War on Iraq

Columnist Brig (Retd) A Q Anjum analyses the war in Iraq.

All wars should be governed by certain principles, for every war should have a definite object, and be conducted according to the rules of art. War should only be undertaken with forces proportioned to the obstacles to be overcome.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Great nations do not engage a peace-seeking state in a war of destruction.
Duke of Wellington

A war started on 21 March 2003. US and British forces invaded Iraq across the desert from Kuwait, with cruise missiles pounding targets in Baghdad. The entire world has called it a war—War on Iraq. Is it really a war as we know from the past course of military history? Or is it a misnomer?
From time immemorial, the wars have been fought between two adversaries having an almost equal strength. Each side as witnessed in the major wars had a clear capability to inflict unbearable damage on the other as in a bout of two boxers of nearly equal weight. The existence of a match between the two warring sides thus appears to be an essential pre-requisite.
But the War on Iraq, on a global level, between US and Iraq is a highly unequal clash. On one side is the mighty superpower, bursting at seams with superior military technology and the latest precision-guided missiles capable of being launched across the continents; possessing an airforce and aircraft carriers which the other all military nations combined cannot match in number; having a coalition of European nations, NATO and other allied powers with availability of hundreds of billions of dollars to dole out to buy allegiance of the “unwilling”. On the other side, is an impoverished nation already defeated ten years ago. Since then it is without a free-hand to develop its economy and its armed forces. Constantly, under the hanging Sword of Damocles, Iraq remained subject to unjust sanctions; with US aircraft dominating the skies busy in hostile vigilance; its children dying in thousands due to lack of medicines and nutrition. Now recently, it was under active investigations for having possession of weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons. In the process of “search and starve”, the US through the good offices of United Nations procured a licence to wage war on Iraq. Then followed a demand to scrap all the missiles held by Iraq. It obediently obliged to avoid a war. Iraq was almost disarmed; it was left with no weapons to cause harmful damage to any invader, not to talk of a superpower of the time. I am not aiming to describe the unfortunate events leading to the start of the war, the point in the issue is that the student of military history should study the military balance between a Superpower and his coalition allies on one side and a sanction-inflicted, militarily disarmed and friendless nation under duress on the other hand. Does it qualify to make a war at world level? This does not deserve to be included in the books of military history. At the most, it is an action to punish and destroy a nation, which is on the wrong side of the Superpower.
War in the human history is a very important event. It has a place of great significance in the destiny of nations. The use of the word needs caution to be fair to its high pedestal it occupies in the galaxy of events. If you have a look at the famous wars fought in the recorded history and analyze them professionally, as a serious student of military history, you will not allow to give entry to the one-sided military actions like War on Afghanistan 2001 and now War on Iraq 2003 as wars worth studying. These are only actions to create an atmosphere of awe and fear, using element of an unending force and economic pressure on an orphan or weak nation. The perspective of an agenda of a superpower to achieve supreme domination over the entire world by eliminating dissenting power one by one is clearly visible. How long will it continue to work?

Some examples from history are discussed below in relation to qualification of a war and in the present context:-
Alexander the Great (323 BC) also desired to conquer the world. He was a model of many of history’s most talented tactician and military leaders. At the age of 32, he had conquered areas upto the Indus but his conquests have not earned the status of “war”.
Genghis Khan, the World-shaker rose in Twelfth Century at the age of thirteen, in a Mongol tribe. He has become synonymous with pitiless cruelty and an insatiable for conquest. He conquered the whole of the world (then known to him). He was more furious than US President Bush as he led almost all battles riding ahead of his huge army on horseback. On the grave of Genghis Khan, 40 white stallions and 40 beautiful women were butchered to mark the departure of a man who used to love horses, women and blood. His every campaign deserved to be called a “War” in its ferocity, blood and terror.
Next comes Napoleon Bonaparte who altered the map of Europe in early 19th Century. A genius in military warfare he introduced remarkable changes in tactics and strategy and rose to such heights of fame that he decided to capture Moscow where he met his Waterloo. He and two of his predecessors would be turning in their graves at the conduct of wars in 21st Century where US leads a Coalition of Nations to strike a feeble nation and a non-existent army and call it a “WAR”, tearing the very fabric of an art of warfare so painfully achieved after a life-long struggle in trying conditions. One has to read the above-quoted military giants.
Skipping over the other wars, let us see World War II – 1939-45. Spread over six long-years, engulfing all the military powers then existing, killing tens of millions of soldiers and civilians, it deserves to be called the Greatest War fought by humanity on earth. Compare World War II with War on Iraq or War on Afghanistan. The latter-mentioned cannot be accepted by any military person who has seen a war and has read about it. US have carried many fake words in the present age to create awe and sound gorgeous like Revolution in Warfare and War on Terrorism. The sentiment of the Military Heritage will be hurt by these innovations!
The real World War II started in mid-1940, the forces involved were: -

Germans – 123 divisions assembled along Germany’s West borders (2.5 million)
Allies – Three Army Groups (2 million)
The invasion started, with German Assault on 10 May. By 14 May Holland had fallen and one day after Belgium also collapsed, where 35 divisions were defending. Next six days, the German forces pushed the Allies towards the Channel. Two years he was knocking at the doors of Stalingrad. Such is the pace of a war at global level as fought by Hitler in WW II. Are we really fighting a War on Iraq. No!
The right of conquest has no basis except in the right of might — Rousseau.