NASDAQ_400
03-29-2003, 04:36 PM
MARCH 29, 2003
Cakewalk? What cakewalk?
As Iraq war drags on longer than the hawks predicted, White House faces an uphill political battle
By Leon Hadar
IN WASHINGTON
ON THE eve of Gulf War II, Mr Richard Perle, who was then chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, predicted that unseating Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be 'a cakewalk'.
The expectation of Mr Perle - who resigned from his post yesterday over a conflict-of-interest controversy involving a corporate deal - that the war against Iraq would be quick and mostly 'clean', leading to the swift surrender of Mr Saddam, was shared by many.
Among them, the hawkish inside and outside the Bush administration, including Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who pressed President George W. Bush to go to war.
For several months, the members of the 'Cakewalk Brigade', as former Newsweek correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave described them, bombarded Americans with rosy forecasts about the looming war.
Their scenarios assumed that the war would last a few days - 'Two days!' predicted Mr Bill O' Reilly, a conservative television pundit.
US military technology, especially its air power coupled with a psychological warfare campaign, culminating in a shock-and-awe spectacle, would bring about an early victory with very few American and Iraqi casualties.
President Saddam would be killed. Iraqi officers would surrender without a fight. And the Iraqi people would welcome the Americans as liberators.
These views helped shape the Pentagon's strategy.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to military analyst Ralph Peters, downplayed the role of ground troops and argued that shock-and-awe air attacks together with efforts by small Special Operations groups would secure a swift victory in Iraq.
The Rumsfeld Strategy was applied in Afghanistan, and was quite different from the Powell Doctrine with its emphasis on projecting the overwhelming force of the American military that was employed in Gulf War I.
'Some cakewalk,' wrote Mr de Borchgrave this week, describing the reality of warfare in Iraq as coalition forces suffered losses and the strategy failed to bring about the surrender by the Iraqi leadership.
The 'embedded' journalists had been expected to transmit images of joyful Iraqis dancing and clapping in the streets. Instead, they were sending reports about the bloody siege of Basra, mounting American casualties and stiff resistance from Iraqi forces.
The Rumsfeld Strategy aimed to minimise civilian casualties and destruction of the country's infrastructure. But the coverage by Al Jazeera and other Arab media of the war seems to have galvanised the Arab 'street' against the United States.
Theories don't win wars, according to Mr Peters.
Perhaps, suggested Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, Mr Perle and the other hawks, many of whom did not serve in the military, should have joined the first wave into Baghdad to experience their 'cakewalk' theory.
Some 'cakewalkers', such as former White House speechwriter David Frum, insist that Mr Bush 'made no promises that the war would be easy, and when he spoke about the war in private, he always emphasised that removing Saddam from power would be a bloody business'.
But it is not surprising that the 'cakewalkers' are lying low in Washington this week after a front-page story in the Washington Post quoted top officials in the Pentagon predicting that the battle for Baghdad could prove to be long and bloody and that the entire war could continue for several months.
Retired army general Barry McCaffrey, criticising the military planners' overconfidence, has warned that the coalition troops could suffer around 3,000 casualties during the battle for Baghdad.
General William Odom, a retired US Army officer and the former director of the National Security Agency is confident that the US military will be able to adapt quickly to the realities of the battlefield in Iraq and dispatch more troops to the region.
Indeed, no one is predicting a Vietnam-like quagmire for US troops in Iraq, and most analysts expect the war on Baghdad to be a US military victory.
But so was the outcome of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam, where the United States and its South Vietnamese allies won the military battle.
They ended up, however, losing the political battle of expectations.
The images during Tet of North Vietnamese reaching the vicinity of the US Embassy in Saigon demonstrated to the Americans that there was 'no light at the end of the tunnel' and produced a backlash against the Vietnam war.
With about 40 per cent of Americans expecting fewer than 100 casualties on the eve of the war in Iraq, the images of a more-than-expected costly war there could ignite similar public opposition to the plans of 'democratising' the Middle East.
It is doubtful that the Americans would stomach 'another Iraq' in Iran.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0%2C1887%2C180038%2C00.html
Cakewalk? What cakewalk?
As Iraq war drags on longer than the hawks predicted, White House faces an uphill political battle
By Leon Hadar
IN WASHINGTON
ON THE eve of Gulf War II, Mr Richard Perle, who was then chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, predicted that unseating Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be 'a cakewalk'.
The expectation of Mr Perle - who resigned from his post yesterday over a conflict-of-interest controversy involving a corporate deal - that the war against Iraq would be quick and mostly 'clean', leading to the swift surrender of Mr Saddam, was shared by many.
Among them, the hawkish inside and outside the Bush administration, including Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who pressed President George W. Bush to go to war.
For several months, the members of the 'Cakewalk Brigade', as former Newsweek correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave described them, bombarded Americans with rosy forecasts about the looming war.
Their scenarios assumed that the war would last a few days - 'Two days!' predicted Mr Bill O' Reilly, a conservative television pundit.
US military technology, especially its air power coupled with a psychological warfare campaign, culminating in a shock-and-awe spectacle, would bring about an early victory with very few American and Iraqi casualties.
President Saddam would be killed. Iraqi officers would surrender without a fight. And the Iraqi people would welcome the Americans as liberators.
These views helped shape the Pentagon's strategy.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to military analyst Ralph Peters, downplayed the role of ground troops and argued that shock-and-awe air attacks together with efforts by small Special Operations groups would secure a swift victory in Iraq.
The Rumsfeld Strategy was applied in Afghanistan, and was quite different from the Powell Doctrine with its emphasis on projecting the overwhelming force of the American military that was employed in Gulf War I.
'Some cakewalk,' wrote Mr de Borchgrave this week, describing the reality of warfare in Iraq as coalition forces suffered losses and the strategy failed to bring about the surrender by the Iraqi leadership.
The 'embedded' journalists had been expected to transmit images of joyful Iraqis dancing and clapping in the streets. Instead, they were sending reports about the bloody siege of Basra, mounting American casualties and stiff resistance from Iraqi forces.
The Rumsfeld Strategy aimed to minimise civilian casualties and destruction of the country's infrastructure. But the coverage by Al Jazeera and other Arab media of the war seems to have galvanised the Arab 'street' against the United States.
Theories don't win wars, according to Mr Peters.
Perhaps, suggested Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, Mr Perle and the other hawks, many of whom did not serve in the military, should have joined the first wave into Baghdad to experience their 'cakewalk' theory.
Some 'cakewalkers', such as former White House speechwriter David Frum, insist that Mr Bush 'made no promises that the war would be easy, and when he spoke about the war in private, he always emphasised that removing Saddam from power would be a bloody business'.
But it is not surprising that the 'cakewalkers' are lying low in Washington this week after a front-page story in the Washington Post quoted top officials in the Pentagon predicting that the battle for Baghdad could prove to be long and bloody and that the entire war could continue for several months.
Retired army general Barry McCaffrey, criticising the military planners' overconfidence, has warned that the coalition troops could suffer around 3,000 casualties during the battle for Baghdad.
General William Odom, a retired US Army officer and the former director of the National Security Agency is confident that the US military will be able to adapt quickly to the realities of the battlefield in Iraq and dispatch more troops to the region.
Indeed, no one is predicting a Vietnam-like quagmire for US troops in Iraq, and most analysts expect the war on Baghdad to be a US military victory.
But so was the outcome of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam, where the United States and its South Vietnamese allies won the military battle.
They ended up, however, losing the political battle of expectations.
The images during Tet of North Vietnamese reaching the vicinity of the US Embassy in Saigon demonstrated to the Americans that there was 'no light at the end of the tunnel' and produced a backlash against the Vietnam war.
With about 40 per cent of Americans expecting fewer than 100 casualties on the eve of the war in Iraq, the images of a more-than-expected costly war there could ignite similar public opposition to the plans of 'democratising' the Middle East.
It is doubtful that the Americans would stomach 'another Iraq' in Iran.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0%2C1887%2C180038%2C00.html