The critical point that the swift victory over Saddam paradoxically made the occupation more difficult - because Saddam's minions were able to escape, melt into the population and fight another day - was made early on. Bush could have made more of it - and should do so in the weeks ahead.
I am so glad someone else wrote that. Last year, I wrote so many times that we did not kill enough bad Iraqis, I received e-mails suggesting I tone it down. The problem imo occurred when the 4th Infantry Division was denied access from the N. by Turkey. Three Republican Guard Divisions numbering some 40,000 or more men, fled from the battlefield under the pressure brought on them by 40 "A" Teams numbering 480 Green Berets.
Those Saddam loyalists missed their opportunity to fight to the death. At the time, they were well organized into a cohesive fighting unit and would have stood and fought a conventional army given the chance. They did not know how to fight the Green Berets with their constant overhead airpower, so they fled. Since then 75% of them have lost the desire to fight. The remainder are the problem. The Iraqi church (mosque) leadership is the only authority right now in a few difficult areas and they are lined up, presently, against continued abuse by the Iraqi dissidents. If Iraqi citizens accept and support these leaders' guidance, Iraq will be secure soon. If the supply lines from Syria and Iran can be interdicted, and (as it now appears) the bad guys lose the support of the Iraqi people, who want no more war with us and no more abuse from their own extremists, this uprising will be quelled in short order.
Letting the Iraqis handle the day to day affairs in their own cities is appropriate and necessary. That frees up our units with their massive fire power and awesome mobility to deal with the infiltrators as well as to support the fledgling Iraqi security efforts as needed.
I agree with GWB that we likely have rough days ahead. The questions now are: Are we working from a well thought out set of plans? Are we tuned in to the battlefield and how previous changes have influenced the current situation. Do we have the flexibility to adapt to those changes? Are more Iraqi citizens moving in the direction we desire? Is our intel getting better? Is most of the Iraqi population behind our effort? And most importantly, is there a plan to give this part of the War On Terror back to the politicians?
I believe the answer to all of those questions today is yes.
When LBJ gave his "light at the end of the tunnel" speech at the end of 1967, it was soon followed in Feb 68 by the NVA Tet offensive. One US soldier who was in combat at the time was quoted as asking, "What the fuck does he know about tunnels?"
LBJ had been trading letters secretly with Ho Chi Minh prior to that speech and thought he was making progress. How wrong he was. He grossly underestimated the treachery of those opposed to freedom for South Vietnam. The Tet offensive broke LBJ's will to fight and win and he withdrew from the presidential race.
Last night GWB gave his light at the end of the tunnel speech but without the bravado and certainly without the huge, press generated fanfare LBJ received.
We will soon know if a Tet 2004 is planned. I can say this without reservation, I am very pleased with how we are presently deploying our troops for any next phase. I am very impressed with the comprehensive plan the President described last night for Iraq.
I regret to say that even if we are 110% successful in the next phase for Iraq it will not end The War on Terror.
uw |
