TruthNews Commentary, April 1, 2003

Bart Simpson had good reason for dubbing the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." On May 12, 1940, the Nazis invaded France. Forty-one days later, the French surrendered, leaving the British to fight the Nazis alone. The Nazis called the war "blitzkrieg," or lightning war, because they defeated the feckless French so quickly. But given the French propensity for giving up, the term "blitzauslieferung," or lightning surrender, might be more appropriate. Since the French did the surrendering, perhaps we should translate this term into French instead of German, but then the French would be speaking German if America hadn’t rescued them.

Against American military might in 1991, the Iraqis were able to hold out almost as long as the French did against the Nazis. The so-called hundred hour war, in fact, lasted 40 days (the ground war made up the last four days). Of course, that war did not end with the surrender of Iraq. The national leadership (Bush Sr., Cheney, and Powell) were content with a partial victory. Total victory might have taken another month.

The press seems bent on portraying the current war in Iraq as a snail war rather than a lightning war. In 12 days, U.S. and coalition troops have advanced "only" 300 miles into Iraq. Armchair quarterbacks are accusing Donald Rumsfeld of not deploying enough ground forces. Various British politicians are calling for Tony Blair’s head. Reporters seem to think that because they can drive from Washington to New York in four hours, the army should be able to move from Kuwait to Baghdad in a similar length of time. Of course, if there were 3 million Iraqis lining Interstate 95 trying to kill anyone going to New York, it might take longer than 4 hours for the trip.

In fact, U.S. and coalition forces have made remarkable progress. In the first Gulf War, at the end of 40 days, we had advanced to Basra. In this war, in only 12 days, the army has gone all the way to Baghdad. So far, 38 American troops have been killed in Iraq. That’s 58,160 fewer soldiers than we lost in Viet Nam. Every American death is a death too many. But the action in Iraq will save lives by reducing terrorism against America. The 9/11 attacks killed 3,000 Americans. An attack using a weapon of mass destruction could cost even more. Terrorism can only be stopped eliminating the countries that support terrorism (although some prefer the French approach of surrendering to the terrorists). The war will also stop Hussein’s murder of his own people, end the suffering caused by sanctions, and eliminate the necessity of enforcing the no-fly zones (the enforcement cost 26 American lives in a single incident in 1994).

It doesn’t help, of course, that Turkey refuses to allow U.S. soldiers to pass through their country. As a result of Turkey’s betrayal, all of the ground troops must be funneled through Kuwait. This means that Hussein only needs to defend one side of his country. It would be better to attack from both ends of the country and crush Hussein in the middle.

The Turks, Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians are happy that we’re overthrowing Hussein, of course. It’s one less threat they have to worry about. But by not helping, they get to capitalize on anti-American hysteria in their own countries, while still enjoying the fruits of victory.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer had this to say about the media’s coverage of the war:

Not since I studied bipolar disease 25 years ago have I seen such dramatic mood swings as in the coverage of the first week of the war.

It began with "shock and awe" euphoria, the hailing of a campaign of immaculate destruction. It was going to be Kosovo II… another war of nearly bloodless (for us) success.

And then on Sunday, bloody Sunday, the media discovered that war is hell… The narrow focus of the camera sees not war but individual battles, which, broadcast live, gave the home front the immediate (vicarious) experience of the confusion and terror of combat. Among the chattering classes, a mini-panic set in.

By Monday the media were in full quagmire mode… If there had been TV cameras not just at Normandy, but after Normandy, giving live coverage of firefights at every French village on the Allies' march to Berlin, the operation would have been judged a strategic miscalculation, if not a disaster.

The media was against this war from the beginning. Peter Arnett and company are trying to portray the war as a failure in order to undermine public support. It might be instructive to recall that prior to the first Gulf War, the press was predicting tens of thousands of U.S. casualties. Then once the bombing started, everyone kept asking when the ground war would begin. Once the war was over, with 20-20 hindsight, the press talked about the inevitability of the American victory and conveniently forgot their prognostications of evil.

This war is not a failure. U.S. troops are at the gates of Baghdad after just 12 days of war. Coalition forces now control most of the western and southern portions of Iraq. U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq have secured major bridges, opened a northern front, achieved complete air superiority, and delivered tons of humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. By fast, decisive action, U.S. and coalition troops have prevented Hussein from destroying the Iraqi oil fields. Allied forces have also seized Iraqi missile launching sites. Not a missile has been fired at Israel.

No one surrenders as quickly as the French. But the Iraqi regime may come close – provided some one can be found to do the surrendering. Saddam Hussein has not been heard from since the war began. He may have fled the country, or he may already be dead. But whether he’s dead or alive, this war will soon be over, and the Iraqi people will be free. Then the press will overcome their amazement at how easy it all was, and pretend that they knew it all along.