In relation to yesterday's post, some people are saying the reason Baghdad's infrastructure, up until recently, had not been targeted was because the President and most of his advisors felt that they could get Saddam's officers to surrender without a fight.
If this is true, then to say that idea is a non-starter is to be generous in the extreme. Does the U.S. continue to think everyone thinks the way we do? That "awe and shock" from the air would win the war without having to fight, on the ground, in the sand and mud? Do they think that the Iraqis would throw down their weapons when the obviously superior firepower of the U.S. military was displayed?
If this is what the planners thought would happen, then this is a flaw going back to at least that other old Texas wrangler President Johnson's strategy in Vietnam where he thought he could cut a deal with anyone.
This is not Gulf War I. The Iraqi are fighting for their country and their way of life. They are fighting foreign invaders on their own territory. Of course they will fight. Of course they will use classic guerrilla tactics against a larger, better equipped force. What do you think the early New England colonial irregulars did against the British?
Is this so obvious that no one wanted to acknowledge it?
In the end, the result will probably be the same, but how many U.S. forces will die because of a strategy based on fairy tales? If I've said it once, I'll say it again: If you are going to make war, to use a local phrase, Go for Broke. Use everything you have. Assume anything that moves is the enemy and kill it. To do otherwise is to place our forces in harms way for no reason.
Aloha!
