A rchive Date
[ 13-04-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/worthington.html
A war unlike any we'd ever seen
America, if it so chooses, can now remove despots with pinpoint precision
By PETER WORTHINGTON - Toronto Sun
April 13, 2003
VIENNA - Looking back on the three-week war against Saddam Hussein, what was astonishing - as well as the speed and efficiency of the victory - was how so many commentators and "experts" were wrong about how the war would go.
While it's fair to say hindsight is 20/20, it should have been obvious the vaunted Republican Guard, with some inevitable exceptions, was mostly a sham.
They were not "crack" troops and, given how the homicidal Iraqi regime worked, would never be much good against real soldiers - which the Americans, British, Australians and Poles irrefutably are.
The one imponderable of the three-week war that neither "expert" nor amateur could predict, was whether Saddam had bio-chemical weapons, and if he would use them.
Even last week, speculation from some who should have known better was the Republican Guard would retreat into the rabbit warren streets of Baghdad and wage house-to-house warfare that would inflict horrendous casualties.
"Stalingrad" was a vision many who opposed the war invoked. They were as wrong in their way as the hordes of Soviet experts prior to communism's collapse who blamed the Cold War on the West for not trusting the good intentions and humanity of the Soviet system.
When the USSR collapsed, many who used to defend the system changed their tune and accepted that it was indeed an "evil empire" as former U.S. president Ronald Reagan had insisted. A succession of Russian foreign ministers has since agreed.
Those who once warned of American casualties in Iraq maybe reaching 50,000, plus hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, now insist the Iraqi army had no chance against the technological might of the U.S. military.
None are so blind as those who will not see, unless it's those whose hate for America clouds their judgment.
What we witnessed on TV was a war unlike any that's ever been fought. For the first time in history, an invading force was more concerned with saving civilian lives and not causing unnecessary damage than the defending troops.
Throughout the war, nightly air attacks avoided targeting Baghdad's water supply, its power plants and civilian areas. Coalition soldiers left buildings intact and risked their lives to spare civilians.
Life went on, more or less normally, until American tanks penetrated the heart of Baghdad.
Casualties were nothing compared to World War II. The precision of air attacks and the restraint and resolve of coalition troops made it clear Saddam would not bounce back as he did after 1991. When this was realized, the "invaders" were welcomed as liberators.
Yes, there was fighting, but total coalition casualties will likely be less than the 1991 Gulf war.
There is valid concern about what happens next. One hopes President George Bush and British PM Tony Blair mean it when they insist Iraqis are quite capable of running their own country now that Saddam is history.
Some "experts" who now worry about the effect of the war on the Arab or Muslim world - some 40 countries - tend to knee-jerk reactions.
As someone who has spent a large part of a career attending crises in the Third and Muslim Worlds, I'd argue there will be two overall effects of this astounding victory.
Misguided concerns
First, concerns about the Arab "street" are largely misguided. The Arab "street" is largely a myth - something generated and manipulated by demagogues with agendas.
The "street" will see the fall of Saddam on TV - even slanted Arab TV - is popular in Iraq. It will see American soldiers doling out their rations, being kissed and hugged by the people to chants of "Thank you Mr. Bush" and "Saddam an enemy of God." It will occur to Arabs in other countries that Iraqis may well be the lucky ones to be rid of a tyrant.
At the same time, leaders of Muslim countries and other dictators will be uneasy. Clearly, if America chooses, it has the capability to remove despots without inflicting horrendous casualties on the populace or destroying cities. Tyrants can be pin-pointed and eliminated.
That has got to give pause to tyrants everywhere - especially those who reside in Pyongyang, Damascus, even Riyadh. This reality may prove a greater incentive for reform than UN Security Council resolutions which have promoted appeasement and rhetoric more than peace and security.
The "new" world order, if that's not too strong a phrase, is likely to congeal around American, British and Australian leadership, supported by the likes of Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, Latvia, Holland and former communist countries of East Europe which understand that appeasement rarely deters dictators or promotes human rights.
France has proved itself irrelevant; Germany is weakly led; Russia is repairing relations with the U.S. As well as Saddam Hussein, the big losers in this war are the UN, which has lost prestige, and those who think dictators can be appeased.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|