2003 Year in Review

Shocked and Awed

The world may not have been shocked and awed at the outset of the coalition war with Iraq, but the world surely is awed at the speed of the allied armies in taking major Iraqi cities and the precision of the weapons compared to those of the Gulf War of 1991. Many of us were not shocked or awed, however, with the calculations of the military leadership that led to this swift destruction of the Saddam government. Rumsfeld, Myers, and Franks knew with good foreknowledge what to expect when they unleashed the armed forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and other coalition members.

More shock and awe can be expressed in the distasteful and amateurish generalship that emanated from the media around the country. Some of the criticisms of the war effort were so outlandish one is tempted to recall the words of former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew who assailed the critics of President Richard Nixon as “nattering nabobs of negativity.” These partisan displays of distrust of the Bush administration and the military were never more apparent than with the cable news channels, certain anchors, and specific guests.

Aaron Brown on CNN was sorely put off by the early successes of the coalition forces. It just was too good to be true, and he set out to denigrate the power and speed of the push, especially around Basra. To this end, he utilized NATO commander and Kosovo overseer, General Wesley Clark to bolster his contention that the swiftness of the advance could open the armies to entrapment. Clark willingly gave this idea credence. The allied forces should have attacked with overwhelming numbers, completing inundating the opponents as in Gulf War I, according to Clark. In addition, the Iraqi use of terror tactics – donning street clothing, using women and children as shields, etc. – could only undermine the more civilized soldiers of the coalition. Brown was intent on showing how low-tech methods could wreak havoc with a high-tech military.

Brown’s nightly chats with New York Times reporter Michael Gordon (located in Kuwait City, not on the front lines) were a show of unbiased bias if ever there were such. Supposedly, Gordon would give Brown and CNN viewers a preview of his column for the Times before they would read it the following morning. Gordon and Brown fed on each other’s negative views, downplaying the war effort, and waiting for the big mistake. In fact, some of it was such ineffectual reporting that one has to strive hard to call it news. Their talks were more idle ramblings than noteworthy revelations and tended to repeat from night to night.

For his part, Forrest Sawyer on CNBC strove mightily to lead the war effort from his anchor chair. Haughty and dismissive, his goal was to belittle the allied coalition, especially the leadership of Rumsfeld and Franks. His contention was that the allies should have followed a similar plan to that of the 1991 Gulf War: Pulverize Iraq with a vigorous and drawn out bombing and air attack campaign before committing an overwhelming force of ground troops. Sawyer saw the Rumsfeld-Franks approach as ill-planned and putting the rapidly advancing liberation armies at undue risk. Particularly, Sawyer felt that Iraqi paramilitary and Faydayeen Saddam hardcore troops could plague the supply lines of the allies and put soldiers and materiel at great risk. In his search, Sawyer found collaboration from several retired Gulf War generals, including ‘Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf, General Tommy Franks’ counterpart in the prior Iraqi conflict.

At this late date, Sawyer finds it difficult to let go of the idea that the United States is a great Satan, winning the war but losing the hearts and minds of the Arab peoples. In one recent interview with a Newsweek reporter (4-08-2003), he spoke of the United States in the third person, "they," not the more familiar or expected first person. Sure that the coalition did not have just cause to invade Iraq, Sawyer sees (wishes?) disaster ahead, particularly in the antagonism of the Arab world toward the West.

MSNBC gave viewers the studio command and control center under the leadership of loud, motor-mouthed Chris Matthews. Matthews worked the same formulas as Brown and Sawyer, trying to elicit from his General-on-Demand comments and theories dismissive of the Bush strategy and tactics. In his camp, Matthews had the expertise of former Gulf War general and later Clinton drug czar, Barry McCaffrey. Apparently, McCaffrey felt his military judgment was suspect for he interjected into his discussions with Matthews the fact he was a veteran of Vietnam and Gulf War I, and “I’ve been wounded three times.” McCaffrey mentioned his wounds so many times that Matthews could hardly hold back a comment in the last interview I saw, “I know you’ve been wounded.”

McCaffrey held to the “overwhelming force” theory of the prior war and contested the Rumsfeld-Franks plan, basing his admonishments on “sources I have in [the Department of] Defense” that indicated disenchantment within the military establishment. From his accuracy, we can assume his sources may have been the janitorial crew. While he was oblivious to his visible chagrin at not being consulted in preparation for this Iraqi campaign, McCaffrey had no doubt the coalition would ultimately be victorious.

The tired, overworked, adversarial commentary of the cable news networks proved that when one is on the outside, anything goes. The studio commanders and their old warriors provided little information, other than facts known to everyone, that held true. This whole experience has been reminiscent of the ‘beltway sniper’ glut from the past summer. Despite the volume of experts and theories, none came close to the outcome in that situation. Our network generals, like the therapists and analysts of the sniper case, are in the words of Shakespeare, “a sound and a fury signifying nothing” of substance. If anything, they proved themselves petty and witless in the new art of war.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
April 9, 2003