Andrew Hagen

In a speech yesterday to AIPAC (*), an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Syria and Iran that they must stop supporting terrorists. Powell gave an additional warning to Iran—a few weeks after its nuclear energy program came under new scrutiny for its possible alternative use in manufacturing a nuclear bomb (†) (‡)—that Iran should not seek weapons of mass destruction (WMD). (§)

This is a deft move by Colin Powell and the Bush Administration. Iraq, Syria, and Iran are among the leading sponsors behind the terrorists attacking Israel, even as those terrorists claim to represent the Palestinian people. Should the allied military campaign continue to succeed in Iraq, it will remove Saddam Hussein from power. Iraq will then cease to support terrorism. This will leave the anti-Israel terrorists with one less sponsor, and Syria and Iran with a stark choice: abandon terrorism and WMD or be held to account. The Palestinian leadership will face reduced pressure from external states to fight its pitiless, unwinnable war against Israel. The chance for a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine will increase.

Nevertheless, things could still turn out poorly. Syria and Iran could continue to support terrorism against Israel. Hezbollah (**), backed by Iran and Syria, could begin a campaign of global violence. The many Arab and Muslim states that continue to not recognize Israel, such as Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and others, could continue to see the Palestinians as their proxy fighters as their unacceptance of Israel’s existence endures. Palestinians could refuse to participate in any road map to peace. Finally, perhaps most disturbingly, Israel could be tempted to exploit regime change in Iraq at the expense of Palestinians and expand its territory. None of these would bode well.

Powell’s speech signals that the Bush Administration’s regional strategy is to first effect regime change in Iraq, and then see how much closer we are to peace in the Middle East. It will be interesting to see what results the fall of Saddam Hussein will have.

Andrew Sullivan argues in carefully worded, calm, important Salon piece that the coming weeks are crucial to the future of the Left in America. If its moral relativism and illogic regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom continue, Sullivan warns, the damage to the Left may become irreparable. (*) (View short advertisement for access without paying fee.)

It is time for the Left to admit that President Bush’s Iraq policy is intended to save lives: Iraqi, American, and other. If a person believes that the intentions are not matched by the results, or not best served by the present policy, then they should provide evidence and make the argument. Unless the Left soon recognizes that the war may have a moral purpose, the Left will lose its claim of moral superiority. It will be apparent to all observers that the Left is opposed to the war for political, not moral reasons.

I’ve been a left-winger for a long time. The current climate of extremism on the Left troubles me greatly. For a few years now, I’ve been increasingly convinced that we need to reexamine and reevaluate our political theory. A reformulation of our ideas would be one thing, an abandonment of our moral center another. If Sullivan, a neoconservative, has correctly analyzed the danger that lies ahead for us on the Left, then the immediate future will be telling as to how much of our shared political project will be salvageable at all. Soon it could become impossible to defend significant parts of the extreme Left from charges that they are a fifth column in support of terrorism. I sincerely hope that Sullivan has exaggerated the crisis facing the Left, even as I fear he has not. We shall see.

Now we know why so many Iraqi forces are fighting harder than we had anticipated. They face a stark choice: fight coalition forces or be killed by Saddam loyalists. The New York Times reports:

Up and down the 200-mile stretch of desert where the American and British forces have advanced, one Iraqi prisoner after another has told captors a similar tale: that many Iraqi soldiers were fighting at gunpoint, threatened with death by tough loyalists of President Saddam Hussein.

Here, according to American doctors and Iraqi prisoners, appeared to be one confirmation. The wounded Iraqi, whose life was ebbing away outside an American field hospital, had been shot during the firefight Tuesday night with American troops. It was a small-caliber bullet, most likely from a pistol, fired at close range. Iraqi prisoners taken after the battle said their officers had been firing at them, pushing them into battle.

“The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought,” said a wounded Iraqi from his bed in the American field hospital here. “They took out their guns and pointed them and told us to fight.”

(*) As it turns out, Iraqi command and control continues. Command and control emanates from Baghdad. Therefore, the best strategy available to coalition forces is to press the fight to Baghdad as soon as possible. Once there, attack and knock out the spider at the center of the web: Saddam Hussein himself.

With coalition forces becoming somewhat fatigued by the fighting, the time is right to consider forming all willing Iraqis, including POWs, into a liberation force. Integrate free Iraqis into the coalition command structure. Give them small arms, such as AK-47s taken from Iraqi units. Their knowledge of the language and local culture would prove to be a huge asset. Their motivation is high. Remember that there are five nations in this coalition: the USA, the UK, Australia, Poland, and, above the others in importance, the people of Iraq. Give Iraqis a chance to liberate themselves. There could be nothing more noble than equipping a people to fight for their own freedom.

In the left-wing American Prospect, Leif Wellington Haase writes: “Peace protesters may have exhibited their fair share of naïvete, anti-Semitism and simple dislike for the United States.” (*) Leaving aside the other false ideas advanced in the sentence, anti-Semitism is a grave offense against humanity. A “fair share” is something that is due, or in accordance with what is right, valid, regular, or normal. No amount of anti-Semitism is due or “fair.” Any is unacceptable. Haase’s statement is outrageous and inexcusable. It has no place in American Prospect.

As for the rest of the article, it is safely disregarded for its numerous unevidenced assertions and unexamined assumptions.

Last updated: 27 March 2003.

Armchair generals are criticizing the coalition war strategy in Iraq. The first item of criticism is that supply lines aren’t secured. Secondly, the rear flank of the Army’s 3d Infantry Division and the Marines’ 1st Expeditionary Force is thought to be undefended even as they move on Baghdad. Instead of poor strategy, however, it may indicate a strategic shift. Combining information technology and air dominance, our forces can surround the enemy in the air without surrounding him on the ground. (*) Supply lines and the rear of units are to be covered by air power. (†) This is a bold move. There is nothing obvious that the regime’s loyalist terrorists could do to stop coalition forces from reaching Baghdad. (‡) The Iraqi strategy is first to use terrorism to delay the advance. (§) The second arm of Iraqi strategy is to use propaganda to heighten diplomatic pressure against the coalition to accept a ceasefire. Fortunately, coalition forces are close to Baghdad already. There the decisive battle will occur. Is this checkmate?

Update: Billmon would say no. (**)

Update: Phrasing.

As coalition forces continue to valiantly fight their way through Saddam’s packs of criminals, thugs, and terrorists, we should not forget that thus far, there is no end to the known depravity in which the Saddam regime engages. Beatings, whippings, electrocutions, burning skin with blowtorches and acid, gouging out eyes, rape, murder, crucifixions, human shreddings, the use of electric drills to put holes in the bones of live toddlers before the eyes of their parents, and the use of starving dogs to eat the live human flesh of prisoners all taken together do not fully describe what horrors are hidden from the world in the regime’s darkest corners. (*) (†) The tactics of taking human shields, faking surrenders, shooting from hospitals and backyards, gassing people, and flaunting the abuse of POWs are standard tactics for Saddam’s men. When we say that Saddam and his regime are evil, this is what we mean. There are no compunctions or morality of which we are aware in the character of Saddam and his men. The regime is fascist from its shell to its core. Saddam’s Iraq is oppressive and grievously violent: it is the heart of terror.

Even as coalition forces liberate the country, the people of Iraq will continue to fear Saddam. While we in America know that our military can defeat the forces of Iraq, the people of Iraq believe there is no earthly power greater in the world than their tyrant. That is what most of them were raised to believe. His brutal force is nearly all the force they know—air strikes in the Gulf War having been transitory. It will take time to convince people that he is really gone. Only then will the coercion and intimidation dissipate. Only then will Iraqis begin to open up.

Once stories start to be told in liberated Iraq, we will hear sometimes odd and sometimes unsettling things. There is no firm knowledge in the free world of every freakish or criminal deed that the regime has done. We do know that the regime’s death squad, Fedayeen Saddam, trains in part by subsisting on dog meat and snakes. (‡) This is a curious, reality television–like fact that cannot endear them to observers like PETA. As time wears on, we will hear other unbelievable facts. More serious will be Saddam’s crimes, many of which we do not know. Yet even now, however, we do know that the regime routinely forces prisoners into horrible acts. As the London Times recently reported: “Every day in Iraq prisoners are beheaded, electrocuted or locked in cells until they are driven to eat the flesh of other prisoners.” (§) With ancient taboos like cannibalism casually broken, there is no telling quite what else may have been spilled into the world by this hellspawn, Saddam Hussein. Do not doubt that this is a war fought by the coalition against evil men to free an oppressed people.

May our fighting men and women be safe, and may their courage never fade.

Update: 3 April 2003: Lynxx Pherrett comments. (**)

Coalition forces are smashing through Saddam’s forces with little resistance and are now nearing Baghdad. Only one week has passed since hostilities began. Finishing the Saddam regime will take time, however. The media has become obsessed with a few negatives that are dramatically outweighed by the war’s successes. A quick overview of the fighting is in order.

American, British, and Australian special forces entered Iraq at the very beginning of the war. (*) Their mission was crucial: find and destroy Saddam’s chemical arsenal. Judging by Iraq’s failure to use its WMD arsenal, they succeeded. (†)

The success or lack of success of the opening shot of the war—the so-called “decapitation” attempt on Iraqi command and control, especially in the person of Saddam Hussein—is unknown. Saddam may yet live, or not. The London Telegraph reports, apparently on the basis of informed speculation, that after the attack Saddam was removed from his leadership compound on a stretcher, but that he did survive. (‡)

That may be irrelevant. The command and control of Iraqi forces is either ineffective or shattered. US Army Lieutenant General John Abizaid stated in Doha, Qatar today: “We have not seen on the battlefield a single coherent (Iraqi) military move. These moves are dangerous to the troops in the field, but they are not dangerous to the success of the mission.” (§) Furthermore, while coalition forces have taken less than 2,000 prisoners of war after several days of fighting, compared with tens of thousands shortly after the 1991 Gulf War had begun, coalition forces have not met significant resistance from Iraq’s regular soldiers. According to Abizaid, coalition forces are coming across enormous amounts of abandoned Iraqi military equipment. Through air-dropped leaflets prior to the war, the coalition had urged Iraqi soldiers to leave their units and go home. Today Abizaid said Iraq’s regular forces have “melted away.” Apparently, they took the advice, refusing to fight for Saddam.

The coalition has swept through southern Iraq. Just today, US Marines took part of Nasiriya. (**) Other troops are now less than 60 miles from Baghdad, according to CNN. The remaining resistance is composed of Saddam’s elite but small Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard, the black-pajama wearing Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group closely linked to Saddam’s regime, and the regime’s Special Security Organization. (††) As General Abizaid said today, these people will not have a role in rebuilding post-liberation Iraq. They have nothing to lose. Fortunately, it appears that none of them have weapons that can pose a significant threat to coalition forces. Iraq has no air power, extremely limited artillery, and some old tanks. Coalition forces enjoy fire superiority. They can stand at a distance and pick off enemy forces with their longer-range, more powerful weapons, like the M1A1 tank and laser-guided bombs dropped by fighter planes. If there were any doubt, helicopters like the Apache and Blackhawk remove it.

The strategy devised by coalition war planners has thus far proven sound. The practice of sealing off pockets of resistance and proceeding quickly past them toward Baghdad appeared at the outset questionable. Supply lines could be cut off. A guerilla insurgency might arise. Continued resistance in Umm Qasr and the Al Faw peninsula by civilian-clothed Iraqis (Fedayeen Saddam and Special Security Organization regime death squads) even as coalition forces rolled closer and closer to Baghdad seems to raise the specter of a long-term guerilla war, like in Vietnam.

Unlike in Vietnam, however, our forces have no restrictions on taking the enemy’s capital city. Where in the Vietnam War, the US could not take Hanoi for political reasons, in this war the coalition can take Baghdad. Once Baghdad falls, the remaining units of the old regime will either surrender or be totally isolated and picked off at the leisure of the coalition. The pockets of resistance in Umm Qasr and elsewhere appear to be major battles because they appeared on television. In fact they are relatively minor affairs. The territory taken by the coalition is secure, but not yet completely safe. Over time, as resistance fades, it will get safer.

Even counting accidents, coalition forces have thankfully seen less than 100 deaths. We ought to be very concerned about the well-being of the up to 12 American POWs taken by the Saddam regime. Nevertheless, we should not be distracted from the coalition’s strategic successes by this event, punctuated though it is by heart-rending and exploitative imagery. Another major negative, the attack of the American Muslim soldier on his leaders in the 101st Airborne, is significant as a crime, but not strategically.

A complicating factor is northern Iraq. Once Baghdad is liberated, the outlook will markedly improve for quickly uprooting Saddam’s regime from that region. The coalition should demand that the Kurds either obey its orders or surrender to it. Separating out the terrorists from the majority of Kurds will be a task that will take time.

We may have coalition units at the outskirts of Baghdad tomorrow. That is highly unlikely, though. Air Force General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that the toughest fighting is ahead, not behind coalition troops. (‡‡) Saddam’s last elite units are likely to be bunched together near Baghdad. Dealing with them will take time. Coalition forces will use their superior firepower to destroy the elite Iraqi units from a distance. The battle will thus not be incredibly quick, but it seems impossible for even the elite Iraqi units to hold out for more than a few weeks. We might see the giant, 20,000 pound MOAB used for the first time against these forces. Baghdad tomorrow, or Baghdad a few weeks away—it’s only a matter of time.

Many Americans are expressing surprise that all Iraqis are not dancing in the streets as coalition troops drive through their cities and villages. It should not be a surprise. Think of it this way: if a foreign, invading army came rolling through your hometown, you might be upset too, even if it heralded the end of a tyrannical government. Part of the solution is to get humanitarian aid to liberated areas. As gains are consolidated in the south, more aid can roll in. The prescription for this war has always been quick victory, establishment of security and safety, the disarmament of the Saddam regime, and then the installation of a representative government. The sooner this occurs, the better for all concerned.

Our fighting men and women are doing a terrific job as part of the coalition. They are brave, outstanding soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We should be extremely proud of them.

Update: 24 March 2003: Changed references from Saddam Fedayeen to Fedayeen Saddam on the basis of the latter having more Google hits. Furthermore, I’m now hearing reports that some regular Iraqi forces continue to fight. MSNBC is reporting that the Fedayeen Saddam is forcing them to fight. This doesn’t change my analysis. Finally, Tacitus notes that the reason progress is slow against the guerillas is because of our restrictive rules of engagement that are designed to minimize civilian casualties. (§§)

The US has submitted a letter to the Security Council regarding military action in Iraq. (*) The letter contains a statement as to the legality of the action under international law.

The Guardian reports that Iranian students are pro-American and against their own regime. (*) The people of Iran seem to want regime change more than do the people of Iraq. Maybe this is related to the Iraqi regime being changed by the countries that have enforced the United Nations economic sanctions on Iraq for the last twelve years. The sanctions are unpopular in Iraq. Iran also faces sanctions, but they are less severe than those faced by Iraq.
(more…)

Captain Peter Layton, Royal Australian Air Force, has an interesting commentary about the military tactics of terrorists in the Naval Institute Proceedings. (*) Layton takes the controversial position that Arab-dominated countries are indirectly aiding terrorists. He then says that, for this reason, the West may eventually be fighting the people of these societies to achieve victory in the war on terrorism.

That would entail a much wider and more terrible war. It would mean that the only way to bring about the end of ever-escalating terrorism and war would mean more wars like the current Iraq campaign (”Gulf War II”), as more such wars would be necessary to subdue aggressor societies. It would mean more civilian deaths and more “shock and awe.” (†) To avoid this, it would be optimal if the takedown of the Saddam Hussein regime serves as shock and awe to deter terrorists around the world.

That terrorists receive widespread indirect support from Arab-dominated countries is an assertion with little evidence, however. The best evidence for it, and for a widening conflict, is that terrorism remains, even today, credible in parts of many societies. The longer it remains considered a credible option, the greater the chance for world war. Therefore, it is important to crush all terrorist organizations as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, the peace movement is not strategically directed. If it were, it would not be protesting in the streets of cities like San Francisco. (‡) Peace activists would realize that the best chance to avoid a wider conflict lies in terminating the Saddam Hussein regime quickly.

Even as our troops are in battle risking their necks for our country, the Republican Party is pushing a tax cut for the rich on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator John Kyl of Arizona is trying to push an amendment through to speed up the repeal of the estate tax. (*) It’s too bad that the Republican Party can’t just step back for a while and take a breath. Apparently they were tempted to do this now because of a procedural matter that allows them to bypass any filibuster, and because the news media will be preoccupied. This amendment should be defeated, and not just because of the cynical time at which it is offered. Serious reform of the estate tax is a good idea, but outright repeal is the wrong policy. Speeding up the repeal is a bad idea.

Call your Senators. (†) I just called mine.

Update: 25 March 2003: We lost that vote, but five senators changed their votes to the right policy. (‡) We are making progress in the fight to keep the estate tax. It is necessary to keep the estate tax, after all appropriate reform, to preserve the middle class in its dominant position in our society.

With the simultaneous commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom and, in Afghanistan, Operation Valiant Strike, the message to terrorists is unmistakable. Murdering the innocent will draw complete, unyielding resistance. Regardless of what religion or ethnicity to which terrorists belong, their war against civilization will never be acceptable, and will end only in their defeat. The defeat of terrorists is a precondition for peace and justice.

Updated coverage of the war can be found at CNN. (*) Plus, Sean-Paul Kelly at The Agonist is providing a plethora of coverage and thoughtful analysis. (†)

If you haven’t already seen the Paradoxical Commandments by Kent M. Keith, they’re worth reading. (*)

In Slate, Eugene Volokh argues that Americans should not care what precedent in international law is set by the US-led Iraq campaign, and in any case, the precedent is not dangerous. He says, “Our invading Iraq will not set a dangerous precedent or much of a precedent at all. We should focus on the costs and benefits of this war, and not on its supposed precedential effects on future wars.” (*) (†) Volokh’s reasoning is a bad analysis that is not only unreasonable on its face, but is also unreasonable in its substance.
(more…)

Joshua Micah Marshall argues that the members of the UN Security Council, including the US, voted for Resolution 1441 on condition that a second resolution was required to authorize force. (*) Therefore, Resolution 1441 had no “automaticity.” That is not an accurate depiction of the US’s vote.
(more…)

President Bush’s Iraq policy is likely to be a success in achieving its immediate goals. Nevertheless, there are clear indications that the strategy behind that policy is in need of extensive revision. Bush’s near-paranoia toward international institutions does not bode well considering the challenges that will come after Iraq. Thankfully, at least, Bush is not about to take George Washington’s warning against foreign entanglements too seriously. (*)
(more…)

Diplomacy has failed. Either Saddam Hussein and his sons will leave Iraq, or there will be war.
(more…)

Mark A. R. Kleiman thoughtfully comments about the importance of threats to constitutional order. (*) Kleiman argues persuasively that terrorism does not reach this level of threat to the United States today. Therefore, he finds that such an extreme measure as torture is unjustified.

Mike at Steven Den Beste’s site writes that the historical naval powers are lined up in support of war with Iraq, with others opposed. This is explained as the result of a fundamental national outlook. (*) Supporting the war are Portugal, Spain, the UK, and the US, naval powers past and present. Further supporters, tacit or otherwise, include former naval powers Japan and Bahrain (the latter being the ancestral home of the Muscat Arabs).

Nevertheless, the rule does not hold. Turkey is not a supporter of the war, but its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, was surely a great naval power. (†) It fought the famous Battle of Lepanto, 1571, for example. (‡) We might also mention the Phoenicians, as represented by either Lebanon or Libya today, and the Athenian Empire, as represented by Greece today. None support the war. The Scandinavian countries, from Norway to Sweden to Denmark, are tepid supporters at best (§), yet surely the Vikings have not been forgotten. Finally, I would find it difficult to not include either Germany, during World War I and II, or the USSR, during the Cold War, on the list of great naval powers. Their submarines may have been hidden beneath the waves, but they nevertheless represented projections of enormous power. If there is any pattern to this, it must be coincidence.