AMMUNITION, while also weakening training regimens. There has not been sufficient time, from 2001 to the present, to have completely alleviated all of these problems. Troops in the latter Clinton years did not have enough ammunition for training, and the ammunition shortage was still being discussed on Capitol Hill as late as the 2002 budget hearings. So, I suspect there might still be a residual ammunition shortage, and there were tons of cruise missiles and other ordnance fired off by Clinton in Afghanistan, the Sudan, the BALKANS (lots) and in IRAQ (lots again in "Operation Desert Fox" in 1998-1999). I doubt that all of the Clinton expenditures, that were a lot like an effort to unilaterally disarm the United States, have been fully replaced, but that would not discourage the Neo-Cons as they thought this campaign would be a "cakewalk." Now, I would like any of them to explain to me just how any campaign against a regime that supposedly BRISTLES with weapons of mass destruction, to the point that invasion was the only option to take out those weapons, could possibly refer to such an invasion as a "cakewalk," yet they did so refer to it. As the Neo-Cons thought the war would be a "cakewalk," despite the huge cache of WMD Hussein had stashed here and there, and that a force as low as 5,000 paratroopers could take Baghdad, or a force of 68,000 could seize the entire country, I can't see why they would think that a large quantity of ordnance would have to be expended. Therefore, I suspect the level of available ordnance is a problem right now.

7. Now, let's address the issue of Syria and Iran. Presently, Rumsfeld has been threatning those nations, and Syrian dictator Assad knows he is on the list of PNAC for "regime change." So do the Mullahs in Iran. Unfortunately for the Neo-Cons, they PUBLISHED their plans years before assuming so many defense positions in this Administration, and the regimes in Syria and Iran have read them. They know they are next, and now we are getting bellicose with them. Take a look at the map of the region. Syria is on the left flank of the 3rd Division. Iran is on the right flank of the Marines. All we need is for these countries to intervene with their troops, tanks, and PLANES (they may be Arab countries, but they do have air forces). PNAC bluntly stated in their papers, available worldwide, that even if Hussein was dead, they would still invade, as they wanted Iraq as a military base to operate against the other targeted regimes.

8. With only 75,000 engaged in a PNAC-driven race for Baghdad, the troops have been on the move and engaged almost round-the-clock for days at a time. They are exhausted. There are no reserves, so they face having to knock out the Republican Guard and then (get this) seize a city of over FOUR MILLION PEOPLE, many of whom legally own automatic weapons. We couldn't take Basra, a city of one million with a population supposedly hostile to Hussein. Now we expect 75,000 men to take a city that WE HAVE BOMBED. In WWII, it took MILLIONS of Russian troops to seize Berlin.

It is easy to say to green teenagers, "LET'S ROLL!" and that a plan that has truly put them in a tactically dicey (to put it mildly) position when the only "rolling" we have to do is "roll" into our easy chairs to enjoy a beer while watching people get smart bombed on TV. Now, Rummy wants the 3rd Division to engage the Republican Guard without the 4th Mechanized being deployed.

I am proud of those soldiers. I don't like to see them used to actualize some eggheads' utopian vision of a "democratized" Middle East. That vision has already been dashed as the "cakewalk" scenario is no longer operative.

The American People have not been told that this is the start of "World War IV," as one Council on Foreign Relations egghead confessed in front of a video camera that she did not know was controlled by conservative talk show host Alex Jones of Austin, Texas. The American People have not been told that, yes, Syria, Iran, et. al. are also to be invaded and "democratized," or whatever it is the eggheads want to do to those countries. Jones will have the videotape of this very revealing conference available shortly, and audio should be available this week.

We have been conned.

Your long account of the many dangers and risks we face is an extended strawman argument.

These "Neo-Cons" didnt write the war plan. The Pentagon and General Franks did. Forget the armchair generals and civilians involved - the generals say they have what they need and the plan is on track. They have refuted the claims that it is under-resourced, and men are pouring into Iraq as we speak. Today they refuted the claim you make about 6 day halt (reuters gum-flapping) and the logistics - which are overall fine.

In one week, we have secured several major airfields and have 100,000 boots on ground. This is a pace magnificently faster than Gulf War I (40 day air war), and Afghanistan.
We have savagely brutalized Saddam's military machine and his has had to resort to tricks, which wont fool us more than once, to inflict even minor casualties.

Will the people 'welcome us with roses'? I think yes, after we kill Saddam and the fedayeen who are killing anyone who shows willingness to show kindness to coalition.
See that article of the teenage girl killed by fedayeen for waving at troops? Or the Iraqi paramilitary machine gunning fleeing civilians in basra? Desperate gasps of a dying regime trying to whip civilians in line to oppose us. This is just a matter of time. The regime wont be missed by Iraqis.

"Perle actually advocated dropping 5,000 paratroopers on Baghdad, and that a force of that size would be sufficient."

You mock it, but that is actually an innovative concept. It gets to the essential point that what we are fighting is regime change, and a coup d'etat is what is needed. We need not kill 100,000 Iraqis, but the 100 to 1,000 top men running the Iraqi regime...The issue is how to set the support and troops in place so that clean shot at the medusa's head can be made. This whole huge war effort merely is to support the tip of the spear that goes in and guts the Baathist regime in Baghdad. Cut the serpent's head off, and the rest will follow.

Commando like raids have been done into Basra, they will likely be done in Baghdad. It may take a bit more time than the impatient might like (like me), but it will happen.

Watch and see. It is premature to write history yet.

Title: The Neocon Nightmare

Source: NY Press
URL Source: http://www.nypress.com/static/billboard.cfm#1797
Published: Mar 29, 2003
Author: Peter Eavis

Who would've thought that the neocons would be neutralized before Saddam? Incredible as it may seem, events in Iraq have seriously weakened this militaristic group of right-wingers, and its influence over the Pentagon and President Bush should wane from here. Reality has a delightful habit of dealing a crushing blow to militant idealists. It took 70 years for that to happen to Russian communists, but it has been mercifully quick to cripple the neo-cons, who can best be described as American imperialists with a Trotskyite zeal to remake the world.

The resignation of Richard Perle is a refreshing indication that the normal rules of politics apply to the neo-cons. But it is the flimsiness of their military strategy in Iraq that is doing the most damage. In short, Rumsfeld's decision to sign off on a plan that skimps on ground forces and thus leave the coalition's rear exposed will go down as one of the biggest blunders in this war. As a discerning piece by Michael Gordon in today's New York Times points out:

"Another reason why the war in Iraq has been so vexing for American commanders is that the Pentagon did not gather an overwhelming force to start the campaign. The current force is less than half the size of the coalition forces that fought the Persian Gulf War in 1991."
History—ignored by the neocons—has shown again and again that obsessive ideologues don't make good military commanders and the generals will do all they can now to undermine Rumsfeld's influence.

While it's now clear that the neocons are no good at war strategy, their diplomacy has been just as bad. This is well illustrated in a Washington Post piece today on botched efforts to persuade Turkey to station our troops. True, it was always going to be very expensive to buy the Turks over to the U.S. position, but those dollars will now seem cheap as the need for a second front becomes increasingly apparent.

But the blame for all the neo-con foul-ups must be laid at Bush's feet. He crammed his cabinet with these monomaniacs, after all. One can only hope that the White House was behind Perle's departure.

Clearly, Bush can't ditch Rumsfeld just yet, but his days as a real force in Washington are over. Thank goodness, a real general, Colin Powell, is nicely placed to take the reins.