I am increasingly concerned about the nature of the coverage of the war so far. Every little incident is reported as if it were either a great victory or a defeat. Any casualties are seen as a disaster. Here is a refreshing and professional perspective by Ralph Peters for the NY Post
March 24, 2003 -- IN combat, the ideal leader is the man who remains calm and methodical under fire. Today's 24/7 broadcast news demands just the opposite: raised voices, an atmosphere of crisis and a rush to judgment.
After declaring victory on Friday and Saturday, a number of media outlets all but announced our defeat yesterday, treating the routine events of warfare as if they were disasters.
Nonsense.
We're winning, the Iraqis are losing, and the American people have executive seats for what may prove to be the most successful military campaign in history.
I do recognize that the majority of our journalists are doing their best to cover this war accurately and fairly. But, with a few admirable exceptions, even seasoned reporters lack the perspective needed to judge the war's progress. Few have read military history. Even fewer have served in the military. They simply don't understand what they are seeing.
Every low-level firefight seems a great battle to them. Each pause in the advance is read as a worrisome delay. While they see friendly casualties up close, they rarely witness the devastation inflicted on our enemies. And when isolated groups of Iraqis do stand and fight, the journalists imply it means the Iraqi people are opposed to our intervention.
Let's try to understand what's actually happening.
Is Iraqi resistance a surprise? No. And it isn't nearly as strong as some reporting suggests. In a nation of 22 million people, 1 to 2 million have a stake in Saddam's regime - the officers in "elite" units, corrupt Baath Party officials, secret policemen and all those who have enjoyed good careers at the expense of the other 20 million of their countrymen - who all want Saddam dead.
Some thousands of Iraqis will fight to the death. Out of 22 million.
But wasn't the war supposed to be a cakewalk? No responsible official ever said this would be a bloodless war. The pundits who suggested such nonsense never served in uniform themselves. Anyone with the least knowledge of warfare expected some measure of resistance - and friendly casualties.
Were we less humane, of course, this war would have gone even faster. We could have destroyed the Iraqi military in days, killing tens of thousands of their soldiers from the sky. Instead, we have been trying to spare lives by giving our enemies a chance to surrender. Many are doing just that - or simply deserting and going home.
But what about the Iraqis still resisting in the cities in the south, such as Um Qasr and Basra? Those are small groups of die-hard regime supporters, thugs from the security forces that answer directly to Saddam's sons. Their fates are tied to Saddam's rule. Many of the men firing at our troops from building or bunkers in the south would be killed by their fellow Iraqis if they laid down their arms.
Haven't they tricked us? If they have, the tricks weren't very effective. CENTCOM did confirm that, in several instances, Iraqi elements pretended to surrender, then opened fire on our troops. Others have worn civilian clothes to ambush resupply convoys. These are not regular Iraqi army forces or even members of the Republican Guards. They appear to be from the fidayeen, gangs of murderous thugs, and from the security services and the Special Republican Guards - the regime's Gestapo and SS.
While they certainly want to kill allied troops, their most important mission is to make it harder for all the thousands of Iraqi soldiers who truly do want to surrender. They want to convince us to fire on white flags. But we won't.
And the perpetrators of these fake surrenders, as well as those using civilian clothes to stage ambushes, are war criminals. Both the traditional laws of war and the Geneva Convention prohibit such actions. If captured, these men could be executed on the spot, with complete legality. But we're too decent to do that - even to them.
In the end, all the Iraqi irregular forces are accomplishing is to make our troops more determined. The latest message I had from a friend serving in the war made it clear that our troops are enraged, not deterred, by Iraqi actions - not least by the execution in cold blood of American prisoners and the abuse of other POWs.
Hey, weren't all those cities in the south supposed to be secure? No. Even in Um Qasr, our priority was to secure key port facilities, not to occupy neighborhoods. Consistently, allied forces have bypassed major population centers to avoid getting drawn into urban combat and causing needless harm to civilians.
A great deal of potential resistance can simply be left to wither away. Some Iraqis are zealots - for instance, the Sunni Baath Party enforcers now stranded behind our lines. They will either die or be taken prisoner.
Isn't that risky, just bypassing entire cities? Yes. In war, calculated risks are required. Our British allies are fond of saying that "Fortune favors the bold." You don't win wars through timidity. Our lead ground forces were more than two-thirds of the way to Baghdad yesterday. That sort of progress is unprecedented in the annals of warfare. But it does leave some potentially dangerous enemy elements in the rear.
We are relying on speed to operate "inside the Iraqi decision cycle" - to keep the enemy on the ropes, physically and psychologically. We are aiming for a large-scale, operational victory. But the inherent risks mean that there will continue to be sharp tactical encounters - isolated, but deadly - behind our advancing tanks.
It sounds like there have been big, tough battles all of a sudden. No. Every fight is tough for the soldiers under fire, of course. But what the broadcast media reported as significant battles consistently have been one-sided tactical encounters, with overwhelming casualties on the Iraqi side.
When our forces pause to destroy enemy forces methodically, that is a sign of professionalism and common sense, not of fear or a reverse. Cameramen might wish our troops would charge wildly into the enemy machines guns, but that's not the American way of war. When faced with a dangerous situation - if the mission allows us the time - we break contact to a distance that allows us to call down a storm of mortar fire, field artillery and airstrikes on the enemy. Whenever possible, we spend shells, not bodies.
Still, there are times when our forces have to get up close and personal with the enemy, as the Marines did in Nasiriyah yesterday. When that happens, we win. Period.
So you think we can just roll on to Baghdad, huh? No. We'll get to Baghdad in due time and in good shape. Several Republican Guard divisions may make the mistake of trying to take us on in large-scale battles as we move closer to the city.
If they do, there may be some intense tactical encounters. But those Iraqi divisions will be attacked so ferociously that a key decision for Gen. Tommy Franks will be when to turn off our destructive power and spare the survivors.
Will they use chemical weapons? That remains the greatest single risk to our troops and to the Iraqi population. If any weapons of mass destruction are used, it may slow us down for a time - and there could be painful casualties - but any such attacks will only strengthen our resolve, while proving to the world that we were right all along about the threat posed by Saddam.
But we've taken casualties and American soldiers have been captured - doesn't that mean we're in trouble? No. I wish it were otherwise, but, in any war - especially one of this magnitude - soldiers die, suffer wounds, or fall into enemy hands. We cherish every servicemember and mourn every loss. But, to be frank, our losses thus far are remarkably low, given the scale of our enterprise.
We may lose considerably higher numbers of casualties before this war is over. But I can promise you that our military commanders are relieved by the low level of our losses to date.
Are the Iraqis really trying to lure us deep into their country so they can spring a trap on our forces? The Iraqis have no choice in the matter. Our troops go where they want to go.
Yes, the Iraqis are probably planning a large military confrontation, an operational-level ambush, close to Baghdad - while forces remaining in our rear area attack our supply lines. They may even have left some of the bridges across the Euphrates standing on purpose.
If so, it was a grave error. If those Republican Guards divisions confront our forces, they simply will not survive. Even if their plan includes the use of chemical weapons.
Thus far, our troops have performed magnificently, seizing an ever-growing list of airfields, bridges, roads, oil fields and other critical infrastructure, enabling us to maneuver swiftly and freely, while preserving the backbone of Iraq's economy for its people. And we prevented an ecological catastrophe, although those on the left will never credit us for doing so.
Even if the Iraqis have some ambitious master plan they still believe they can spring on us, they never expected to lose so much of their country so quickly. They are reeling; any plan could only be executed piecemeal, at this point.
After less than four days of ground operations, the Iraqis have lost control over half their country, they have lost control over most of their military, and allied forces are closing in on Baghdad.
But what about the "Battle of Baghdad"? Will it be a bloodbath? Haven't the Iraqis already lured us into urban warfare in the south? No. The Iraqis haven't lured us into anything. We have consistently imposed our plan and our will upon the enemy. While there have been some incidences of urban combat to date, with friendly casualties, our forces are far better prepared for such encounters than are the Iraqis. The Marine Corps, especially, has been training intensively in urban environments.
We are not going to be lured into a "Stalingrad" in Baghdad. Ignore the prophets of doom, who have been wrong consistently. As this column has steadily maintained, we have time, but Saddam doesn't. If we have to sit in a ring around Baghdad for several weeks while the last resistance is dismantled in innovative ways, then that's what we'll do.
Grave dangers lie ahead. Only a fool would underestimate them. But this war is not being run against a clock. The counsel that we must all be patient and let our troops do their jobs remains the best a former soldier can offer.
As long as the American people keep their perspective - which they will - it really doesn't matter how many journalists lose theirs.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."
11:37:54 AM 
|
