It has come down, it seems, to two related but separate issues: there is a ‘should’ issue, and a ‘would’ issue. Should the Americans attack Iraq? Would they win a quick and relatively bloodless victory if they did – the ‘less’ in ‘bloodless’ being concerned with their forces’ blood rather than Iraq’s….
The ‘should’ question is a moral question, the ‘would’ a strategic one. It is the latter which concerns me here. How easily can Saddam’s forces be overcome? Would he really lure the Americans and the British into the cities, including Baghdad? If he is confident that they would fight, that would be his tactic. His hope would be that, enticed into street-fighting, the Americans would not fight house-to-house with infantry. If they saw so much as a rifle in a house, they would destroy the house with heavy weapons, inflicting civilian casualties.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in