[This is the quintessential neoconservative agitprop piece in favor of the Iraq
War which one should never forget. Ken Adelman is a close friend of and
adviser to Dick Cheney. The Washington Post, the New York Times and other
"liberal" mainstream media outlets bombarded Americans with this war propaganda
in the run-up to the Iraq War. Historians are going to have a field day in
sifting through and analyzing this material.]
The Washington Post
Cakewalk In Iraq
By Ken Adelman
Wednesday, February 13, 2002; Page A27
Even before President Bush had placed Iraq on his "axis of evil," dire warnings
were being sounded about the danger of acting against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Two knowledgeable Brookings Institution analysts, Philip H. Gordon and Michael
E. O'Hanlon, concluded that the United States would "almost surely" need "at
least 100,000 to 200,000" ground forces [op-ed, Dec. 26, 2001]. Worse:
"Historical precedents from Panama to Somalia to the Arab-Israeli wars suggest
that . . . the United States could lose thousands of troops in the process."
I agree that taking down Hussein would differ from taking down the Taliban. And
no one favors "a casual march to war." This is serious business, to be treated
seriously.
In fact, we took it seriously the last time such fear-mongering was heard from
military analysts -- when we considered war against Iraq 11 years ago. Edward
N. Luttwak cautioned on the eve of Desert Storm: "All those precision weapons
and gadgets and gizmos and stealth fighters . . . are not going to make it
possible to re-conquer Kuwait without many thousands of casualties." As it
happened, our gizmos worked wonders. Luttwak's estimate of casualties was off
by "many thousands," just as the current estimates are likely to be.
I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a
cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last
time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4)
now we're playing for keeps.
Gordon and O'Hanlon mention today's "400,000 active-duty troops in the Iraqi
military" and especially the "100,000 in Saddam's more reliable Republican
Guard and Special Republican Guard," which "would probably fight hard against
the United States -- just as they did a decade ago during Desert Storm."
Somehow I missed that. I do remember a gaggle of Iraqi troops attempting to
surrender to an Italian film crew. The bulk of the vaunted Republican Guard
either hunkered down or was held back from battle.
Today Iraqi forces are much weaker. Saddam's army is one-third its size then,
in both manpower and number of divisions. It still relies on obsolete Soviet
tanks, which military analyst Eliot Cohen calls "death traps." The Iraqi air
force, never much, is half its former size.
Iraqi forces have received scant spare parts and no weapons upgrades. They have
undertaken little operational training since Desert Storm.
Meanwhile, American power is much fiercer. The advent of precision bombing and
battlefield intelligence has dramatically spiked U.S. military prowess. The
gizmos of Desert Storm were 90-plus percent dumb bombs. Against the Taliban,
more than 80 percent were smart bombs. Unmanned Predators equipped with
Hellfire missiles and Global Hawk intelligence gathering did not exist during
the first Iraqi campaign.
In 1991 we engaged a grand international coalition because we lacked a domestic
coalition. Virtually the entire Democratic leadership stood against that
President Bush. The public, too, was divided. This President Bush does not need
to amass rinky-dink nations as "coalition partners" to convince the Washington
establishment that we're right. Americans of all parties now know we must wage
a total war on terrorism.
Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security and
civilization. Unlike Osama bin Laden, he has billions of dollars in government
funds, scores of government research labs working feverishly on weapons of mass
destruction -- and just as deep a hatred of America and civilized free
societies.
Once President Bush clearly announces that our objective is to rid Iraq of
Hussein, and our unshakable determination to do whatever it takes to win,
defections from the Iraqi army may come even faster than a decade ago.
Gordon and O'Hanlon say we must not "assume that Hussein will quickly fall." I
think that's just what is likely to happen. How would it be accomplished? By
knocking out all his headquarters, communications, air defenses and fixed
military facilities through precision bombing. By establishing military
"no-drive zones" wherever Iraqi forces try to move. By arming the Kurds in the
north, Shiites in the south and his many opponents everywhere. By using U.S.
special forces and some U.S. ground forces with protective gear against
chemical and biological weapons. By stationing theater missile defenses, to
guard against any Iraqi Scuds still in existence. And by announcing loudly that
any Iraqi, of any rank, who handles Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, in
any form, will be severely punished after the war.
Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the
greatest victory in America's war on terrorism.
The writer was assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to
1977, and arms control director under President Ronald Reagan.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer
