Subject: military and political strategy in trouble,
post war Iraq
It would be funny if it were not
tragic to see the bobbing and weaving going on now that the cake walk has begun
to turn into a real war. Were VP Cheney, Secty Rumsfeld, et. al. so self
deluded that they believed their own spin, or were they deliberately misleading
the Congress, the media and public opinion in order to sell the war? In
military terms, they are now in trouble and have to send in at least 120,000
more troops. Secty. Powell and the professional military now look
like the better strategicians, and their allies are not failing to make that
known. (see below)
However, their only solution is more troops, more firepower. Suggestions
are popping up in the media that the US is being too careful in its targeting,
too worried about civilian casualties. That is a logic that is hard to
resist within the parameters set by the Administration. Washington
discounts the impact on opinion in the Muslim and Arab world and western
Europe, and cannot countenance the thought that Iraqis for nationalist reasons
may hate foreign invaders more than they hate Saddam Hussein. How
far out of touch Washington is with the increasing anger in the Arab world can
be seen in a good article in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,924269,00.html
The Administration will feel compelled politically to push for a quick victory,
i.e. taking Baghdad, and may use ever more violent means to achieve that
end. They will hope capturing the seat of government and the Baath
leadership produces collapse of resistance elsewhere in the country. On
the other hand, some of the military will be worrying that their supply lines
are exposed by the inability to solidify control in the south and the
inadequate number of troops. The worst possible situation for the
Administration will be if they go for broke in Baghad and are not able to win
quickly while at the same time the situation in the south remains unsettled or
deteriorates further.
While the Security Council does not appear disposed so far to take on directly
the fait accompli of illegal US/UK aggression, the these issues were spoken to
in yesterday's Security Council debate and are reemerging in the discussion
over humanitarian and reconstruction assistance.
The United Nations
must play "the key role" in rebuilding Iraq after a crisis that has
"shattered" the existing world order, the French foreign minister,
Dominique de Villepin, insisted yesterday. ...
"In a military situation the people who are taking the
risks must take responsibility for that," he said. "That's exactly
what international law tells us.
"But when we are in a peaceful situation, we need to have responsibility
taken by a legitimate authority; and the only legitimate authority I know in
the world is the UN."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,924429,00.html
The head of the UN
Development Program also made it clear that American assumptions about
post-war Iraq would be challenged:
Speaking before
Tony Blair's trip to Camp David, Mr Malloch Brown said the UN had a clear
obligation to carry out humanitarian work in the immediate aftermath of conflict.
But in the long term, "if they want the UN in there - the UN role in civil
administration, in the political processes managing the transition", then
"we can't go in there playing some subordinate role to a US redevelopment
which somehow suggests we are a subcontractor to that US-led effort.
"The Geneva conventions will require that our relations with the occupying
power are not subservient ones ... We have pretty well-developed plans, but I
am not going to take them out of the drawer until there is a security council
resolution. We are not a US or British NGO who can be asked by the government
to take on a reconstruction role."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,924427,00.html
Symbolic is the conflict that has emerged even between the US and UK over who
should administer Iraq's only port. The Brits wanted it to be done by the
Iraqis, providing a good example of "liberation". Meanwhile
USAID signed a contract with a US firm, providing a good example of classic
colonialism.
Air Marshal
Brian Burridge, Britain's chief military officer in the Gulf, said it should be
run by Iraqis as a model for the future reconstruction of the country. But earlier
this week the Bush administration handed the $4.8m (£3m) contract to the
private Stevedor ing Services of America (SSA).
The Seattle-based firm has clashed with workers across three continents and
faced accusations of being union busters. SSA will manage the port and handle
cargo and shipping at Umm Qasr
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,924421,00.html
It is unlikely that even prospects for quagmire, escalated conflict, high
military and civilian casualties, etc. will lead the Administration to rethink
its goals, unless polls begin to show a sharp decline in public support for the
President's war from its current 72% level. But opponents of the war
should not be discouraged. Reality is asserting itself far sooner and
stronger than might have been expected. It is just very sad how many
people are suffering because of it.
John
Longer war is
likely, says US general
Julian Borger in
Washington, Luke Harding in Chamchamal, northern Iraq, and Richard
Norton-Taylor
Friday March 28, 2003
The Guardian
The top US infantry commander in Iraq
has said that his troops' overstretched supply lines, coupled with unexpectedly
stiff Iraqi resistance, had stalled the advance on Baghdad and increased the
possibility of a long war.
Contradicting the upbeat assessments from the Pentagon, which repeatedly
insisted Operation Iraqi Freedom was on schedule, Lieutenant General William
Wallace said his troops had been taken by surprise by Iraqi irregulars using
guerrilla tactics.
"The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed
against," said Lt Gen Wallace, the commander of the US army's V Corps
overseeing ground operations.
When asked whether the resistance would lead to a longer than predicted war, he
said: "It's beginning to look that way."
The off-message remarks brought to the surface unease among army officials that
the 300-mile supply lines between the leading US forces and logistics bases in
Kuwait are too vulnerable to mount a decisive assault on Baghdad.
The balance of this story can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,924497,00.html
More on military issues in The Independent "Rumsfeld
shows the strain as experts query his
strategy " http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=391464