Posted on 03/28/2003 2:07:35 PM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. hawk on Friday defended an article in which he said a war with Iraq would be a "cakewalk" but said he underestimated the extent to which Iraq would use guerrilla tactics against U.S. forces.
Kenneth Adelman, a former Pentagon aide, U.S envoy to the United Nations and arms control negotiator, said he stood by the February 2002 article written to counter critics who believed a war could lead to thousands of U.S. casualties.
"They said that Scud missiles would obliterate Israel and American troops in the Gulf, that there would be oil fields on fire everywhere in Iraq, there would be a wave of terrorism in America ... that there would be rebellions throughout the Arab world," he said. "That was the environment I was writing about and I think those kind of predictions are kind of silly."
In his own opinion piece written for the Washington Post early last year, Adelman said, "I believe demolishing (Iraqi President Saddam) Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.
"Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps," he added.
U.S.-led forces have raced across the Iraqi desert toward Baghdad, but their advance has been hampered to some degree by guerrilla tactics the Iraqis have used to attack U.S. supply lines and that may have delayed a U.S. attack on the capital.
Adelman avoided saying the word "cakewalk" when asked about his prediction and declined to say whether he regretted having used it, but he argued that the thrust of his piece was sound and that the U.S.-led war has gone "extremely well" so far.
"When you measure what I predicted as against Armageddon engulfing the Middle East, I am proud of my article. I read it recently and I think it's a sound article," he said, noting he had argued the benefits of a war would far outweigh its costs.
In his piece, Adelman specifically criticized two Brookings Institution scholars, Philip Gordon and Michael O'Hanlon, for having suggested that a U.S. war against Iraq would require "at least 100,000 to 200,000" ground troops.
There are now some 125,000 U.S. and British troops fighting in Iraq and U.S. officials on Thursday said they planned to insert another 100,000 U.S. soldiers by the end of April.
'FIERCE RESISTANCE'
"The bottom line is he got it wrong," Gordon said. "Even with the major force that we have put in there, we are struggling and Saddam is not collapsing quickly and they are putting up fierce resistance."
Adelman, an aide to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during his first tour as Pentagon chief in the 1970s, said he underestimated Iraq's use of guerrilla warfare that has impeded the U.S. campaign.
"I really never thought that Fedayeen people would surrender and then shoot our Marines, that they would use hospitals to hide T-54 tanks, that you know those kind of practices would be used," he said. "It's been certainly a detriment to the war effort so far but the overall effort, I think, has gone extremely well."
Some conservatives had argued that the war with Iraq would be relatively easy, that the Iraqis would give up without much of a fight and that U.S. soldiers would be widely greeted as liberators -- predictions that have yet to come to pass.
U.S. public opinion appears to be shifting to the view that the war may last months, rather than weeks as Vice President Dick Cheney suggested the Sunday before the war began eight days ago.
I'm sure this author has not hidden agenda or bias.
Come on. Clear your head. That was a demonstration of "peace through strength" which I believe is our best chance of survival even if the world doesn't like it. Who else would we wish to cede control to?
It's always "some consevatives" when in reality ol' Bill Clinton himself said even more recently that it would be quicker than any "conservative" ever stated. I wish these articles could be written after the event is over before pronouncing it one way or another.
The people arching their eyebrows over the "cakewalk" remark, Media and Dem types, all seem to be acting in concert. Those were the guys thinking it was going to be a cakewalk? Looks like they skipped the rest of the debate.
However, there seems to be a number of items Adelman got right. We'll have to wait and see for the rest of it, but so far the oil fields seem to be in good shape. Of course, Adelman's article was written in 2002.
That said, we've moved to within 50 miles of Baghdad taking only about 20 casualties. It's hard to imagine a war going any better.
And there is no guerilla war. Most people think of guerilla war as an indigenous insurgency. We don't have that. We have isolated units and irregulars putting on civies and resorting to hit and run tactics. These are deadenders and conscripts threateded with death. As they are killed or chased off, the attacks diminish. There is no insurgency in Basra, only deadender Baathists terrorizing the population in a last gasp.
So far, Adelman has been shown right, despite his poor choice of words.
"See also No Cakewalk from CNN. Adelman's comments were made during the debate last year, and he wrote his remarks in his capacity on the Defense Policy Board, he was not a Pentagon official."
And?
"In just a week, the United States military has surrounded one of history’s most sadistic and nasty regimes. It has overrun 80 percent of the countryside and has daily pulverized the Republican Guard, achieving more in five days than the Iranians did in eight years."
"Gulf War I is considered a great victory; it required 48 days of air and ground attacks by an enormous coalition to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait."
"Our present attempt, with half the force, seeks to end Saddam Hussein altogether — and on day 7 already had him cut off, trapped, and besieged."
Rummy may have planned around that. Something is being flown into the airhead in Northern Iraq seized by the 173rd and the rumor is the 1st ID.
We still don't know what the heck is in Western Iraq, which seems blacked out. There are lots of rumors about the 2nd MEF.
The units after the 4th ID and 3rd ACR, the so-called 100,000, have been planned for months as stabilization forces or a reserve if needed; they aren't being rushed in to remedy some mistake.
We have plenty of units to destroy the three Guards division around Baghdad, beseige Baghdad and go after the leadership and deadenders with air and spec ops assests, if that's the plan. If the plan is to repeat the Battle of Berlin and reduce Baghdad building by building, the whole Army probably isn't enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.