H. Thomas Hayden was formerly the President and CEO of First Communications Company (FCC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a joint venture between Raytheon and a Saudi Company involved in Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) Systems for the Ministry of Defense and Aviation, Saudi Arabian National Guard and Ministry of Interior. Before retiring from the US Marine Corps, assignments included Commanding Officer (CO), Headquarters and Service Bn, 1st Force Service Support Group, which deployed to the Gulf War, CO Brigade Service Support Group – 9, which deployed to Somalia and CO MAU Service Support Group – 33, which deployed to The Philippines and Korea. He was Branch Head, Headquarters Marine Corps, Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC), and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for SO/LIC with assignments to Central America. He has participated in combat operations or contingency operations in the Republic of Vietnam, Central America, Gulf War, Somalia, and Colombia. Tom has a MBA, MA in International Relations, and a PhD candidate in Business Management. He is the author of two books and is currently writing a third: SHADOW WAR: Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; WARFIGHTING: Maneuver Warfare in the US Marine Corps. He has published over 40 articles and has been awarded the Navy League’s Alfred Thayer Mahan award for literary achievement.
There are no stupid questions on Iraq -- only stupid answers
December 15, 2003
[Have an opinion on this column? Sound off in the discussion forum.]
The first question the American public should ask is not what was wrong with the Intelligence reports on WMD in Iraq, but more importantly, why did it take so long to make a decision to go after the Iraqi regime?
Was it not enough that Saddam Hussein is guilty of major, multiple crimes against humanity -- maybe more so than the Serbian leaders now on trail in The Hague? Also, had he not already demonstrated a threat to the region and U.S. national security interest when he invaded Iran and then later Kuwait. Saddam made a very interesting comment after Gulf War I when he said that his only mistake was not going on to conquer Saudi Arabia.
Saddam should have been deposed much earlier.
It was well known that Saddam Hussein had WMD after Gulf War I. But somehow they disappeared just before the U.S.-led coalition invasion. The UN Arms Inspection Teams must have thought he had something, or why send Inspection Teams? Yet, the Inspection Teams found nothing.
Saddam sure let everyone believe he had them. Most of his generals who have been interrogated after the war have stated that Saddam told them he had them.
Has anyone ever heard that Saddam had a chemical/bio disposal plant? It takes a lot of high-tech machinery and very hot furnaces to burn old chemical weapons. Were there any reports that Saddam was seen burning chemical/bio weapons prior to UN inspections?
So if the UN thought he had WMD, Saddam's generals thought he had WMD, and U.S., British, and Israeli Intelligence thought he had WMD, where did they go?
There can be only one of two answers -- he moved them or he buried them.
Smart money has it that he moved his nuclear "research" to Libya and his chemical/bio "research" to Syria.
It was kind of interesting that the coalition has discovered MIG-25 and other top line fighter aircraft buried under the sand. Why not WMD?
Another question that needs to be asked is why was it necessary to disband the entire Iraqi Army of 500,000. Not everyone was a member of the Republican Guards, Special Forces or Fadayeen. Even after World War II, the U.S. was quick to put former German Army soldiers back in uniform with arms to "guard Army installations." They were called German Labor Service Battalions. And they did not need any retraining.
Another interesting question concerns General Peter Pace, USMC, Vice Chairman, JCS, when he said in The Washington Post, Tuesday, November 18, 2003, p.18: "…initial plans called for about 500,000 troops but that ultimately only about 160,000 were used."
How can any military planner in their right mind think that 160,000 troops could do the job of 500,000?
Well the first answer is simple: no one expected Turkey to back out of a deal to permit U.S. forces moving through Turkey. Second, bad Intelligence (where have we heard that before) told the National Command Authorities that Saddam was at a certain location and if we just bombed that "house" the whole regime would all fall apart. This was tried many times, only to fail time and time again.
There could be some truth in the rumor that France and Russian told Saddam not to worry about a U.S. invasion because they could stop all war plans at the UN.
The main answer is that there was a lot of good luck and a lot of good generalship and great soldering that made it happen. Also, remember that the Iraqi Army had fought the U.S. Armed Forces before and came out on the short end. Maybe many did not want to go a second round.
Also, there was that greatest piece of luck of all -- Baghdad Bob, the "Info Man."
Imagine this: Iraqi generals had the Iraqi High Command saying that the Americans were pushing through the outer perimeters and the Iraqi Army had to defend its place, but you had Baghdad Bob telling Iraqi TV/radio news, and Al Jazeera telling the world, that the Americans were being defeated. Who do you believe - Saddam who was a known liar, murderer and mass executioner? Or, do you believe that great Iraqi public relations idiot and the Al Jazeera reporters who were provided daily reports of Iraqi victories?
Most recently, have you read the one about how the U.S. is "winning on paper?" Or how about the Army brigadier who stood in front of the TV news cameras and told the world that the U.S. is winning all the battles and they have no organized threat. Can someone remind these people that we won all the battles in Vietnam but some how lost the war?
So why didn't the Shiite population, who had been severely persecuted under Saddam with mass executions of tens of thousands, rise up to help their "liberators"?
Because the U.S. encouraged the Shiites to rebel against Saddam in 1991, and when they did, no one came to their aid when Saddam's Republican Guards were turned loose to crush the rebellion. Remember Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia - the U.S. can be dubious allies in difficult situations.
Wasn't it strange how an internationally known terrorist like Abbu Nidal was found in Baghdad, but many cannot find any terrorist connection to the Saddam regime.
The "embedded" journalist during "the march up" to Baghdad had to have been the first string but what do we have now - third string?
To top the list of all-time slow news day reporting was the anti-Bush news reports on the fake turkey at the dinner table that President Bush picked up and posed for cameras when he made his historic visit to Baghdad. Maybe it was more about the turkeys who write such stories.
What is this news media fixation on the process to establish a "democratic" government in Iraq? While the setbacks to democracy and self-rule are disappointing, they are to be expected in a country with very little tradition of democratic government.
Now with the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the potential for the Ba'athist and Fayadeen to realize that they are fighting for a lost cause, the Iraqis may feel safe from attacks by the "Old Guard" and they may be more willing to help set up a new Iraqi government.
One question remains -- how to get better employment for the disbanded army and many lesser officials. In many respects the current situation in Iraq can be summed up in one phrase: "It's the economy stupid."
Maybe if the Iraqi people had adequate jobs they would be too busy to be taking up arms in guerrilla attacks on coalition forces.
