Vodkapundit - Quickie Analysis III

Quickie Analysis III

Posted by Stephen Green · 20 March 2003

Is "shock and awe" disinformation?

Oh, the idea is real enough, and so is American ability to make it happen. Our arsenal of weapons, targeting capabilities, and training all make S&A a very real threat.

But in the case of a country like Iraq, the mere threat of it might be enough.

Iraq, as we all know, is held together by little more than fear of Saddam and his family and cronies. The Sunnis hate the Shi'ites and the Shi'ites hate the Sunnis and, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer, everybody hates the Kurds. Fear divides, too. The populace fears the Army, who fears the Republican Guard, who fears the political leadership.

Take away the leadership -- or at least force it underground where it can't threaten anyone -- and the whole rotten heap might just collapse. The threat of S&W has certainly done the first part. Whether it can achieve the second remains to be seen.

In fact, the threat might just be better than the practice. Hitting everything all at once would certainly cause chaos. Chaos in the ranks, in the leadership, and in a already very frightened public. And our most important goal in Iraq is to eventually impose some kind of just order; chaos, at least in the medium and long terms, works against us.

Another country, such as North Korea, we would need to destroy and kill as many of their weapons and as much of their leadership as quickly and terribly as we possibly can -- and with as little warning as we can manage. The North Korean Army is a real threat to South Korea, and their missiles might just be a threat to our West Coast. Should it come to war there -- and I certainly hope it doesn't -- mere threats just won't do.

But Iraq? Here's a case where a little chest-thumping, and a lot of disinformation, might be better than the real thing.

Comments

Innaresting. There was certainly a lot of very specific talk about S&A, wasn't there? "700 missiles" a couple of months back, "3000" more recently.

And we also have the advantage of memory: people remember '91. This isn't looking much like that, yet...but you're right: threat, coupled with their past experience and knowledge of our present capabilities, migth be enough.

Posted by: Ian Wood at March 20, 2003 01:36 PM

Remember Operation "Eminent Thunder"? The amphibious assault that got so much press coverage in the first Gulf War? The operation that was deemed so audacious and risky? The operation that caused Saddam to deploy his forces along the Kuwaiti coast and vulnerable to a flanking maneuver? The operation that...never happened?

"Shock and Awe" may better called Operation "Bait and Switch"...and may have literally caught Saddam sleeping.

Posted by: Mike M at March 20, 2003 01:36 PM

The Left's lament:

Shock & Awe: The US military are monsters. They will kill millions, even if only 10% (or 30%) of the bombs are inaccurate. Millions more terrorized.

Reality: The US military is liars. They fed us lies, and terrorized the poor Iraqis for no reason!

Posted by: Dean at March 20, 2003 01:41 PM

Fer Chrissake, Guys! The war's less than 24 hours old - seems to me that taking a snap-shot at Saddam and his buddies and (now) taking out Republican Guard command and control facilities in the hope that the whole sick gov'mint comes tumbling down of its own accord BEFORE we unleash the wrath of God is a decent thing to try. Shock & Awe ain't gonna be any less shocking & awesome as a result if/when it comes - in fact, might be more so if we're now lulling the bad guys into thinking we were just bluffing. (So is this kinda bait & switch & switch back, maybe?)

And, uh, Dean? Take your medicine.

Posted by: RLG at March 20, 2003 02:02 PM

It's all just speculation right now, RLG. Nothing is ruled out or in yet.

Just some idle speculation to make me look smart in case S&A never happens.

Posted by: Stephen Green at March 20, 2003 02:04 PM

Sorry to have to tell ya Stephen, but it is happening.

Just not right in front of the Al Jhazeerah TV cameras on the Al Rasheed Hotel.

Yet.

Posted by: Wind Rider at March 20, 2003 02:49 PM

I don't know that I'd consider it disinformation. What I'd rather say is that it's a potential weapon, but that conduct of war involves a lot of improvisation. In some cases you prepare multiple ways of fighting it and then actually choose as you go which you use.

Most people know about how in 1991 we prepared to make an amphibious landing on the coast of Kuwait, and by so doing we tied down three Iraqi divisions. But part of why that threat was taken seriously was because it wasn't empty. If the Iraqis had not garrisoned the coastline, it's entirely possible that such a landing might have taken place. It wasn't disinformation; it was rather what's known as a demonstration. And the point of a demonstration is that it's a real threat but one which you ultimately don't carry through.

But you could and sometimes it turns out that you decide to do so. There is always serendipity and improvisation in war.

Will there eventually be some sort of massed precision bombing? We won't know until the war is over. We can do it, but we won't unless CENTCOM decides there's a reason to do it. But that doesn't mean it's disinformation as such.

As they say, the best time to bluff is when you're holding four aces.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 20, 2003 04:00 PM

Funny, I was thinking along much the same lines. Perhaps I'm wrong about it being all disinformation, and that it's mostly about taking advantage of a ground situation that has changed considerably since early this week..!

Posted by: Suman Palit at March 21, 2003 09:58 AM