A rchive Date
[ 30-03-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_mar30.html
Once more into the swamp
Saddam learned a lesson in 1991, the U.S. and Britain did not ... now their forces are tied down fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq
By ERIC MARGOLIS - Contributing Foreign Editor
March 30, 2003
The opening weeks of the Second Oil War against Iraq - a.k.a. Operation Iraq Freedom - produced the advertised "shock and awe" all right, but it came in Washington rather than bombarded 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.
Iraqis, quite clearly, do not want to be "liberated" - even many who have long opposed Saddam's brutal regime. To the contrary, the American-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 guerrillas have been delaying and harassing the northward advance of U.S. forces by assaulting their overextended 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 U.S. forces are painfully relearning in Iraq.
So 100,000 more American troops are being rushed to Iraq, meaning almost half of the U.S. Army will be stuck in Mesopotamia at a time when North Korea is threatening war. And this before U.S. forces have even clashed with Iraq's Republican Guards.
Last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted British forces have been forced to lay siege to Basra, Iraq's second city - a "humanitarian" operation he laughably claimed. Some reports claimed that British shelling had 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.
Warnings
The CIA and many American generals warned for months that: a) there might be no mass uprisings against Saddam's regime; b) over-extended U.S. communications would be vulnerable; c) the invasion force lacked sufficient ground troops to conquer Iraq; d) Turkey's refusal to admit the U.S. 4th Mechanized Division would wrong-foot the campaign.
In his eagerness for war, President George Bush ignored these warnings. So did the civilian neo-con war hawks running his administration, few of whom, save Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had ever served in their nation's armed forces.
The president's military background - a few appearances in the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam conflict - were unlikely to have taught him much about the art of war.
Expect the Bush administration, the Pentagon, and their tame media to shortly begin calling Iraqi guerrillas "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. Saddam is already being downgraded as a menace in the event he, like Osama bin Laden, escapes death or capture.
The U.S. 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 than America's self-censoring media.
U.S. and British casualties may be under-reported, a practice the U.S. is following in its guerrilla war in Afghanistan, where six American soldiers were recently killed.
Some reports suggested 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.
Aggressive resistance
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 U.S. 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 suggests a long guerrilla war may be in the offing, even after U.S. and British forces occupy Baghdad.
And U.S. attacks on the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala could also spark even more fierce resistance by Shia Muslims, or even Iran.
In a further irony, the U.S. believed it could refight the 1991 war against Iraq, assuming the Iraqi Army would disintegrate under fire and run like rabbits. By contrast, the Iraqis learned from their 1991 disaster and gained much knowledge from friendly Serbia, which had been extremely successful in the tactical deception and spoofing of U.S. technology. Most important, Iraq learned to hide under urban shelter and avoid exposing its troops and armour to lethal U.S. air power.
The White House and Pentagon have forgotten the 1980-88 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.
And many of Iraq's soldiers are veterans of the war with Iran.
This does not bode well for the upcoming U.S. attack on Baghdad.
Eric can be reached by e-mail at margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com. Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com or visit his home page
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|