Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Anyone who took a serious look at what happened during the first Gulf War knows that, contrary to what many folks believe, it was only the regular line Iraqi troops who surrendered en masse. The Republican Guard troops, for the most part, stood and fought - they just outright lost.
A few months ago, in the fall, I had occasion to be out with a couple friends. One had just come back from a stint in the Marine Corps. He had been various places including some time in Afghanistan. Another friend that evening had just signed up to join the military. He wanted badly to be in the Special Forces. Their conversation took a turn to the future. They discussed how "everyone knew, everyone was talking about" how this time, Saddam would draw his forces back into Baghdad and force us to fight an urban battle at greater cost.
Put these two things together, and it's no surprise that there would be a fight to be had in Iraq. Certainly, the military knew, and planned for it. To think otherwise is just silly, and contrary to evidence.
In his piece in the the New York Post, Ralph Peters confirms that we were ready.
NYPOST.COM Post Opinion: Oped Columnists: URBAN WARRIORS By RALPH PETERS (Via LGF)
Unfortunately for Saddam, our troops failed to cooperate: The blood being shed is that of Iraqi terrorists.
Our troops didn't charge wildly into Basra or Nasiriyah as Saddam hoped. Instead, they methodically began to dismantle the resistance put up by the regime's die-hard thugs and party hacks - fighting on our terms, not theirs.
Saddam's response showed exactly how much regard he has for the Iraqi people: He began slaughtering them in an attempt to force us to come into the cities and save them.
Saddam, you see, has studied the lessons of history. He knows that urban warfare traditionally has been a blood-soaked affair, and he believes - wrongly - that the American people are cowards who can't bear casualties.
But he forgot that Americans aren't slaves to history. Americans make history.[...]
