Libertarian_Guard
03-29-2003, 08:27 PM
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/2003/03/30/business/columns/columns1.asp
Out To Lunch
David Bullard
When the Second World War started in September 1939, public opinion was that it would all be over by November. In fairness, public opinion was influenced by a number of so-called military experts who had carefully calculated how long it would take to eradicate Adolf Hitler.
The war dragged on for another five-and-a-half years, but the aftermath of the devastation was felt for a long time. Which shows that, when it comes to war predictions, the pundits are about as reliable as they are at predicting economic trends.
The Iraq invasion was supposed to last a few days or maybe a week at most. That is the time the US calculated it would take to roll into Iraq, kill Saddam Hussein and his close family and be welcomed as liberators by disillusioned Iraqis desperate for a change of regime.
On the third day of the war Donald Rumsfeld positively bounced into a late-night media conference, wisecracking with the assembled reporters and beaming with joy.
He was evidently pleased with himself. After months of United Nations shilly-shallying, the US coalition had decided to go it alone and kick ass, ignoring global anti-war sentiment and the pleas for further weapons inspections from leaders of less influential countries.
Depending on whose particular brand of propaganda you believe, the US intention was to kill Saddam and his cronies on the first raid and then move in to free Iraqis from their shackles, convincing them that the thousands of troops were there only to rebuild their shattered economy.
Much was made of the accuracy of US missiles, which would avoid as much collateral damage as possible.
Given the US's professed concern for civilian lives, it seems odd that the operation should be called "shock and awe" and that the coalition bombarded Baghdad with a reported 1 000 satellite-guided bombs and missiles on the first night. They then reminded the world that this was just a foretaste of the firepower they were capable of unleashing.
If I didn't know any better, I would say that the heavy bombing of Baghdad had more to do with a show of strength from the world's most gung-ho nation than with restoring peace and stability to the region.
You could almost imagine the "good ole boys" in the Pentagon chuckling away and muttering that the fireworks display would give those pesky North Koreans something to think about.
For a country being attacked because it is allegedly sitting on an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's response to the US attack has been fairly conventional thus far.
If the US does manage to take control of Iraq, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will "discover" weapons of mass destruction: it would be naive to believe otherwise.
However, while a well-dressed Rumsfeld was beaming at journalists and claiming that things were right on track, it appeared that the Iraqi people were not being as compliant as expected.
Some of them were actually shooting back, the ungrateful buggers. That might be because they are Saddam supporters, but an equally plausible explanation is that they resent complete strangers coming onto their soil telling them how to run their affairs. Surely the citizens of any country would do the same?
Now, barely a week into the hostilities, we have seen shots of confused young American kids paraded as the first prisoners of war. News that an American patriot missile shot down a British Tornado in what is known euphemistically as "friendly fire" can't have helped morale so early in the conflict, particularly after the various helicopter crashes.
The key town of Basra was, we were assured, secured early in the conflict, but days later that appeared not to be so, which supports the saying that the first casualty of war is the truth.
Now the coalition is upset because the Iraqis are not playing by the rules and are swapping their military uniforms for civilian clothes and waging a guerrilla war. Did this not feature in the scenario planning, I wonder?
At the time of writing, the US had just accused Russia of breaking UN sanctions by supplying Iraq with military equipment, such as night goggles and anti-tank missiles. This seems a little rich since the US went to war in defiance of the UN, but these are crazy times.
One imponderable at the moment is who else will get drawn into this war. Will North Korea launch a few nuclear missiles for the hell of it? Could China and Russia ever become allies against American imperialism? And will the Arab world live happily ever after with a US-controlled Iraq once this is all over? Where are those pundits when you really need them?
Out To Lunch
David Bullard
When the Second World War started in September 1939, public opinion was that it would all be over by November. In fairness, public opinion was influenced by a number of so-called military experts who had carefully calculated how long it would take to eradicate Adolf Hitler.
The war dragged on for another five-and-a-half years, but the aftermath of the devastation was felt for a long time. Which shows that, when it comes to war predictions, the pundits are about as reliable as they are at predicting economic trends.
The Iraq invasion was supposed to last a few days or maybe a week at most. That is the time the US calculated it would take to roll into Iraq, kill Saddam Hussein and his close family and be welcomed as liberators by disillusioned Iraqis desperate for a change of regime.
On the third day of the war Donald Rumsfeld positively bounced into a late-night media conference, wisecracking with the assembled reporters and beaming with joy.
He was evidently pleased with himself. After months of United Nations shilly-shallying, the US coalition had decided to go it alone and kick ass, ignoring global anti-war sentiment and the pleas for further weapons inspections from leaders of less influential countries.
Depending on whose particular brand of propaganda you believe, the US intention was to kill Saddam and his cronies on the first raid and then move in to free Iraqis from their shackles, convincing them that the thousands of troops were there only to rebuild their shattered economy.
Much was made of the accuracy of US missiles, which would avoid as much collateral damage as possible.
Given the US's professed concern for civilian lives, it seems odd that the operation should be called "shock and awe" and that the coalition bombarded Baghdad with a reported 1 000 satellite-guided bombs and missiles on the first night. They then reminded the world that this was just a foretaste of the firepower they were capable of unleashing.
If I didn't know any better, I would say that the heavy bombing of Baghdad had more to do with a show of strength from the world's most gung-ho nation than with restoring peace and stability to the region.
You could almost imagine the "good ole boys" in the Pentagon chuckling away and muttering that the fireworks display would give those pesky North Koreans something to think about.
For a country being attacked because it is allegedly sitting on an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's response to the US attack has been fairly conventional thus far.
If the US does manage to take control of Iraq, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will "discover" weapons of mass destruction: it would be naive to believe otherwise.
However, while a well-dressed Rumsfeld was beaming at journalists and claiming that things were right on track, it appeared that the Iraqi people were not being as compliant as expected.
Some of them were actually shooting back, the ungrateful buggers. That might be because they are Saddam supporters, but an equally plausible explanation is that they resent complete strangers coming onto their soil telling them how to run their affairs. Surely the citizens of any country would do the same?
Now, barely a week into the hostilities, we have seen shots of confused young American kids paraded as the first prisoners of war. News that an American patriot missile shot down a British Tornado in what is known euphemistically as "friendly fire" can't have helped morale so early in the conflict, particularly after the various helicopter crashes.
The key town of Basra was, we were assured, secured early in the conflict, but days later that appeared not to be so, which supports the saying that the first casualty of war is the truth.
Now the coalition is upset because the Iraqis are not playing by the rules and are swapping their military uniforms for civilian clothes and waging a guerrilla war. Did this not feature in the scenario planning, I wonder?
At the time of writing, the US had just accused Russia of breaking UN sanctions by supplying Iraq with military equipment, such as night goggles and anti-tank missiles. This seems a little rich since the US went to war in defiance of the UN, but these are crazy times.
One imponderable at the moment is who else will get drawn into this war. Will North Korea launch a few nuclear missiles for the hell of it? Could China and Russia ever become allies against American imperialism? And will the Arab world live happily ever after with a US-controlled Iraq once this is all over? Where are those pundits when you really need them?