PDA

View Full Version : No Substitute For Victory



thedrifter
05-21-04, 06:06 AM
05-20-2004

No Substitute For Victory



By Ray Starmann



The invasion of Iraq was a colossal strategic blunder that may one day be compared with Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, the English destruction of the Spanish Armada, the construction of the French Maginot Line and Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa.



In December 1941, the great German Wehrmacht stood at the gates of Moscow. While Russia experienced its worst winter in 200 years, Stalin counterattacked Feodor von Bock’s Army Group Center with a million Siberian troopers. As the Mongols appeared out of snowdrifts, the German Army began a four-year retreat that would eventually lead back to Berlin.



For our forces in Iraq and for the Bush administration, it is now December 1941. The results will be just as disastrous unless the U.S.-led coalition implements drastic changes in the Iraqi occupation.



We must now begin to ask certain questions. Why did the Bush administration really invade Iraq? There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a murderous, psychopathic tyrant. In fact, he may have had weapons of mass destruction. But Saddam was not an imminent strategic threat to the United States. Did we invade Iraq for oil? Did we invade in order to establish a permanent series of military bases that in turn enable us to launch subsequent operations against other Middle Eastern countries? Why are we not giving top priority to destroying Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?



Compounded with a terrible idea was an equally bad war plan. Top Army generals pleaded with Donald Rumsfeld that at least 300,000 soldiers and Marines would be needed to win the war and stabilize Iraq. But, Rumsfeld and his senior civilian aides were determined to invade with a smaller ground force that would use air power and technology in place of grunts.



The result: We seized Iraq, but never secured it. Ammunition dumps went unguarded, while every Iraqi over the age of twelve grabbed an AK-47 and an RPG. More than a year after major combat operations ended, bridges and major choke points continue to be unsecured, enabling the enemy to set up IEDs and ambushes. Where was the shock and awe? I’ve seen more shock and awe on an M-16 range at Graf. Why were our troops so poorly equipped? Why was the armor sent home last spring?



As the problems continued to mount, the Bush administration (sans Colin Powell) exhibited an arrogance that has taken on an almost Shakespearean grandeur.



How are we to win the war in Iraq? We certainly cannot withdraw from the country. To do so would send a message of ineptitude and weakness to our enemies across the world. We must send more troops to Iraq and quickly. Unconfirmed reports that the Pentagon will shift a combat brigade from the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea to Iraq suggest that Rumsfeld and his generals know that more – not less – troops are badly needed prior to the June 30 hand-over of political authority.



But other steps are required. The Army must begin an emergency program to expand our civil affairs capability in the country. In addition to this, we should flood the country with even more American greenbacks. Let’s give every Iraqi the opportunity to cheaply purchase refrigerators, televisions, DVD players and every other modern convenience that Americans enjoy each day. Most insurgencies thrive on poverty. Employed men with cash and comforts rarely become guerillas.



The top generals in Iraq must stop cowering in Rumsfeld’s presence and give him candid advice. Their sycophantic behavior only aggravates the problem. We must stop the illusion that we can successfully negotiate with our enemy. The so-called “cease-fire” in Fallujah was nothing other than a complete political and military defeat.



By cutting a deal with the enemy in Fallujah, the Marines were able to save their troops from conducting a Hue-type assault into the city. Certainly this also spared the lives of many civilians. But, at what cost to the final outcome of this conflict? Fallujah has now become the Nuremberg of Iraq, the stronghold and sanctuary for Muhajedin maniacs, ex-Republican Guard troopers and Ba’ath Party boys who long for the good old days under Saddam. Are these people going away? Of course they’re not. In Fallujah, we violated the doctrine of George Patton. We “took counsel of our fears” and the enemy knows it.



We must also face some basic facts. Most Iraqis and Muslims do not understand and could care less about democracy. Any illusion about instilling the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson into Iraqi society is simply laughable. We must fight ruthlessly and relentlessly. Our attacks must be so violent as to make our enemies think twice about fighting us.



During World War II, the United States fought brutally against Nazi Germany and Japan, while garnering a reputation as the bearer of freedom and justice. We must do the same, until one day in good time, this war is won.



The American serviceman in Iraq has performed brilliantly. As Gen. Douglas MacArthur once said, “They need no eulogy from me or any other man.” During the same speech he also declared, “There is no substitute for victory.”



There isn’t.



Ray Starmann is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at saber2bravo@earthlink.net. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.


http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=491&rnd=810.6472465308703


Ellie