Invasion? More Like A Coup

[abu afak]

INVASION? MORE LIKE A COUP

Dick Morris


February 26, 2003 -- AMERICAN plans for Iraq look a lot more like a coup d'etat than an invasion. By aiming surgically at the leaders in Baghdad and isolating them from the rest of the military structure they command, President Bush seeks to decapitate the Iraqi leadership rather than conquer the nation.
In a coup, regime opponents try to interdict the opposition's command and control structure, block communications with the population and encourage enemy commanders to disobey orders and defect. Reported U.S. plans for the invasion of Iraq quite closely parallel that. And in leaflets now being dropped on Iraq and e-mails sent to Iraqi commanders and scientists, American psy-ops are aimed at driving a wedge between Saddam and his men.

In the Gulf War of 1991, the U.S. military engaged Iraqi troops to break their hold over Kuwait. In the plans being reported now, U.S. troops would bypass Iraq's regular army and attack the Republican Guard only if they intervene on the outskirts of Baghdad.

By using aerial bombardment to disrupt the regime's communications with its minions and employing e-bombs to overload their computers, American strategists are enhancing their chances of killing or capturing Saddam without having to damage all of Iraq. Even if the dictator escapes alive to hide out somewhere in a cave near Osama's, his regime will be toppled and the coup will have succeeded.

But this is a coup from outside the nation. To rally dissident military units and induce a rebellion, U.S. troops must first penetrate Iraqi airspace and land on the ground. Reports that elite Delta Force units will be sent into the capital in the operation's earliest phases reinforce the parallel between the invasion and a conventional coup d'etat.

Leftist propaganda about massive civilian casualties or the expense and difficulty of rebuilding a crippled nation do not take account of the subtlety of American military planning for Iraq. The coup won't be bloodless, but it will not leave a scorched earth in its wake, either.

So the nation won't take years to rebuild: A regime will have fallen, not a country. International critics, now predicting massive civilian casualties, will be confounded when the administration plans hold collateral damage to an absolute minimum.

In a sense, we are returning to the polite notions of war of the 18th and early 19th centuries. When the British captured Philadelphia, they figured the American Revolution would collapse. When they burned Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812, they felt they had won the war. Union generals were forever trying to capture Richmond to end the Civil War. Then generals like Ulysses Grant realized that the key was to destroy the other side's army - and the modern meat-grinder war was born.

By focusing on capturing the instruments of power in Baghdad, we are returning to the earlier idea - but in a different context.

The American plans, as thus far revealed, reflect both wisdom and humility. Rather than assume that they must defeat Iraqi divisions in the field, the U.S. planners take direct aim at the weakest link - the dictator's control over his military.

If these coup plans succeed, they will set an important precedent for future operations. Can Kim Jong II's control over his military be any better than Saddam's? Can any tyrant, ruling through secret police, survive a determined effort to get in between his leadership and his supposed followers?

The creativity of the plans in Afghanistan (relying on the Northern Alliance to do the bulk of the fighting) and in Iraq (fomenting a coup with outside forces) attests to the wisdom of U.S. policymakers. Their combination of creativity and fortitude stands us all in good stead.

In Afghanistan, the Pentagon showed that it had learned the lesson of Vietnam - that Americans would not tolerate massive U.S. casualties. Now they're incorporating the lessons of international politics in the media age - to take major measures to hold down civilian casualties. Good for them.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/69421.htm

[andak01]

Commentary brought to you by that bastion of morality and truth, Dick Morris. Sanitized for your protection.

[NewsGuy]

Good for Dick Morris. Finally turning his back on the Left wing.

[HaSakin]

Originally posted by abu afak
INVASION? MORE LIKE A COUP

Dick Morris


February 26, 2003 -- AMERICAN plans for Iraq look a lot more like a coup d'etat than an invasion. By aiming surgically at the leaders in Baghdad and isolating them from the rest of the military structure they command, President Bush seeks to decapitate the Iraqi leadership rather than conquer the nation.
In a coup, regime opponents try to interdict the opposition's command and control structure, block communications with the population and encourage enemy commanders to disobey orders and defect. Reported U.S. plans for the invasion of Iraq quite closely parallel that. And in leaflets now being dropped on Iraq and e-mails sent to Iraqi commanders and scientists, American psy-ops are aimed at driving a wedge between Saddam and his men.

In the Gulf War of 1991, the U.S. military engaged Iraqi troops to break their hold over Kuwait. In the plans being reported now, U.S. troops would bypass Iraq's regular army and attack the Republican Guard only if they intervene on the outskirts of Baghdad.

By using aerial bombardment to disrupt the regime's communications with its minions and employing e-bombs to overload their computers, American strategists are enhancing their chances of killing or capturing Saddam without having to damage all of Iraq. Even if the dictator escapes alive to hide out somewhere in a cave near Osama's, his regime will be toppled and the coup will have succeeded.

But this is a coup from outside the nation. To rally dissident military units and induce a rebellion, U.S. troops must first penetrate Iraqi airspace and land on the ground. Reports that elite Delta Force units will be sent into the capital in the operation's earliest phases reinforce the parallel between the invasion and a conventional coup d'etat.

Leftist propaganda about massive civilian casualties or the expense and difficulty of rebuilding a crippled nation do not take account of the subtlety of American military planning for Iraq. The coup won't be bloodless, but it will not leave a scorched earth in its wake, either.

So the nation won't take years to rebuild: A regime will have fallen, not a country. International critics, now predicting massive civilian casualties, will be confounded when the administration plans hold collateral damage to an absolute minimum.

In a sense, we are returning to the polite notions of war of the 18th and early 19th centuries. When the British captured Philadelphia, they figured the American Revolution would collapse. When they burned Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812, they felt they had won the war. Union generals were forever trying to capture Richmond to end the Civil War. Then generals like Ulysses Grant realized that the key was to destroy the other side's army - and the modern meat-grinder war was born.

By focusing on capturing the instruments of power in Baghdad, we are returning to the earlier idea - but in a different context.

The American plans, as thus far revealed, reflect both wisdom and humility. Rather than assume that they must defeat Iraqi divisions in the field, the U.S. planners take direct aim at the weakest link - the dictator's control over his military.

If these coup plans succeed, they will set an important precedent for future operations. Can Kim Jong II's control over his military be any better than Saddam's? Can any tyrant, ruling through secret police, survive a determined effort to get in between his leadership and his supposed followers?

The creativity of the plans in Afghanistan (relying on the Northern Alliance to do the bulk of the fighting) and in Iraq (fomenting a coup with outside forces) attests to the wisdom of U.S. policymakers. Their combination of creativity and fortitude stands us all in good stead.

In Afghanistan, the Pentagon showed that it had learned the lesson of Vietnam - that Americans would not tolerate massive U.S. casualties. Now they're incorporating the lessons of international politics in the media age - to take major measures to hold down civilian casualties. Good for them.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/69421.htm

On paper, the diagnosis of Dick Morris seems excellent. But has the writer seems to have missed a few important factors.

Will the Iraqis try again to engage head on American superior fire power—tank, artillery, air strikes and missiles? Won’t the Iraqis retreat to their cities and barricade themselves inside civilian buildings and force the Americans to try to root them out at bayonet point?
In such a battle, American superior fire power will be neutralized. True, the Americans can bomb the Iraqi cities to smithereens. The result will be that the Iraqi civilian population will throw its weight behind Saddam Hussein.

Wasn’t this the case when Nazi Germany blitzed London; when the Americans and English leveled the German cities?

As for separating Saddam Hussein from his military command. Well, isn’t this wishful thinking? It was very late in World War II when a very small portion of the German High Command tried to assassinate Hitler. The overwhelming majority of the German High Command remained loyal to Hitler.

As for a popular uprising against Sadam, it seems that only the Kurdish minority might try this. The Kurds number about 20 per cent (or about four million) of the Iraqi population. True, the Kurds are thirsting for an independent country.

But if the Iraqi Kurds rise up in rebellion, and if their rebellion succeeds (which is doubtful), it will have a disastrous effect on American’s ally, Turkish. For about 20 per cent (about 13 million) of the Turkish population consists of Kurds.

If the Turkish Kurds demand independence, American will have lost a faithful ally in Turkey.

Is Turkey allowing American troops to enter Turkey to fight the Iraqis, or is Turkey hoping that the American troops will help control the Turkish Kurds?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by HaSakin
Won’t the Iraqis retreat to their cities and barricade themselves inside civilian buildings and force the Americans to try to root them out at bayonet point?
In such a battle, American superior fire power will be neutralized.

I have a most profound respect for the IDF and do wish that they could spearhead the assault, but since it will not and cannot be that way, I still think that in any possible confrontation with American forces, the Iraqis will be the same weak and inept force that has never been able to truly fight for a gutless punk like Saddam.

That guy better run now. When U.S. forces begin moving in, he knows that his shield will dissipated.

[HaSakin]

Originally posted by MichaelC
I have a most profound respect for the IDF and do wish that they could spearhead the assault, but since it will not and cannot be that way, I still think that in any possible confrontation with American forces, the Iraqis will be the same weak and inept force that has never been able to truly fight for a gutless punk like Saddam.

That guy better run now. When U.S. forces begin moving in, he knows that his shield will dissipated.

MichaelC is, I'm afraid, indulging in wishful thinking.
When the IDF moves takes action against a terrorist, or a group
of terrorists, it moves in with greatly superior force. It is a
battle between 20 to 30 tanks under the cover of helicopter
missiles against a handful of terrorists armed with rifles, grenades, explosive devices, etc. (And this is as it should be. Does
anyone recall the name of the general in the American civil
war who said the secret of success was "Get there firstest with
the mostest"?

Moreover, every IDF deadly raid only reinforces the bitterness
of the Palestinians; and this is what Yasser Arafat wants.
The same will be true in Iraq. When the Iraqi armed forces
hide and fight from civilian homes, the outcome will be greatly
increased Iraqi bitterness against the Americans. Sad but true.

So far, no one has come up with a suitable solution to winning
the war against the Iraqis. This doesn't mean that this war should
not be fought. Perhaps the solution would simply to employ
the same tactics the Iraqis perpetrated against Kuwait:

SET THEIR OIL WELLS ON FIRE.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by HaSakin


SET THEIR OIL WELLS ON FIRE.

Back to the drawing board Sakin.

An uncharcateristally Terrible Idea.

All indications are Saddam will try that trick.
We will win in weeks.
It would be crazy to be putting out fires for a year.