April 4, 2003 [LINK]
Sudden breakthrough: Is victory at hand?
After two weeks of hard fighting, the U.S. Army and Marines have suddenly broken through Iraqi defensive positions and arrived at the gates of Baghdad. Given the relatively small size of the invasion force, the terrorist tactics used by Saddam's Fedayeen, and the tenuous logistical situation, this campaign must rank as one of the most outstanding military achievements in history. The crushing defeat of Republican Guard forces around Karbala and Kut after three days of heavy attacks by American forces may signify the effective collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, but it is too early to tell whether his loyalists will stage a bitter last-ditch stand inside Baghdad. Recent military events certainly do fit the historical pattern of sudden collapse that is the hallmark of defeated totalitarian regimes, which are prone to issue hysterical lies and make blood-curdling threats right up until the bitter end. As I wrote on March 22, such regimes are more brittle than most outsiders realize, and thus prone to lose control in an astonishingly rapid fashion.
There are many other puzzles about the way this war has been fought so far. For example, why were most of the Iraqi army divisions originally deployed in the north, facing the Kurdish militias? There were only two Iraqi divisions on the southern front on March 19: the 11th Infantry, in Nasiriyah, and the 51st Mechanized, in Basra. (By the way, I heard news reports on March 20 that both of those divisions had surrendered, when in fact, resistance at both cities was fierce and prolonged. This may have been a case of U.S. "disinformation.") As for other mysteries, John Keegan applies his Euro-centric analytical mind to figure out what Iraq is up to, and is stumped:
Saddam, or whoever is in charge, is fighting the strangest war. It is tempting to wonder, on the evidence so far presented, whether the Iraqis have been fighting a war at all.
Iraq's seemingly incoherent response may be nothing more than the result of U.S. bombs having "decapitated" the regime at the very outset of the war, it may be deliberate irrationality ("crazy like a fox") to sow doubt in the minds of Coalition commanders, or it may be trap to entice U.S. forces into a Stalingrad-like battle in the streets of Baghdad.
Likewise, some people have wondered why Iraqi forces have not used the chemical or biological weapons they are widely believed to possess. It's no big mystery: For one thing, Saddam's main line of defense against the Anglo-American Coalition is world opinion, which would turn against him if he actually used such weapons. Also, his missiles, aircraft, and artillery are by and large not suited for delivering chemicals. Finally, the U.S. and British ground forces are well trained and equipped to handle chemical attacks, so it probably wouldn't give him much if any of an advantage. So why does he (probably) maintain such an arsenal? Simple: To instill terror in other countries. It's a cheap way to amass psychological power over one's opponents, a typical example of an "asymmetric" strategy used by rogue regimes and rebel movements seeking to even the tables with their "oppressors." This kind of behavior, which confounds conventional rationality and thus is to a large extent immune to great powers' "containment" efforts, is a reflection of the unique security predicament facing leaders in the Third World, one of the main themes of my dissertation. It also calls attention to the considerable risk that Saddam might find it convenient to "share" (for a proper price, of course) his doomsday weapons with non-state political movements who share a common enemy -- US!
What now? U.S. forces will probably pause to replenish their supplies and prepare for the final assault. U.S. control of the former "Saddam International Airport" just west of Baghdad will make it possible to quickly fly in troops from the 82nd and/or 101st Airborne Divisions. The big question is whether they will wait for reinforcements from the 4th Infantry Division and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which are now assembling in Kuwait. Some military experts anticipate a steady but cautious advance into the city, seizing key points when the opportunity arises but not making a mass assault which would risk civilian casualties. This would follow the example of British forces besieging Basra, and it would serve to maintain the psychological sense of inevitability upon which U.S. strategy is based -- as long as the U.S. government is not distracted by other crises. (Are they paying attention in Pyongyang?) According to an article in the Washington Post, the Bush administration may simply declare victory even if there is no formal surrender. Some guerrilla resistance and terrorist attacks will no doubt continue on a sporadic basis for months to come. Whether or not total victory is at hand, it at least appears that the Iraqi people no longer fear Saddam and are beginning to cheer the liberators.
Update on wargames
MSNBC has a story with more details about last summer's war game called Millennium Challenge. Retired Marine Corps General Paul Van Riper complained in a private e-mail that the exercise was "scripted" in advance rather than serving as a critical device. This was subsequently leaked to the Army Times, sparking a small uproar in the Pentagon.