May 15, 2003

Hmm...

Anil Athale: Dawn of a new imperial era
First of all, I have to take exception with the title of the column - I really don't understand how it relates to any of the content.

The much advertised 'shock and awe' did not take place at all. This concept is not new: an opening artillery barrage has been a tactic since the 15th century and was used in India by Babar in 1526. The shock effect of the initial air strikes failed primarily because the American bombing was selective. Despite all criticism about civilian casualties, Iraqis in Baghdad and elsewhere felt safe as long as they were not close to military targets. The Americans thus lost the element of fear and uncertainty that is necessary to create awe.

Compared to the Second World War bombing of Hamburg or Tokyo, the air attack on Iraq was 'humane'. Then how does one explain the lack of resistance?


And then there are these passages - is the Colonel disappointed that there was no "shock and awe"? Maybe that was the plan - maybe the US military hyped up the campaign so much that they scared the enemy into submission without having to resort to it - isn't that a better alternative?

And then he talks about how the Iraqi army could resort to guerilla-warfare, since it just melted away without putting up direct fight

The obvious explanation for this is that Saddam Hussein and his supporters have simply melted away into the population and may soon start an Algerian-type guerrilla war against the occupying American forces. The tactics would be to use individual snipers, landmines, and ambushes. The targets would be individual soldiers, one at a time.
And then he contradicts himself further down when he says -
But the penetration of special forces would not have been possible without local support, which puts a question mark on the possible Iraqi strategy of launching an Algerian-style insurrection.
And then he goes towards a non-conclusion talking about the rifts between America, Britain and the "Old Europe" - how about pointing out the TotalFinaElf scandal that put the French and the Canadian Prime Ministers' relatives in bed with the Saddam regime? How about mention of the sale of forbidden technology by Russia to Iraq? Seriously, what is the Colonel trying to say?Posted by shanti at May 15, 2003 11:18 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realwomenonline.com/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2427

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hmm...:


Comments

Rediff Columnists have now become footballs for the Indian Blogosphere.:beam:

Posted by: JK at May 15, 2003 11:35 AM




Oh, I agree - they provide so much fodder for blogging - we will need to pay them to keep writing if Rediff ever fires any of them ;)

Posted by: Shanti at May 15, 2003 11:42 AM




That’s true Shanti! You said it all … BTW, who is colonel anyway ??

More errors:

- The selling of Vivendi has been talked about for more than a year.
- The French defense minister’s statement is probably to lure India to buy their Mirages and submarines


L.

Posted by: L. at May 15, 2003 11:44 AM




Good one, L - it isn’t like the French are trying to help India out of the goodness of their hearts. They want India to side with them against America, which is all they care about really.

Posted by: Shanti at May 15, 2003 11:49 AM




The colonel has never read Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz, has he..? Pity the unread warrior, for he is worse than a blind fool. He is a blind fool with a weapon stuck in his underwear.. (old palit saying :beam: )

Posted by: Suman Palit at May 18, 2003 10:35 PM




Are the sayings printed in a book, Suman? Or are there any disciples eagerly committing them to memory, so that the world doesn’t forget them? :tongue3:

Posted by: Shanti at May 19, 2003 6:39 AM




Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)
angry beam confused blush ;) :evil: :huh: :mad: :shocked: :smartass: :tongue3: :( :nice: