Disgruntled US Generals: 'Tell Me Where This Ends'

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=367842003

The Scotsman
March 28, 2003

US officers become jittery over war
TIM CORNWELL DEPUTY FOREIGN EDITOR

-"The enemy that we?re fighting is different from the
one we?d war-gamed. We knew they were there - the
paramilitaries - but we didn?t know they?d fight like
this."
-"How bad do you want to do it? We have the capability
to surround a city, cut off the water, cut off the
electricity...."
-Hopes that the "shock and awe" campaign would win a
clean, quick war, in which the inhabitants of Basra
and other cities would be rapidly won over, are a
"distant memory".


A number of senior military officers in the United
States are now convinced the war against Saddam
Hussein is likely to last months, despite the rapid
advance by coalition forces.

They believe the war will need far more troops and
combat power than is now on hand, the Washington Post
newspaper reported yesterday. It added that some saw
the "potential threat of a drawn-out fight that sucks
in more and more military forces".

"Tell me where this ends," a senior officer was quoted
as saying.

The suggestion that US military figures are having
doubts on the future of the war, as aired in
Washington?s flagship newspaper, was blamed for a new
slide in US stocks yesterday morning.

Later yesterday, the Washington Post?s website carried
an interview with General William Wallace, the US
field commander of the Iraqi operation. "The enemy
that we?re fighting is different from the one we?d
war-gamed," he said, speaking in southern Iraq. "We
knew they were there - the paramilitaries - but we
didn?t know they?d fight like this," he said.

Asked if this meant a longer war, he said: "It?s
beginning to look that way."

Analysts said the reports are a clear shot across the
bows of Donald Rumsfeld, the bullish defence
secretary.

The pessimism has emerged after several days of bad
weather, both sandstorms and heavy rain, which have
seriously stalled the US advance. With the weather
clearing, the Pentagon is promising renewed attacks
and insist the war is going to plan - a message
reinforced by Mr Rumsfeld himself to a US Senate
committee yesterday.

He said: "How this conflict will play out, I can?t
know. I don?t know anyone on the face of the Earth who
can know. The regime of Saddam Hussein will be
removed, and the only thing that remains unclear is
precisely how long it will take."

His defenders point out that US forces drove to within
50 miles of the Iraqi capital in just six days without
a serious military challenge. Iraqi attacks have been
repeatedly repulsed with heavy losses. But there is a
contrasting picture emerging in the US media of forces
strung out in 200-mile-long lines reaching deep into
Iraq, without occupying or winning over any major
cities and subjected to constant guerrilla attacks by
Iraqi forces prepared to stage a brutal and, at times,
suicidal defence.

Supply convoys have reported guerrilla-style raids,
adding to the "traffic jam" of catering to the force
in the field and its gas-guzzling vehicles. Troops
near Karbala have said they are running low on
artillery shells and fuel. Some marines have been
limited to two meals a day, others assigned to protect
the convoys. Frontline units of the 3rd Infantry
Division were reported "alarmingly low" on water
earlier this week. It has forced Pentagon bosses to
deny there are serious supply problems.

Separately, the Washington Post yesterday reported
that intelligence analysts at both the Pentagon and
CIA claimed they had warned of the risk of a guerrilla
war by Iraqi forces, particularly Saddam?s Fedayeen,
commanded by his son Uday.

But their reports had "the edges filed off" before
they reached the White House, one of them complained.
It appeared a clear case of "I told you so" from the
heart of the US intelligence establishment.

One general was quoted as questioning the approach to
Iraqi cities and towns, such as Nasiriyah or Najaf,
where heavy fighting has occurred. "How bad do you
want to do it?" he asked. "We have the capability to
surround a city, cut off the water, cut off the
electricity - we don?t want to do that."

Another officer said: "Let?s say you throttle Najaf.
Then you?ve got 600,000 people in the city and
surrounding region you?re responsible for providing
food, water and medical care for."

There are widespread reports that the final thrust on
Baghdad - by all accounts the over-riding goal of the
"blitzkrieg" assault plan - has been delayed.

Hopes that the "shock and awe" campaign would win a
clean, quick war, in which the inhabitants of Basra
and other cities would be rapidly won over, are a
"distant memory".

"The Bush administration had conveyed the impression
that the Iraqi government was shaky, that much of the
army was not likely to fight and that the Iraqi people
would welcome the invasion force with cheers and
flowers," said the New York Times in an editorial this
week.

The shift is reflected in polls that show the US,
while strongly backing George Bush, the president,
rapidly changing their views of how quickly the war
can be won.

Mark Bowden, the journalist and author of Black Hawk
Down, the story of the 1993 street battle after the
downing of a helicopter in Mogadishu which effectively
drove US troops from Somalia, seemed to capture the
mood.

Writing in the New York Times, he termed Saddam?s
strategy of harrying coalition troops with loyalists
dressed in civilian clothes as "both cunning and
cruel, and it may work".

"Saddam is betting that his people will rally around
his crack troops. The allies are betting they will
betray the dictator and flush out his enforcers. I?m
afraid the odds at this point favour Saddam Hussein."



~~~~~~~ PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.