It seems paradoxical, but there are rules of war governing conduct on the battlefield. There are conventions that armies follow to keep the battle from getting out of hand, and causing more collateral damage. In modern warfare, battles are fought until one side is incapacitated and surrenders. This minimizes loss of life, collateral damage, and rebuilding effort and expense for the victor. The alternative is “war to the knife,” fighting until the last enemy is dead, no quarter given or asked for. This type of war is immeasurable more devastating, resulting in massive non-combatant casualties, and the complete annihilation of the enemy and his people, as demonstrated by the fall of Carthage centuries ago.
The US is taking this a step further. In a strategy unprecedented in history, the Coalition is not targeting Iraqi infrastructure. Power stations, sewage plants, water supplies, and transportation are all up and running at near normal capacity. We are making every attempt to minimize not only casualties to non-combatants, but inconveniences as well. This strategy will undoubtedly cost Coalition lives, and result in a longer conflict, but the end result will be an Iraq freed of the Ba’ath party, including Saddam Hussein and his sons, but with basic services largely intact. It also helps us to convince the Iraqi people that our assault is aimed directly at Hussein and his thugs, not them. As I watched over the weekend, I was amazed to see people walking around in the streets during bombing runs. Apparently, they have so much confidence in the US and it’s intentions that they don’t feel the need to take cover when the air raid sirens go off. This will pay great dividends for the Coalition once the fighting is over.
However, Iraq is playing by different rules. Like savages, Hussein has mapped out a strategy of “War to the Knife.” He rejects the conventions of modern warfare.
We’ve seen units of his armies come forward under the flag of surrender, then open fire as Coalition troops advance. The affect on us is two fold. First, we lose soldiers that we shouldn’t have. Second, it increases the chance that the next surrender flag may be ignored, and the unit destroyed out of hand.
We’ve seen army troop replace their uniform with civilian clothes, and fight guerilla style. When the army blends with the civilian population, it leads to more civilian casualties.
Saddam is using these tactics to provoke the Coalition forces into atrocities, in an attempt to sway world opinion against the war. This attempt will fail. The Coalition should respond to the first tactic by continuing to accept surrenders cautiously. At the first sign of deception, the unit should be destroyed to the last man. There is no other effective way to send the message other than making this tactic too expensive. If we ignore the risk and continue to accept surrenders, we will lose a lot of good men. If we choose not to accept surrenders, we’ve joined Hussein in the “war to the knife” which we would win, but at the cost of thousands of lives. There really is no effective counter to the second tactic, except time. We outnumber the guerillas, and as long as we have the support of the Iraqi people, we’ll be able to contain the threat, as we hunt down these men.
Saddam is playing an expensive game with the lives of his army and his citizens, all the more reason he needs to be put down. The sooner, the better.