US military campaign in Iraq 'one for the textbooks'

Military historians in America are already saying the US-led invasion of Iraq will be studied in army textbooks for years to come.

They point to the three-week charge to the centre of Baghdad, fewer coalition lives lost than had been feared, and the Allies’ success in undermining Saddam Hussein’s regime without the dreaded prospect of urban combat.

“The planners took great risks and they guessed absolutely right,” said historian and retired US Army Lt Col James Carafano.

“Even the most optimistic probably expected more of a fight, and more than 100 or so American casualties thus far.”

In military history books, experts predict, the war will be noted for impressive use of special forces to gather intelligence, both on the ground and through new spy technology, and the precise targeting of bombs that killed and demoralised Iraqi forces – while limiting civilian deaths.

It also tested a strategy for avoiding urban warfare – loosely cordon off a city and use selective strikes to defeat an opposing army’s willpower while encouraging the citizens to rebel.

“What this campaign was really designed to do was get a force to Baghdad and demonstrate to the people that the regime was no longer in charge,” said Carafano, a senior fellow at the US Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a private research group. “Obviously, that worked.”

Just a week ago, the Bush administration was pestered by a chorus of retired military brass-turned-TV commentators and others who worried that the 300,000 coalition troops sent to the desert were not enough to do the job.

As soldiers and marines rolled through Baghdad today – meeting cheering crowds and only scattered resistance – US leaders all but said: “I told you so.”

While cautioning that the war was not yet over, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called its progress “nothing short of spectacular”.

Vice President Dick Cheney bragged about “one of the most extraordinary military campaigns ever conducted” – noting comparisons to US Army Gen George Patton’s famous push through France in 1944.

The 300 mile surge to Baghdad commanded by Gen Tommy Franks echoed Patton’s bold strategy of bypassing the Germans whenever possible, instead of fighting, to maintain the momentum of his drive forwards in the Second World War.

Still, military historian and author Norman Polmar said there was little value in comparisons to Patton’s dash, or to the Russians’ even faster blitzes against the Germans and the Japanese.

“The Germans had the best army in the world in the Second World War,” Polmar said.

In contrast, US forces held a tremendous advantage over Iraq’s military in training, leadership and equipment.

“We had everything going for us,” said Polmar. “The only two questions were how long it would take and how many casualties.”

A better comparison is to the first Gulf War, although it had a different objective – liberating Kuwait from Iraqi invaders.

“In the Gulf War, we bombed for a month, fought for four days and just got the southern part of the country, about one-third,” said Polmar. “If this is the end of it, we fought for just over three weeks and have taken the country and destroyed the regime.”

Cheney noted that, unlike during the 1991 war, coalition forces this time were able to quickly safeguard oil fields in southern Iraq and cut off Saddam’s ability to launch missiles at neighbouring countries.

Precision-guided munitions, a new technology then, are now standard equipment.

And intelligence from special forces – who sharpened their techniques in Afghanistan – made the precision weapons even more effective, said retired Col Raymond Bluhm, a historian at the Association of the US Army.

“When you have such precise targeting as we apparently had in two cases against Saddam himself, that’s unheard of,” Bluhm said.

Geography plays a part too.

Despite the heat and sandstorms, the desert terrain proved more hospitable to US air power than the jungles of Vietnam, where dense foliage hid the enemy.

And unlike Vietnam and Korea at war, Iraq did not benefit from substantial supplies or support from its neighbours.

But past conflicts may still carry warnings.

If fighting breaks out among the diverse factions of post-war Iraq, the US experience in Somalia will offer lessons about the difficulty of pacifying a civil war.

“If civil society breaks down, then there won’t be enough troops,” said Carafano. “If we are in the middle of a civil war, forget it.”

Cheney acknowledged a US obligation to help the Iraqi people until peace and democracy are established.

“In the final analysis,” he told newspaper editors yesterday in New Orleans, “history will judge us, and hopefully the people of the region will judge us, based upon what happens next in Iraq.”