YA' GOTTA FIGHT TO WIN...:

Saddam's guerrillas will run out of supplies (Lawrence Freedman, March 30 2003, Financial Times)

A tank battle fought by the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards last Thursday was described as the "biggest since El Alamein". It involved 14 British tanks taking out an equivalent number of Iraqi tanks, without losing any of their own.

The incident sums up much of what has been happening in this war. Iraqi sorties are often being crushed by superior force, but such episodes, including many more bothersome to the coalition, are being reported without much sense of proportion.

Alamein is an instructive comparison. Against the 8th Army of 195,000 men, the Afrika Corps had about 105,000. The ratio of tanks was two to one in Britain's favour (1,000 to 500). This single battle took as long as this war has so far lasted. [...]

Now that things are moving more slowly than originally hoped, comparisons are being made with Vietnam, as if the Americans face becoming bogged down for years in guerrilla warfare. The comparison is invalid. The problem for the Americans in Vietnam was not only that they were trying to defend a deeply unpopular regime against a wily enemy, but also that they never found an answer to the Communists' ability to stay supplied. North Vietnam itself was never invaded, but sustained by support from Russia and China. It used the famous Ho Chi Minh trail to get provisions through to the fighters in the south.

The Iraqis, by comparison, have no sanctuaries and no demoralised enemy from whom they can obtain weapons and ammunition. Eventually key units will be effectively cut off and unable to sustain themselves.

The issue with the Iraqi resistance is not its evident ability to cause frustration, but whether it can prevent reinforcements and the continuous resupply of coalition forces. That appears to be beyond its capabilities. Furthermore, many of its divisions defending Baghdad are pointing to the north, and will be difficult to redeploy safely.

Politically, this will remain a difficult war for the coalition to fight. The early traumas of street fighting in Baghdad could be severe, especially as the Iraqis will have stocked up for the defence. The key to success there, as in the wider campaign, will lie in the ability to isolate the defending forces, politically as well as physically, and to deny them fresh men and arms.

The drama of war lies in combat but the source of victory lies in logistics.

It's rather amusing reading all the journalists, like Sy Hersh, who would normally be contemptuous of the military but suddenly consider their word gospel. If you left war up to the generals they'd never fight because they'd always be waiting for one more box of ammo, one more platoon, one slightly more favorable weather forecast, etc., etc., etc..., something that would increase their advantage in some fashion, even if esoteric. That's all the Powell Doctrine really consists of is a desire to have the odds so overwhelmingly in your favor that the actual combat is almost superfluous.

As Mr. Freedman's article suggests, the war is unlosable on the ground, but we could do ourselves some damage by waffling around and bickering back in Washington. Gotta suck it up and go fight.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 31, 2003 4:08 PM