The analysts asks why there are no refugees. Since there are no refugees, the inference is made that something is wrong with the strategy.
The answer to this question is very straight, there are no refugees because there have been no indiscriminate killings of civilians. The peaceniks whole demonstrations is based on the fact that according to the UN there would be 500000 casualties. Since the people in Basra and Baghdad have realised that incoming forces are not coming in and cutting throats, they are sitting tight. In South East of Basra, operation is going and 30 men in black who are the hard core of the Baath Party are fighting but they will be flushed out.
On 17th of March, I wrote if Basra and Nasiriyah falls so will Baghdad. What analysts like us did not take into account was the power protecting structure of Saddam. There could have been two ways about it to eliminate these various forces. These are lair of forces and now one can appreciate why Saddam could not be taken out and why there could be no uprising against Saddam. These embedded structures protecting Saddam and his regime like de nazification could have de baghdadified and this could have happened through ugly images of carpet bombing. And that would have been the scenario where the United Nations forecast of 500,000 casualties would have happened. However the American forces have used a much more humane approach and one can see that. The other strategy is if we have seen resistance from the die hard fanatics far more than what was expected and regime is being propped up by them, then wear them down. That is exactly what they are doing and that is a very humane thing to do. What Saddam wanted to do was create an image that a new Vietnam is in the offing and try to create a 1000 of civilians deaths. That is the trap he is setting to resist and delay the fall of Baghdad. But the allied commanders are not falling for it, the media is playing a very dangerous role and right into the hands of Saddam, by throwing a gauntlet to DOD and helping remove the flexibility part of the whole strategy. These guys have never seen a gun in their life, they sit in their arm chair and talk about strategy. Arm chair analyst are a dime in a dozen. If Basra was taken with 20,000 casualties, then what would they have said?
The issue is the campaign is progressing very well, I do'nt see that these isolated incidents can anyway be regarded as threat to the whole strategy. Basra is practically falling, what ever this media is telling me, foget about it. And there can be some missile attack from some marshes or some mobile units, but the moral high ground taken by allies to take Baghdad with least casualties is the high point of this campaign. This campaign is unfolding very nicely. Allied forces have proved them wrong. Yes, Rumsfeld might have made a mistake by over ruling 4 divisions rather than 5 but overall the ability of Allied divisions to sit outside Baghdad is a very successful strategic move. That one missing division that would have made encirclement of Baghdad possible is missing but if you look at the critical part analysis of this whole campaign, even if the 5th division was employed with the help of Turkey and cost of 30 billion dollar to take Kirkuk and Moussel would have taken the same amount of time as Basra, because Allied strategy is to use the more humane methods. Rather some of the Iraqi assets have moved to the concentric cirle of Baghdad and due to high conentration of assets near Baghdad they are being pummelled by the airforce which would not have been possible in the north. Military strategy is about adaptability. Since this was not a cake walk to Baghdad therefore the strategy is stalled, is self serving and not actual with the strategy in the ground. Yes so far the Iraqi civilians are not throwing petals on the allies but in Al Zubair and Umm Qasr, the civilian population at large is helping the Allies, if this is not a peaceful strategy then what is. How many time could the American forces beseiged Hanoi and intermingled with the Vietnamese as they are now.
Nasiriyah, Basrah and Karbela are the heartland of Shia Iraq and Iraq in itself is an artificial nation. I would not be positve of an invasion of this magnitude on Iran because Iran is a nation of 5000 years. But Iraq, Jordan and Syria for that matter are post world war 1 creations and these are artificial states. And there are fault lines in these states so noone but the hardline core element has dedication to the concept of the state and sanctity of Iraq. Its a political subject because everyone wants Iraq to stay as it is. Because there are serious problems with the Kurds in the North and Shias in the south. This nation has an ideological divide and therefore such divisions and sectarian divided nation is not expected to put up the kind of resistance that they are.
My whole analysis can be totally wrong if this campaign goes on the tangent of Clash of Civilisations. But I am not seeing this so far. For Iraqis as a whole to stand up and fight like Vietnam, the whole concept of nationhood has to be changed to the Islamic concept but there lies the catch. Since the Baath party has always highlighted Arab nationalism over Islamic ideology, so a resistance based on Islamic jihad is not possible. That needs re write of the software. The analysis of the US media is so shallow and superficial. Seymur Hersh writing that Rumsfeld did not listen to the advise of DoD is a little nonsensical. I think the objectives of the campaign have been met:
1) Oil refineries/ wells have been secured or not. The campaign would have been a failure if out of 1650 oil wells, 1500 would have been burning. But presently have 1650, 9 have been burning and now three are left. 3 refineries have been secured and within a few weeks, oil can be used to buy food. The only risk I see in delay of the fall of North is that he may torch the Northern fields but the recent amplification of activity may help avoid this scenario.
2) If the entire frontal assault would have been bogged down around Nasiriyah and Allies would have lost two or three thousand and there would been classic enemy battles where their tanks would have taken on Ally tanks. Rather the case is the Allies are sitting outside Baghdad.
3) Weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons have not been found so far. But the campaign is still going on. There should be no reason for Iraqi soldiers to have chemical suits. Some where along the line they will be found. But hopefully these weapons won’t be used. The movement of Allied forces to gates of Baghdad has helped stop that catastrophe.
If so far there had be massive casualties as predicted by UN and entire Basrah/ Nasiriyah population would have been up in arms. Since there is no shortage of arms. Iraqi assets have been secured, Iraqi casualties have been minimised, the campaign to capture the heart and minds of the Iraqi nation is in progress. The Turkish intervention has been pre empted. Syria and Iran have so far shown hands off approach. And the entire Arab world is upset with US, but everyone can see that with Saddam, peace would not have been possible in Middle East within the Arabst themselves. The de fanging of Saddam is equivalent to De-nazification of a region and everyone is watching. It will have far reaching effect on Middle East and in my opinion, the whole game unfolding before is like a huge chess board and every move being made by Allies is going towards check mate. As a grand master of strategy it is quite visible that check mate is coming. There will be sacrifices and no one should be shy of these sacrifices because out of these we will see a more secure exterior defence of the countries who are involved in this struggle. |
