| |
ANALYSIS
So far, so
odd
By Marc Erikson
It started earlier than expected. Within an hour and 40 minutes of the
expiration of Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq,
some 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles (cost: US$56 million) and F-117 stealth
fighter bombers struck an Iraqi leadership compound on the outskirts of
Baghdad - damage unknown. Apparently US intelligence had credible
information of top Iraqi leaders present at that location. A "decapitation
strike" they called it. But within a couple of hours of the strike, the head
to be cut off appeared on Iraqi TV - tired, grey, and with owlish glasses -
calling "the little Bush" a war criminal and predicting certain victory.
Round one to whom? Your call. After that? For almost 24 hours now, mostly
nothing. Some skirmishes at the Kuwait-Iraq border to keep American
journalists "embedded" in US forces busy; a handful of Iraqi missiles fired
at Kuwait, shot down or landing in the sand; another brief cruise missile
strike at Baghdad. Reports that US marines have moved into the port city of
Umm Qasr a dozen or so miles from the Kuwaiti border. Certainly no "shock
and awe", more "aw-shucks".
So, what's going on? Statements by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a
Thursday morning (US time) press conference may hold some clues. He spent
much of his opening comments directly addressing Iraqi officers and soldiers
urging them to surrender, then threatening a massive assault "of a force and
scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before". He spent some
more time claiming that the US/UK attack on Iraq was supported by a larger
coalition than assembled during the Gulf War - a claim later repeated by
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Later still, the State Department took
the quite astonishing step of asking some 60 nations to break diplomatic
relations with Iraq and expel Iraqi diplomats. That adds up to a
high-profile combined psy-war/diplomatic offensive. The question remains if
and when combined high-intensity air and ground operations are to come.
Statements by Pentagon officials - "so far, so very good", referring to
signs of the Iraqi military cracking from within - hold a further clue.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" as it has been dubbed is a highly-integrated
campaign, combining to an unprecedented extent intelligence, psychological
warfare, and diverse military means. The emphasis is on maximum flexibility
in operations, not the acting out of a pre-scripted war plan. And clearly,
if there is an opportunity to achieve war aims without use of maximum force
and large numbers of casualties, why employ such force? What is in place are
the intelligence and military force elements to be combined at short notice
to achieve optimal results, not a World War I style mobilization that
creates its own logic of irreversible military action.
None of this is to say that the much advertised "shock and awe" has been
shelved rather than merely postponed. It could, more likely than not, will,
still be enacted as other means fail. But that's not the point. "Shock and
awe" is only one of numerous ways in which to combine existing force
elements into most effective action.
Donald
Rumsfeld is known to have had an unusually high degree
of input into war planning, to an extent reportedly
resented by uniformed Pentagon planners. Early in his
tenure, Rumsfeld had commissioned long-time Pentagon
planner Andrew Marshall to conduct a full-dress review
of US forces structures, tactics, and strategies (See:
Bush's
lone military superpower vision
, Feb 16, 2001).
Marshall is associated with the concept of a "revolution in military
affairs" - RAM for short - which stresses making the most of the flexibility
and multiple combined-arms operations afforded by state-of-the-art weapons,
intelligence-gathering, and communications technology. Rumsfeld has remained
critical of the extent to which the military has implemented Marshall's
recommendations. He now has the opportunity of demonstrating RAM in action.
Should it help achieve quick success on the battlefield, he will have won
two victories wrapped in one.
With all the non-events of the day
in and around Iraq, here's one - thousands of miles away
- that caught my attention: informed by a reporter that
Iraq had used a Scud missile against Kuwait, chief UN
arms inspector Hans Blix said this would be a violation
of UN resolutions. Asked further if he thought Iraq
would use chemical or biological weapons, Blix said he
didn't think so as that would be another violation and
would remove Iraq's ability to say it was the aggrieved
party. The man should move over from the UN to Broadway
and try out as a stand-up comic.
(©2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
