To be fair, it’s not all GEN Franks’ fault. There’s nothing in the world soldiers hate more than armchair generals. Ruddy has bought into the fallacy of air power being the decisive factor in all war. This new war with Iraq differs in many respects to the First Gulf War. There are solid reasons why Bush is conducting the current campaign in such a manner some are military and some are political. Ruddy’s recommendations do not resolve these problems in the slightest.

1) It now appears that all of those “radar” and “SAM sites” that were targeted during Operation DESERT FOX were Saddam devising strategies to counter American air supremacy. We gave his troops free training. The U.S. Military still has yet to discover Iraq’s SAM sites in the present situation as they have not been active. We cannot begin to escalate the air campaign until Iraqi Air Defense Artillery units have been neutralized.

2) Due to military downsizing, there is simply less aircraft available for all missions. Now that there is active resistance by Iraqi ground forces, most of our combat air forces are being diverted to close support missions. Our strategic air and naval force’s supply of precision weaponry has been depleted in previous engagements (Afganistan, Serbia etc.) and have yet to be returned to war footing.

3) There are inherent benefits for an invading force to deliberately avoid civilian casualties that Ruddy simply ignores. By avoiding such casualties, you hope to limit civilian identification with hostile forces. In the absence of any demonstration of good will (i.e. leaving civilian infrastructure intact, limited civilian casualties) by the American forces, the Iraqis aren’t going to identify our forces as liberators but rather foreign conquerors and are liable to form unorganized guerilla units or actively assist Iraqi armed forces in combat operations. Right now such things are occuring as units are operating in areas previously “cleared” with active civilian support.

4) If one of your war aims is humanitarianism, as Bush has so stated, then limiting damage to civilian infrastructure is no longer simply a part of an evolving military strategy but becomes a discrete military objective in its own right.

5) Because Bush has chosen to rally public support for the war, in part, by appealing to humanitarian principles, the American public is not likely to tolerate the kinds of civilian casualties Ruddy’s recommendations would likely entail. Everone here remembers what a PR disaster the “Highway of Death” was for our military in the first Gulf War. Bush may not want a repeat.

It is too early for inflammatory words like fraud. Bush and his generals deserve trust. Many variables are at play, and ignorance is rampant. Mr. Ruddy knows nothing about the secret surrender talks. No plan is perfect. Rubble makes for hiding places. Once surrounded, Iraqi soldiers will begin to die, while ours can maneuver. The U.S. has the ability to use radar to detect the velocity and trajectory of cannon shells after they leave the cannon and immediately destroy the cannon. Presumably, the U.S. will not allow any vehicle to move once the Iraqi’s are surrounded. (I suspect that no vehicle in the war zone should have been allowed to move; I have heard evidence that Iraqi troops used civilian vehicles to attack our rear elements. But I will trust there was a good reason until after the war is over. This question does need to be asked now though.) Although world opinion should never prevent U.S. defensive action, world opinion is not worthless. Finally, the U.S. might yet begin blowing up the Iraqi Army wherever they are hiding.

It might not be a blunder that the U.S. Marines and Army began moving before the air war was fully underway. The Marines learned in Gulf War I that the Iraqi Army will retreat or surrender when American Marines attack. (At least one general has accused General Schwartzkopf of negligently ignoring this lesson in Gulf War I, with the result that the Republican Guard was not surrounded and capture en masse.) Moreover, moving 350 miles in less than five days is extraordinary, and casualties are still extremely low.

Jason makes some good points about Ruddy’s commentary. I would like to add that the “highway of death” was a PR problem for our military because our leftist media made it so. The Iraqis killed in that incident were all members of the force that had invaded and brutalized Kuwait - not innocent non-combatants as potrayed by NPR and their ilk. They actually got less than they deserved, thanks to our pilots’ striking of the lead vehicles first, allowing those behind to run for cover before the 2nd wave of fighters struck.

“Moreover, moving 350 miles in less than five days is extraordinary …”

No, that’s not good at all. First, moving tanks through 350 miles of flat desert with no resistance is nothing. Secondly, this works to the Iraqis advantage as Coalition forces are now stretched out on a 350 mile front. Because of this, it is now vulnerable to localized counter attacks because U.S. forces are unable to utilize economy of force. Plus, we can’t effectively break through by using concentration of force. Worse, Coalition forces do not have effective control of areas they have already captured because it’s impossible to establish given the enormous amount of terrain to cover. I haven’t even begun to discuss the strain such an advance causes logistics. We have not taken advantage of lessons learned by Rommel’s campaign in North Africa.

Unconventional Iraqi forces are operating in our rear areas and news is now reporting that support and supply columns will be protected with ground combat and air units already weakening our stretched military. We saw the results of that yesterday, with the American POWs taken from a support unit. All this and we have yet to face the meat of Saddam’s forces.

My best guess is we’ll start to consolidate our gains, establish forward supply areas, reconcentrate air power on strategic missions and await the arrival of the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and 1st Cavalry Division (Armored) in theater before advancing further toward Baghdad. Those two divisions (which were supposed to establish a northern front) will improve the situation immensely. Our Air Force will be hard pressed to deliver a comparable amount of combat reinforcements.

This whole war was predicated on something Hitler also mistakingly said of the Soviet Union: “one swift kick and the whole rotten structure will collapse.” That is to say, we assumed that overwhelming victories in the early phases of the campaign will crush the Iraqi Army’s will to resist. Our intelligence grossly miscalculated the present state of Iraq’s army.

One thing was proven: Our military readiness and infrasturcture, for all the advanced weaponry we possess, has declined considerably since the first Gulf War. This is the fault of our political leadership.

BTW, none of our anti-projectile detection and defense systems have been fielded yet.

” ‘Moreover, moving 350 miles in less than five days is extraordinary … ’ No, that’s not good at all. First, moving tanks through 350 miles of flat desert with no resistance is nothing.” Jason Eubanks

Jason, they’re moving mostly overland right through desert sand, not driving on roads. Their heavy armor can advance that way at about 30-35 mph maximum, has to allow for logistics and fuel tankers to keep pace, and who knows what maintenance needs they’re encountering in desert conditions with the reported blinding sandstorms the other day — frequent air filter replacements, etc.? I’d say in such conditions, even with light resistance, their pace has been respectable — and certainly satisfies their underlying Pattonesque tactic of “bypass, and haul ass.”

It was fun but silly to speculate about military matters that even the experts will debate for decades.

Mr. Ruddy might be getting his perspective from watching too much of a network other than Fox News. Thank God for Fox News, which is obviously pro-American but still keeping Americans fully informed. The perpetual aloof, negative attitude of the other networks is corrosive to any American’s morale. (For example, check out Aaron Brown on CNN in the evening.) It is amazing America still exists after at least 50 years of liberal media. Few dictators have lasted that long.

Everyone would profit from staying with Fox 99% of the time. Switching channels to get an interesting picture can be profitable, but use the mute and return to Fox as soon as the pictures are gone.

From the AOL sign-on screen (no URL posted with it), an article mentioning two factors slowing down the armored advance: choking, blinding sandstorms, and the need always to adjust the pace of the advance, sometimes pausing and waiting, so that support units can come up and combat units won’t become dangerously extended and separated from their logistics:

“COALITION HITS IRAQIS NEAR BAGHDAD

“By Sean Maguire, Reuters

“NASSIRIYA, Iraq (March 25) - Warplanes hammered elite Republican Guards defending Baghdad on Tuesday as U.S. armored columns fought through swirling sandstorms to close in on the Iraqi capital. …

“… Reuters correspondents with the advancing columns said choking dust storms had cut visibility to five yards in places and forced vehicles to drive nose-to-tail at low speed.

“A British defense source said troops approaching the capital would pause while support lines are strengthened. Military analysts have suggested the advance is dangerously extended.

” ‘They are moving into that area now. Initial positions are being taken up today and then we have to consolidate combat support,’ said the source … “

Also, I just heard this minute that in Basra the long-awaited popular uprising has begun, with ordinary citizens attacking Iraqi army units entrenched there, who have begun shelling them with mortar fire to suppress them. The Brit unit engaged in that sector (which I think the reporter identified as the Royal Scots Dragoons), once it was able to determine that citizens were indeed rising up (it’s the middle of the night there and pitch-black), began laying down heavy artillery fire on the mortar positions to attempt to give some cover to the uprising populace (the Scots batteries apparently possess radars which are able to observe enemy mortar and artillery rounds even in the dark, analyse their trajectories, and from that, calculate their points of origin which are then counterattacked with heavy fire). The Scots troops apparently are itching to get into direct action against the Iraqis in front of them around Basra, but their commanders fear to engage in what could possibly involve bloody hand-to-hand combat in the streets when citizen rebels can’t be distinguished from enemy soldiers in the pitch-black darkness, so they are waiting til first daylight to go in.

May God go with them, when they do go in.

Godspeed, Scotties, and come home safe!

Here’s an interesting article from UPI offering a rebuttal to the criticism of the war strategy coming from Ruddy and others. The author points out that what Franks and Rumsfeld are doing by sending a relatively small but highly mobile force deep into enemy territory represents a conscious, and possibly brilliant, trade-off between strategic advantage and tactical vulnerability.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030325-070904-7459r

And this piece by Michael Kelly from Iraq explains in concrete terms exactly what that tactical vulnerability brought on by the army’s rapid advance entails: repeated attacks by Iraqi Fedayeen and militia along the 300 km line connecting the Third Infanty Division with its base in Kuwait. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelkelly/mk20030326.shtml