Here is an article from "The New Republic" that reviews what we have done in Iraq.
THE BEST LAID PLANS
Truth in Advertising
by Gregg Easterbrook
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 04.15.03
Previous Articles
Something nasty or ghastly could still happen, but it looks like the main military action of the Iraq assault is concluded. Which prompts Best Laid Plans to point out that, other than lasting a little longer than expected, practically everything about the military campaign went spectacularly well.
All the promises of decisive, low-casualty action were fulfilled. A country the size of California was seized in a lunar month, with about 115 combat deaths on the U.S. side. During the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S.-led coalition needed roughly 6 weeks to gain control of territory a tenth that size, and 148 U.S. military personnel lost their lives in the process. So far more territory has been taken faster than in 1991, with fewer fatalities among the attackers. And unlike 1991, when the Iraqis turned and ran from someone else's country, this time they were defending their own territory, which should have dramatically increased their motivation.
Think of all the things that were supposed to happen and did, in fact, happen:
· Highly accurate smart-bomb strikes with very few aircraft losses and few accidental hits of civilian targets. Expected, happened. We dropped almost 25,000 munitions from the air with only 2 aircraft losses to enemy fire; only 4 or 5 hit the wrong target.
· Complete dominance of Iraqi armor by U.S. armor. Expected, happened. Fewer than a dozen tanks were lost on the coalition side while sweeping through an entire country. The Iraqi side lost hundreds of tanks.
· Large-scale surrenders of Iraqi units. Expected, happened. The United States is now holding thousands of surrendered Iraqis, many glad to be with us. Huge caches of arms were found abandoned; tanks were found abandoned with their engines running. A large proportion of the Iraqi military declined to fight, which is in effect a surrender and the ideal outcome for both sides.
· U.S. soldiers cheered by Iraqi civilians. Expected, happened. Not as rapidly as hoped, and not vast crowds. But in all the annals of warfare, how often have attacking forces been cheered by the towns they enter? Only a few times, and mostly this happens to the United States.
· Exemplary honor displayed by U.S. and British forces. Expected, happened. Attacking units stood on their heads to avoid needless (and in some cases needed) harm--lawyers accompanied field units to advise them what not to shoot! Coalition soldiers put themselves at risk to aid wounded Iraqis.
· Avoidance of destruction of infrastructure needed by the average Iraqi, such as power plants and bridges. Expected, happened.
[P] erhaps even more amazingly, many of the doomsday scenarios conjured up by war skeptics (and one sleepless defense secretary) didn't happen:
· Iraqi revenge attacks on Israel or Saudi Arabia. Never happened. In 1991, Iraq's neighbors suffered as the coalition advanced. This time Iraqi missiles were blasted on the ground or blasted in the sky.
· Bloody door-to-door urban combat. Never happened.
· Iraqi leaders ordering or inspiring widespread suicide attacks, weapons of mass destruction attacks, or other desperate last-stands. Never happened. All leaders were killed, captured, sent running, or knocked off the air before they got the chance.
[I] t's hard to think of a large-scale military campaign that has ever accomplished so much, so fast. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war would be the only candidate, but casualties in that conflict were awful. Yet in the United States it's grumble, grumble because the assault didn't fit exactly into chattering-class expectations of warp speed. If Turkey had allowed the use of its bases, we might have even pulled off the warp speed part.
Then there is the matter of Iraqi civilian dead. The worst estimate I've seen is 1,300, which may be revised up or down. That represents a small number by the standards of wide-area combat--a very small number by this standard--but a human tragedy in every respect. U.S. and British forces tried in exemplary fashion to avoid civilian deaths, but nevertheless caused such deaths. The deaths are on our conscience since we started the fight that caused them.
As a demonstration of goodwill toward the people of Iraq, our side should pay compensation. Suppose $10,000 went to the family of each civilian killed. Too expensive, you say? If there were 1,300 Iraqi civilian dead, $10,000 for each tragedy would be about the cost of 10 naval cruise missiles. (We launched 800.) Considering the cost-no-object ordnance showered on Iraq, it would be an outrage if we didn't pay at least a relatively small amount for those wrongly killed. If 1,300 is the number, the United States could even pay $100,000 per death for a total expense of less than one night's bombing during the campaign. In addition to being the right thing to do, think of the effect such payments might have on Arab public opinion--communicating that we really do care about typical Iraqis, and that, unlike Arab governments, which kill without compunction, we really do grieve over our errors.
Now the occupation, reconstruction, and establishment of a new government must begin, each task in its own way more challenging than the military assault. The final task, bringing freedom to Iraq, will determine whether all the others were justified.
But for the moment, let's reflect on what may be the most successful low-casualty, wide-scale military action in, oh, let's say, ever. The U.S. military is now the strongest the world has ever seen--stronger than the Wehrmacht in 1940, stronger than the Roman legions of the early centuries. And this strongest-ever military will do nearly anything to avoid needless death. Two and a half millennia ago, the Greeks dreamed the world would someday be guided by a liberal democracy that could also produce indomitable warriors. Is that dream not now realized?
ARMAMENT NOTE: The Marines took Tikrit using fast units backed not by Abrams tanks but by the relatively small new Light Armored Vehicle. In its first significant combat use, the LAV appears to have wiped the floor with larger, heavier, more expensive Iraqi tanks. LAVs are essentially armored cars topped by machine guns or small cannons and by rockets designed to destroy full-size tanks. True, the Marine light units entered Tikrit supported by overwhelming air power, and at a time when Iraqi forces were leaderless and collapsing. But effective performance by the relatively affordable LAV demonstrates how good U.S. anti-tank missiles and tank-locating electronics have become--in addition, of course, to demonstrating the proficiency of the U.S. Marines.
NEW ECONOMY NOTE: We should sympathize, to a point, with the looters in Baghdad. Aren't they just reappropriating what was stolen from them by a corrupt class? Meanwhile Saddam's palace in Tikrit was taken without a fight--the photo on today's wire, of an Army sergeant napping on a brocade couch in the palace, is priceless. All those palaces amid such poverty: Has any ruler since the final czar ever stolen more wealth from his people? Okay, maybe the U.S.-backed final shah.
Since the Tikrit palace was taken without a fight, Best Laid Plans proposes that its chandeliers, grand pianos, artwork, and such be auctioned on eBay--proceeds to help finance the reconstruction of Iraq. Imagine what collectors would pay for a brocade antique couch with Saddam Hussein's DNA residue. For a bed he didn't dare sleep in. For the lovely silver used by his food tasters. For the gurneys that took out his food tasters' bodies. What am I bid? |
