Re: [Marxism] Antiwar sentiment

[<sobuadhaigh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>In addition to that, people may remember that the promised Shock 
and Awe 
month-long bombing of Iraq to soften it up (destroy it) did not 
happen. 
Instead, ground forces essentially led the invasion with NO Shock 
and 
Awe. I believe the reason for this is that the US needed troops on 
the 
ground and therefore IN HARM'S WAY to silence the protests.

Let me post a quick correction to David McDonalds analysis on the 
influence of mass, international anti-war protests and the 
execution of the invasion. The military did not promise a month of 
shock and awe bombing before the start of the invasion. The plans 
for military operations only become apparent as the war unfolds and 
to have done a "month long bombing campaign" would have been a 
repeat of the 1st Iraq war.  Rather, the "shock and awe" light show 
in Baghdad was waged virtually simultaneously with the drive north 
from Kuwait. The Pentagon did not want a repeat of the burning oil 
wells in Kuwait and some of the first targets, seized intact, were 
the southern oil fields. Even after the occupation of Baghdad and 
the orgy of looting and destruction followed, the Iraq oil ministry 
was well protected by US troops while hospitals, museums, and other 
government facilities were being destroyed. Remember that the 
neocon fantasy hyped endlessly by Rummmy was that this was to be 
war  on the cheap paid for by Iraqi oil exports. That would not 
have been impossible had the Iraqi's blown their own oilfields 
during a leisurely bombing campaign before the tanks rolled north. 
As I recall there was, in fact, only a delay of a day or two before 
the ground forces crossed the border.

 If the 1st Iraq war was marked by a over estimation of the 
capability of Iraqi forces (driven by fear of US casualties) then 
the 2nd Iraq War flowed from an underestimation of the tenacity of 
the Iraqi resistance from irregular forces (driven by hubris). It 
was the leadership of US Army that showed the most unease for 
Rummy's war plan because of the catastrophic potential for a 
botched occupation. The American military throughout its long 
history has always done a terrible job fighting counter insurgency 
campaigns and they know it. This is not to say that political 
considerations have had no impact on the planning of the wider war 
in SW Asia. I am convinced that had the administration kept a 
Republican majority in either the Senate or the House then the 
military campaign against Iran would have already begun. 

Clausewitz was right in saying that "war is the application of 
force and to the application of force there is no limit." However, 
he was also insistent that this be balanced by the reality that war 
always occurs in a context whereby "friction" impedes the 
theoretical limitlessness of physical force. Bush is now well 
acquainted with the reality of "friction" but the massive 
demonstrations before the start of this war did not change the 
invasion plan.

--
Click for top financial advice. Reduce debt & save for retirement.
http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4d75918wNvgeDBftOkfOxsLpiLtDBIV6o28XaUgLjGmDTc55/



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism