Now what in Iraq? (Very Disturbing)

Townhall.com ^ | October 14, 2002 | Robert Novak

[Korth]

WASHINGTON -- Now that Congress has droned through a week of largely desultory debate to authorize the use of force against Iraq, how will it be exercised? That is properly a military secret, unknown even to members of Congress. More questionable, it is also unknown to senior military officers.

If there is a precise plan for action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, general officers at the Pentagon tell members of Congress that they are in the dark. This may be another example of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld working with a small circle of both official and unofficial advisers, fostering concern among career officers that plans are not being sufficiently reviewed by expert military opinion.

Hawkish civilians, in and out of the government, have been suggesting that Saddam Hussein's elite Republican Guard will throw up its arms in surrender. No serious person believes that. The question is whether an uprising of the persecuted Shia majority will be enough to overthrow the Baghdad regime without heavy application of U.S. force. If there is no effective revolt, the generals and their friends on Capitol Hill worry that the unknown plans may not call for sufficient U.S. forces.

The concern goes to the executive style of Don Rumsfeld, who recalls the forceful and abrasive qualities demonstrated by war secretaries in the mold of Edwin Stanton during the Civil War. To his credit, Rumsfeld has attempted to toughen up the officer corps, softened by standards of political correctness during the eight Clinton years. However, the officers who thought that happy days were here again on the day that George W. Bush became president have been disappointed.

Their disappointment stems from Rumsfeld's inclination, born of a turbulent lifetime in governmental and corporate affairs, to make decisions within a restricted circle. That includes war planning. According to Pentagon sources, the secretary does not consult the uniformed service chiefs. Participating in the immediate planning are Gen. Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the Central Command, and a few officers from the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

What most bothers the generals, however, is Rumsfeld's preference for outside advice. For example, Pentagon sources say a frequent consultant with the secretary is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an amateur military expert and member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. There is no distribution through the Pentagon of such advice.

Generally, this advice probably follows the longtime line by Richard Perle, the Policy Board's chairman, that indigenous Shia forces will do most of the fighting to dislodge Saddam. That leads to the internal debate over whether 250,000 U.S. troops are needed for combat in Iraq or, instead, a much smaller number will do.

The professional military believes that Saddam's Republican Guard will fight, and that substantial U.S. forces will be needed. Contrary to a widespread popular impression, these elite troops did not surrender at the first sign of American troops in 1991. Saddam, displaying his instinct for survival, had brought his Guard back to Baghdad and placed untrained Shia recruits on the front line in the desert.

One Republican Guard unit, the Hammurabi tank division, was trying to get to Baghdad when it was mowed down by Maj. Gen. Barry McCaffrey's U.S. 24th Division at the Rumaila oil field in the Gulf War's famous "turkey shoot." Saddam decided not to risk his elite units in a hopeless military situation when he figured, correctly, that his regime could survive. His options figure to be different this time.

Officers at the Pentagon cut off from the secretary of defense worry about the Republican Guard conducting a last-ditch defense of Baghdad, using Iraqi civilians as shields. They ask: What are U.S. plans for conducting this kind of warfare, which would inflict a high casualty rate on both sides?

I asked a senior, well-informed Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of President Bush, whether the U.S. military was preparing for war with Iraq with sufficient force to cover all possibilities. "They better have," he replied. When I rephrased the question, he gave exactly the same answer. He does not know, and neither do some gentlemen with four stars on their shoulders.

[marron]

Novak can relax. There isn't going to be a "battle-of-Stalingrad" in Iraq.

Our problem will be precisely the opposite. The Army, and even the Guard, are going to fold so quickly that we will be left with entire units of Iraqi soldiers, 350,000 of them, who have not surrendered and are still a force to be reckoned with even as we are occupying the country. They will not be openly hostile to the point of gunfire, but they will not be prepared to simply salute and take orders from their occupiers either.

Occupying a country which has not surrendered is ticklish business, and this is what we are going to face.

Everyone knows Saddam is finished, so the dance is about surviving the confrontation with the Americans with enough muscle and credibility to rule in the post-Saddam world. Part of preserving your credibility is "not" being too openly obedient to the Americans.

A high priority has to be the training of a new Iraqi militarized police force that can take on law enforcement and anti-insurgency duties. This needs to be a new force that has no history of repression. Every other institution in Iraq has been complicit in torture and slaughter, we will have to develop new institutions that are free of stain.

Our biggest push should be in shaping the new governments, and in reindustrializing the country. This should not be that difficult, Iraq is a secular, industrial country. If you want to call this imperialism, fine, but we should enter Iraq with the full intention of rebuilding it and bringing it into the West. A free and prosperous Baghdad will cause shock waves to go through the middle east that will overturn governments and change the destinies of nations.

We are not agents of stasis, and should not pretend to be.

[M. T. Cicero II]

I think you are correct about the point of the article. But I am reminded that Lincoln had to go through a few generals until he found one that would and could actually fight! And that one was a failure in civilian life and a drunk.

[Cabbages and Kings]

A Catholic, Jewish Arab? wow! no wonder he is confused!

[Man of the Right]

The reason Rumsfeld holds info closely is that Washington leaks like a sieve.

Also, in '90-'91 DOD planned for Desert Shield/Storm as if we were fighting the Wermacht. That's ok: They didn't know. But now we've been fighting Saddam for 11 yr. With few exceptions, his people won't fight for him. The Republican Guard has been pushed aside for the Special Republican Guard. They may not fight. The regular armed forces are a rabble. That leaves the Special Republican Guard of four light infantry brigades with no air and practically no armor or arty' and no missiles.

The downsides of too large a force are: 1) what happens if we need 'em elsewhere, 2) the bigger the force, the longer the delay, 3) we don't have the bases for them this time, and 4) the bigger the force, the bigger the total casualties

We're not refighting World War II. The purpose is to end the Saddam regime so we can trash the weapons of mass destruction. We're not nation building. Get in, trash it, hand it over to the Europeans, and get out.

[quidnunc]

Two points to consider:

1. – Arabs are notoriously maladroit as soldiers. They are world-beaters when it comes to hitting unarmed civilians in the head with rifle butts but they are hopeless against Western military forces.

2. – The Iraqis can't help but remember the shellacking we gave them during the Gulf War; they won't want to go through that again.

[colorado tanker]

"The point of the article is that amateurs are making the plans without input from the experts" War staffs from Central Command, V Corps and the First Marine Expeditionary Force are on the ground in the region. They sound like "experts" to me.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" His conversion is widely known in Catholic circles, as is Larry Kudlow's"

I thought I read recently,that another Jewish to Catholicism convert, was Dick Morris.

[Magnum44]

The point of the article is that amateurs are making the plans without input from the experts.

Where to start on this one...

To you remark, no, professionals are/have been making the plans, and those not in the know, including the author, are frustrated because they dont like being excluded from that process. Tough!

The real problem here is typical of all war planning. Exit strategy is tough. Mission creep seems the order of the day, though Bush seems to be doing decent job of preventing that in Afghanistan. (can't say the same for Klintoons Bosnia fiasco where we still cant seem to ully extract our forces - no forethought there by the powers at the time). Regime change has been touted as the objective of an Iraq operation. Translating that to guns, beans, and bullets is difficult since the pace and events in war are often unpredictable. While outcome is certain here, the pace of achieving that is up to factors that we do not control (though we can influence heavily).

I think that the seemingly long delay we've experienced in going into Iraq is giving planners time to look out at exit strategies far beyond what military planners are normally tasked. Logisticians can tell you where every plane, tank, bomb, and person will be for about the first two weeks of the war. They can give you a good idea for the next 2 months. After that, it is pretty much make it up as you go because too many unplanned contingencies (aircraft losses, unplanned port closures, etc) make it impossible to guarrantee that supplies will be there or even still needed at the originally planned point.

It appears that in any scenaio, Iraq will be a long term commitment. The big sweeping moves of the war will be early and well scripted, then there will be an 'Afghan' like lull as the slow grunt work continues. How long will it be before a responsible govt can reside in Bagdad? If you can answer that, then we can firm up our plans a little.

[Tucson]

Exactly and absolutely. This is obvious, if it were not otherwise, from the overwhelming acquiecense by the top brass to Clintons' emasculation of the military. Any senior officer worthy of the position and knowledgeable of warfighting efficiencies know the battle field, whether the trenches, the cockpit, or combatant, is the domain of males; with very few exceptions. Knowing this and then rolling over for the females in combat, kindler gentler training, underfunding and inventory reductions is dereliction of duty. They should have resigned. Having failed to do so makes them incapable of advising on any issue which puts American military men in harms way.

[1234]

I thought I read recently,that another Jewish to Catholicism convert, was Dick Morris.

how does one convert one's ethnicity?

[KC_Conspirator]

OMG you are right about that! I would include the uber liberal Jonathan Alter of </i>Newsweak</i> right in there with Novak and Friedman.

[Seydlitz]

Earth to Novak: The Pentagon is the greatest conglomeration of fools and incompetents this side of the planet. It is little more than pencil-pushers, ticket-punchers and desk jockeys. Only the boys at Langley rival them for, in the immortal words of C. Montgomery Burns, "incompetent boobery". Rummy is an old hand at the DOD, and he knows the score.

[Pilsner]

We're not refighting World War II.

If there is a war it won't look like the European Theatre, but it may look like the Pacific. Think of the U.S. Military "island hopping" across Iraq, and whenever possible leaving Iraqi Army, the Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guard and the Deluxe Republican Guard (if Saddam gets around to establishing one) dug in where ever they happen to be, while coalition forces sieze airbases and ground corridors. There may be a few unfortuante Tarawas where the Iraqi's defend something we have to take on the ground, but most of their troops who survive the war will have never been within a days march of any of our ground forces.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

If the brass at the Pentagon are being kept in the dark it's their own fault; they've demonstrated that some of them are not above leaking sensitive information to the media in order to advance their personal agendas

Absofreakinglutely!

BTW, I thought the military was supposed to be a "no whining" zone?

[js1138]

Any plan that the press knows about in advance will either fail or be very costly. Last night DonnaWho railed about the right of the press to be on the ground reporting the war. He thought its was important, for example, to inform the people exactly which weapons don't work. (insert Wizard of Id cartoon here)

[Wolfstar]

While I do not profess to know his ethnicity, Robert Novak is a Roman Catholic. I have seen him on TV with ashes on his forehead on Good Friday many times.

[Man of the Right]

I agree, though nobody's going to fight like the Japanese. The urban pockets will lack supplies or hope. Resistance will end when Saddam flees, or the pockets are overcome by a combo of the Iraqi army and people (Romania '89). He'll escape rather than die because he'll calculate he can regain power. As fast as the political environment changes in the Mideast, he may be right. He does have physical courage, evidenced by his participation in an assassination attempt against Kassem.

[The Great Satan]

Militarily, Iraq will be a cake walk for the US. Saddam understands this. He's put all his eggs in one basket: the threat to anthrax the civilian population of the US and its allies. Unfortunately, that's a pretty good plan.

[Cobra Scott]

I firmly believe he will attempt to orchestrate a confrontation between his troops and US forces, if only to slow us down momentarily and commit our boots, and then gas them all with mustard.

Me, I have no sympathy for anyone in Iraq, and absolutely despise the idea of installing a new regime. Either slaughter everyone and destroy everything, or split the whole thing up into new regions and be done with it.

[snippy_about_it]

Quote from Catholic periodical:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/subscribe.htm

No wonder Robert Novak of CNN’s Novak and Company says: "Like many recent converts to the Church, I devour Catholic publications, trying to learn as much about the Church as ‘cradle Catholics’ who were raised in the Faith.

"And the publication I find most informative and enjoyable is CRISIS. I truly look forward to each issue of CRISIS – and I’m sure you will, too!"