Jewish World Review Nov. 27, 2002 / 22 Kislev, 5763

Jack Kelly

Jack Kelly
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


What Saddam faces


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Nervous Nellies in the news media have devoted reams of copy to the problems the United States might encounter if we go to war with Iraq. It seems only fair to devote some attention to the problems Saddam Hussein faces, because these are much greater.

There are always surprises in war, so it's a bad idea to underestimate the enemy. But those who say a war with Iraq would be a cakewalk have a better argument than those who warn of a quagmire. It was a cakewalk last time.

Since then, our forces have gotten much better. His have gotten much worse. Saddam starts with a numbers problem. When the Gulf War began, Iraq had the world's third largest army. This lasted precisely 100 hours. Saddam's military is much smaller today. In 1991, he had 1.1 million troops. Now, about 376,000. Then, Saddam had 5,550 tanks. Now, about 2,200. But this is worse than the numbers appear, because Saddam also has an equipment problem.

Saddam has the same stuff he had ten years ago, just lots less of it, and it's ten years older. Maintenance has never been an Iraqi forte, and because of UN economic sanctions, the Iraqis don't have money for spare parts. Perhaps only half of Saddam's tanks actually will run. But the situation is worse than it appears, because Saddam also has a training and doctrine problem.

Mark Burgess, a former British soldier who works for the left-leaning Center for Defense Information, has done a study of Iraqi training and doctrine, and found it to be vastly inferior to ours. Officers and soldiers are poorly trained, and hate each other. Military operations follow rigid plans, which are difficult to change at all, impossible to change quickly. A first sergeant in the U.S. Army has more discretionary authority than a full colonel in the Iraqi army, Burgess said.

U.S. superiority in training and doctrine, and in command and control, is so great, a U.S. Army officer said, that if we had had the Iraqi equipment and they had had ours, the result in the Gulf War would have been the same. But the situation is worse than it appears, because Saddam also has a loyalty problem.

The typical Iraqi soldier is a draftee who has little love for Saddam, and less desire to die for him. If there is a war, it is likely that most - if not all - of the Iraqi regular forces would sit it out in the barracks, or surrender after only token resistance. The defense of Saddam's regime could fall almost entirely upon six Republican Guard divisions of about 10,000 men each, and four Special Republican Guard brigades of about 2,500 men each. But even here, loyalty is not guaranteed. Saddam reportedly is reluctant to bring Republican Guard divisions into Baghdad, for fear of a coup. But the situation is worse than this appears, because Saddam also has a disposition problem.

Iraq is much larger than Kuwait. Many in the media have portrayed this as a problem for the United States, when, in reality, it is a much bigger problem for Saddam. He must decide very, very carefully where he deploys his forces, because he won't be able to move them once a war starts. The Serbs proved in Kosovo that if a unit hunkers down and doesn't emit, it can survive American aerial bombardment. But if the unit moves, it dies.

So where does Saddam put his troops? If he wants to be able to launch Scud missiles against Israel, he'll have to put large forces in western Iraq, because the Scud can only strike Israel if it is launched from there. If he wants to protect his oilfields, he'll have to put significant forces in northern Iraq, and in southeastern Iraq, because that's where the oil is. But if Saddam deploys major forces in western, northern and southern iraq, he won't have much left to defend Baghdad or his home town of Tikrit, where he is thought to be holed up.

He could parcel out his forces in all these places, but then he'd be too weak to resist an American assault at any of them. As Frederick the Great said: "he who defends everything, defends nothing."

Saddam has been described as "an industrial strength assortment of psychological disorders," so there's no telling what he'll do. But if he takes a cold, hard look at his military situation, he'll comply, promptly and fully, with UN weapons inspectors.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.




Comment on JWR contributor Jack Kelly's column by clicking here.

11/25/02: Why war with Iraq can be averted
11/19/02: A draft would harm the military
11/12/02: The 2002 elections and Nixon
11/07/02: Democratic overreaction to our recent "cosmically important" election
10/30/02: Show North Korea we're serious: Polish off Saddam
10/22/02: The squealing in the Pentagon is a proof of Rummy's effectiveness
10/16/02: The tactical challenge we face
10/10/02: Silence more despicable than seditious noise
10/08/02: Bu$h and the bu$ine$$ of war
10/01/02: Gore's calculated risk may well get him the Dems' nomination
09/25/02: Schroeder may find the fruits of victory sour
09/25/02: Making Saddam change his spots
09/19/02: Bush's resolve already has paid dividends
09/17/02: Courageous Iranians
09/13/02: If you never served in the military, you have no right to an opinion
09/10/02: Why the 'air marshals' will fail
09/05/02: Resurrecting the "Happy Darky"
08/31/02: Are Bush's inactions against Iraq calculated?
08/23/02: Dems can't take the minority vote for granted any longer
08/20/02: No proof of Saddam's wrongdoing? Yeah, right
08/15/02: Mineta's war on what?
08/13/02: When Gore said he wanted to be his 'own man,' what was he thinking!?
08/08/02: Picking a tree for Cheney's hanging
08/06/02: Fears about the Department of Homeland Security are misplaced
08/01/02: The greatest strategic deception since Eisenhower convinced Hitler the Allies were going to land at the Pas de Calais?
07/30/02: State Dept.'s anti-American actions
07/26/02: Journalists are making sure Americans can't differentiate between the stock market and the economy
07/23/02: Iran's is on the verge of a social and political explosion. So why is media ignoring it?
07/17/02: FBI isn't supposed to stand for Foolish, Blind and Incompetent
07/12/02: The ICC tramples on rights Americans take for granted
07/09/02: Was LA International Airport shooting, in fact, good news?
07/02/02: What the "intelligence community" can learn from Alexander the Great
06/28/02: Muslim link in Oklahoma City bombing revisited
06/25/02: A good environmental scare needs two ingredients - an impending catastrophe, and someone to blame for it
06/21/02: Stirring the security pot
06/18/02: Why the military is so messed up
06/14/02: Vast majority $68.7 billion proposed for weapons will be spent on systems of little use in the war on terror
06/12/02: Bush saw them and raised them, and he's holding the aces
06/10/02: Some heads need to roll
06/04/02: A new draft for the 'war on terror'?
05/31/02: So the FBI has finally caught up to our priorities?
05/29/02: Taking on common sense
05/23/02: Political terrorists
05/21/02: There is a great deal to fret about, but I've never been more optimistic
05/15/02: If there is a way for America to lose the war, Gen. Tommy Franks can find it
05/13/02: Impartial justice against Americans by the UN?
05/07/02: Want to win the 'war on terror'? Reinstate the draft
05/03/02: An expanded NATO is needed as a counterweight to the UN and the EU
04/29/02: Islamic 'smarts'
04/26/02: Did Bush play his Aces with Abdullah wisely?
04/23/02: Why peace in the Mideast is closer than ever
04/19/02: What the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank gained from the "peace accords"
04/17/02: Logical Muslim allies
04/10/02: How to guarantee an infinite Mideast war
04/08/02: Saddam's American friends
04/05/02: Arab winners and sinners
04/01/02: Why is the commander of U.S. Central Command not coming clean to the American people?
03/31/02: Dubya under attack by conservatives
03/26/02: Saddam watch coming to an end?
03/21/02: Get the Jews!
03/19/02: It's time pols and gov bureaucrats be held to the same standard of accountability we insist for corporate execs
03/15/02: Khaki Throat
03/12/02: Making foreign cheaters pay
03/08/02: Timidity and indecision by senior American commanders
03/04/02: Why 9-11? Ex-CIA officials come clean
02/25/02: Don't rule out a quick victory --- even if prez says otherwise
02/21/02: Saving our military from itself
02/19/02: Front Page fiction
02/15/02: Our European allies are like the fat kid who wants to play quarterback
02/13/02: Is the Army in danger of becoming "irrelevant"?
02/11/02: So, I "propagate hatred"
02/06/02: Bush whacking the media
02/04/02: Why serious folks disregard the European Union --- and why Bush must, too
01/30/02: Give economy pneumonia in order to protect it from a cold
01/28/02: Media is its own worst enemy
01/25/02: Journalists making road to peace a bumpy ride, or: A case study in stupidity
01/23/02: Toward a stronger defense at a lower cost
01/21/02: How Bush could be Generations X and Y's Kennedy ... and guarantee a GOP victory in the midterm elections

© 2002, Jack Kelly