thedrifter
03-20-03, 06:39 AM
03-19-2003
Brace for Saddam’s Desperation Moves
By Jim Simpson
President Bush has taken a bold step in announcing decisively that Saddam Hussein must go, and deserved praise for his courage in the face of widespread opposition from the Left. It is also fortunate that the administration acknowledges the Ba’ath Party’s complicity in Saddam’s reign of terror and that “regime change” includes removing the Ba’aths.
On the eve of battle however, I would offer a note of caution to our troops. While this time U.S. military planners have caught on to the fact that there is no love lost between the ruling Ba’aths and the Iraqi people, there are yet many reasons not to assume the rank and file of the Iraqi army will immediately surrender as in 1991. Nor should we automatically assume the Iraqi army will come to our assistance as many military planners are counting on.
In Gulf War I, President George H.W. Bush encouraged Iraqis to revolt, but then denied them support when they did. The resulting slaughter at the hands of Saddam’s troops remains a bitter memory for many Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. They may be hesitant allies at first.
More importantly, in Gulf War I, Saddam knew a priori that he was going to survive. The Soviets, who insisted his regime be spared as the price of their support, guaranteed this. It would have been their price again, but George W. Bush wisely did not pay it this time. So Saddam will not enjoy the Russians’ protection again and will therefore have no choice but to pull out all the stops.
There is understandable concern that he will use NBC weapons. Other scenarios, however, cannot be overlooked. For example, he may hold families of soldiers hostage to their battlefield performance. The North Vietnamese Army did this during the Vietnam War. Or he may do as Stalin did in World War II or he himself reportedly did in 1991: Put sharpshooters behind the front line troops and shoot any soldiers who attempt to retreat. These are just a few of many standard communist tactics to ensure troop loyalty.
There have been recent warnings in the western press that Saddam may even attack his own people, using Iraqi forces dressed in U.S. combat fatigues. This would sow further mistrust of U.S. forces among his people. Daniel Ortega, another Soviet-trained communist, did this in Nicaragua using his own troops dressed as Contras, to discredit the anti-Sandinista rebels with the western press. For a ruthless dictator with totalitarian control, the options are only limited by his imagination and capabilities. There is literally nothing he, and by extension, the ruling Ba’ath Party, won’t sink to.
For this reason, Iraqi overtures to surrender should be treated with caution. They may be a ruse, for example to make us overconfident and careless. Or if we rearm them to fight on our side, they may turn on us at an opportune moment.
The Iraqi secret police are watching Iraqi military commanders like hawks. All their communications are probably monitored. It is doubtful they will risk immediate surrender or collaboration with our forces unless they have no one back home to lose and can get to us before the secret police get to them.
Finally, removing Saddam is a precedent-setting event, the importance of which cannot be overemphasized: To date, no sitting communist dictator has been deposed by any Western government. This is why the Left has been so vocally opposed to this war. They may not like Saddam, but he’s a member of the leftist family, and they protect their own. The Russians in particular have a strong vested interest in keeping a leftist government in power.
Perhaps they will let Saddam and the Ba’aths fall and try to install another sympathetic regime after the war. But losing Saddam sets a precedent that potentially puts all Russian allies in the region at risk, because it is these countries and groups that have caused all the problems: Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority (and its terrorist groups), Libya and others. And as George Bush said: “If you’re not with us, you’re with them.”
The Russians are pretending to be our friends right now, but every soldier in the field should take this warning to heart: They have an endgame for us. This may not be it, but they do have an endgame. We should be watching our backs, too.
Jim Simpson is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at
one.wonders@verizon.net.
Sempers,
Roger
Brace for Saddam’s Desperation Moves
By Jim Simpson
President Bush has taken a bold step in announcing decisively that Saddam Hussein must go, and deserved praise for his courage in the face of widespread opposition from the Left. It is also fortunate that the administration acknowledges the Ba’ath Party’s complicity in Saddam’s reign of terror and that “regime change” includes removing the Ba’aths.
On the eve of battle however, I would offer a note of caution to our troops. While this time U.S. military planners have caught on to the fact that there is no love lost between the ruling Ba’aths and the Iraqi people, there are yet many reasons not to assume the rank and file of the Iraqi army will immediately surrender as in 1991. Nor should we automatically assume the Iraqi army will come to our assistance as many military planners are counting on.
In Gulf War I, President George H.W. Bush encouraged Iraqis to revolt, but then denied them support when they did. The resulting slaughter at the hands of Saddam’s troops remains a bitter memory for many Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. They may be hesitant allies at first.
More importantly, in Gulf War I, Saddam knew a priori that he was going to survive. The Soviets, who insisted his regime be spared as the price of their support, guaranteed this. It would have been their price again, but George W. Bush wisely did not pay it this time. So Saddam will not enjoy the Russians’ protection again and will therefore have no choice but to pull out all the stops.
There is understandable concern that he will use NBC weapons. Other scenarios, however, cannot be overlooked. For example, he may hold families of soldiers hostage to their battlefield performance. The North Vietnamese Army did this during the Vietnam War. Or he may do as Stalin did in World War II or he himself reportedly did in 1991: Put sharpshooters behind the front line troops and shoot any soldiers who attempt to retreat. These are just a few of many standard communist tactics to ensure troop loyalty.
There have been recent warnings in the western press that Saddam may even attack his own people, using Iraqi forces dressed in U.S. combat fatigues. This would sow further mistrust of U.S. forces among his people. Daniel Ortega, another Soviet-trained communist, did this in Nicaragua using his own troops dressed as Contras, to discredit the anti-Sandinista rebels with the western press. For a ruthless dictator with totalitarian control, the options are only limited by his imagination and capabilities. There is literally nothing he, and by extension, the ruling Ba’ath Party, won’t sink to.
For this reason, Iraqi overtures to surrender should be treated with caution. They may be a ruse, for example to make us overconfident and careless. Or if we rearm them to fight on our side, they may turn on us at an opportune moment.
The Iraqi secret police are watching Iraqi military commanders like hawks. All their communications are probably monitored. It is doubtful they will risk immediate surrender or collaboration with our forces unless they have no one back home to lose and can get to us before the secret police get to them.
Finally, removing Saddam is a precedent-setting event, the importance of which cannot be overemphasized: To date, no sitting communist dictator has been deposed by any Western government. This is why the Left has been so vocally opposed to this war. They may not like Saddam, but he’s a member of the leftist family, and they protect their own. The Russians in particular have a strong vested interest in keeping a leftist government in power.
Perhaps they will let Saddam and the Ba’aths fall and try to install another sympathetic regime after the war. But losing Saddam sets a precedent that potentially puts all Russian allies in the region at risk, because it is these countries and groups that have caused all the problems: Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority (and its terrorist groups), Libya and others. And as George Bush said: “If you’re not with us, you’re with them.”
The Russians are pretending to be our friends right now, but every soldier in the field should take this warning to heart: They have an endgame for us. This may not be it, but they do have an endgame. We should be watching our backs, too.
Jim Simpson is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at
one.wonders@verizon.net.
Sempers,
Roger