February 12, 2004

FISK IN REVIEW

Remember this precise wartime analysis from Robert Fisk?

Anyone who doubts that the Iraqi Army is prepared to defend its capital should take the highway south of Baghdad.

How, I kept asking myself, could the Americans batter their way through these defenses ? For mile after mile they go on, slit trenches, ditches, earthen underground bunkers, palm groves of heavy artillery and truck loads of combat troops in battle fatigues and steel helmets. Not since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War have I seen the Iraqi Army deployed like this.

Instead of asking himself, Fisk should’ve asked Saddam. The New York Times reports:

A complacent Saddam Hussein was so convinced that war would be averted or that America would mount only a limited bombing campaign that he deployed the Iraqi military to crush domestic uprisings rather than defend against a ground invasion, according to a classified log of interrogations of captured Iraqi leaders and former officers.

Mr. Hussein believed that a "casualty averse" White House would order a bombing campaign that Iraq could withstand, according to the secret report, prepared for the Pentagon's most senior leadership and dated Jan. 26. And the Iraqi Defense Ministry, in a grand miscalculation, believed that any ground offensive would come across the Jordanian border.

The last ground offensive Saddam was involved in included a spider hole.

Posted by Tim Blair at February 12, 2004 11:45 PM
Comments

quite the military genius, that fellow

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at February 13, 2004 at 12:00 AM

And the Iraqi Defense Ministry, in a grand miscalculation, believed that any ground offensive would come across the Jordanian border.

My goodness. The nine-month-long buildup in Kuwait, known to the entire globe, escaped notice in Baghdad somehow? And we keep hearing that US intelligence is fatally flawed . . .

Posted by: dazed at February 13, 2004 at 12:03 AM

"And the Iraqi Defense Ministry, in a grand miscalculation, believed that any ground offensive would come across the Jordanian border"

wow. did they not see the massive buildup in Kuwait? i think "grand miscalculation" is the understatement of the decade. we couldn't have made our plan more obvious, i guess they needed W to get on the air and say "hey Saddam, we're coming from that way"

Posted by: Tom Alday at February 13, 2004 at 12:04 AM

well, they fell for that head-fake in '91; maybe they thought stormin' norman was still in charge.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at February 13, 2004 at 12:07 AM

"Turkey has refused to allow the 4th ID to launch an invasion from it's borders. The 4th ID's personnell is in Kuwait, and its equipment just passed through the Suez Canal, en route"

The Americans! They are going to come from Turkey!

Posted by: Bob at February 13, 2004 at 12:19 AM

This level of delusional thinking is just bizarre. No wonder so many people had (have) a difficult time taking his threat seriously (rationally speaking, his stupidity made him more dangerous in many respects).

Another thing: the Old Europeans and the ANSWER demonstrators and all the actors may have unwittingly lulled Saddam into a false sense of security. Who knows, maybe they shortened the war by a week or 2. Good job Jacques Chirac!! Good job Human Shields!!

Posted by: John in Tokyo at February 13, 2004 at 12:33 AM

"Casualty adverse". Is that like the, "Five hundred American servicemen have died (in Iraq/for oil/because Bush lied) so far; bring our boys back home!" meme the Democratic National Committee has taken as its talking point?

Posted by: Dave Paglia at February 13, 2004 at 12:52 AM

I was in London during the war and the Independent was giving Fisk front page billing. Funny how the paper still thunders on about this and that, unaffected by the slightest scrap of shame.

Posted by: chip at February 13, 2004 at 01:34 AM

It seems like our shock and awe diversion worked. Shock and awe was nothing more than press releases and propaganda. Saddam had every reason, based on our last invasion and based on everything we were saying, to expect us to bomb him for a month or so before invading.

When looked at from that context, it was perfectly rational for him to keep his armies in the cities and protected rather than deploy them where they could defend key terrain. Deployed troops would have perhaps survived being bombed, but with the risk of high casualties and lost equipment.

Shock and awe didn't happen. It was a bluff, and it worked.

Posted by: Mike Rentner at February 13, 2004 at 02:40 AM

How, I kept asking myself, could the Americans batter their way through these defenses ? For mile after mile they go on, slit trenches, ditches, earthen underground bunkers, palm groves of heavy artillery and truck loads of combat troops in battle fatigues and steel helmets. Not since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War have I seen the Iraqi Army deployed like this.

Fisky failed to mention that the truck loads of combat troops were demoralised, hungry, poorly trained, and lacking boots. He also doesn't seem to realise that trenches and ditches aren't particularly troublesome obstacles these days.

Posted by: Tim Newman at February 13, 2004 at 05:10 AM

The Mother of All Misperceptions.

Posted by: timks at February 13, 2004 at 05:49 AM

He also doesn't seem to realise that trenches and ditches aren't particularly troublesome obstacles these days.

Maybe the history books that Fisk reads don't go beyond 1918: "What? The Americans aren't charging with bayonets??"

Posted by: Arnold at February 13, 2004 at 06:44 AM

I saw a news report somewhere (can't recall where) that said France & Germany had convinced Saddam (their buddy and trading partner) that they could prevent Dubya from going to war against him. That'll teach Saddamie to trust the French & Germans.

Posted by: NashvilleCat at February 13, 2004 at 10:02 AM

Mike, the thing to keep in mind about "shock and awe" is that it is not the same thing as a massive bombing campaign. It is a desirable effect, something to instill in the enemy to make it easier to work your will upon him. I haven't read the book on the subject, but I gather it involves some mixture of surprise and interference in your foe's communications, leaving him with nothing but bad news, and precious little of that.

With the recent ubiquity of smart bombs in the American arsenal, massive bombing was not needed to achieve shock and awe.

Posted by: jeff at February 13, 2004 at 10:27 AM

Jeff, you missed my point. Using smart bombs is the antithesis of shock and awe. Smart bombs provide maximum destruction of specific targets without collateral damage. Shock and awe is meant to describe a long, relentless bombing campaign where bombs are exploding everywhere with the intention of creating an impression, not necessarily aimed destruction.

Note that they created a new bomb, called the "MOAB" or "Mother Of All Bombs" and made lots of press releases about it. It's not a completely useless weapon, but it's entire purpose was to help push the "shock and awe" theme.

And the shock and awe ruse worked. Everyone not on the 3ID planning staff fully expected a long lasting bombing campaign. Saddam was fooled and he kept his armies in safe positions, I'm sure with the intent of deploying them only when necessary.

Once he saw the invasion coming, he was caught flat footed and had trouble deploying his troops around Baghdad. He had no idea that we could get there so fast. He wasn't the idiot many portray him as, he just got bamboozled. Again.

Posted by: Mike Rentner at February 13, 2004 at 10:53 AM

Saddam ignored the rule of planning for the worst and hoping for the best. Won't be making that mistake again.

Posted by: Razor at February 13, 2004 at 11:40 AM

Razor I have the feeling that soon he won't be doing much of anything at all.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 13, 2004 at 12:33 PM

And this is they guy who supposedly should have been allowed to outlive the inevitable French-led collapse of the sanctions, which is what would have happened had we not invaded.

Give this guy a serious WMD arsenal, which he would certainly have obtained if only by retail, and there is no limit to how optimistic, deluded, belligerent and intransigent he would have been in using it. On this evidence, Saddam could have convinced himself that a first strike with a nuke or two in New York and neighboring cities would have led to the collapse of those casualty-averse Americans. Easily.

I am utterly, utterly glad that his regime is finished.

Posted by: David Blue at February 13, 2004 at 05:30 PM

I think he misunderestimated Bush.

Posted by: Andjam at February 14, 2004 at 06:20 AM