Why attacking Iraq made strategic sense.(Defence)

THERE IS a Principle of War which can be gainfully employed to argue support for the political decision to attack Iraq. The Principles, taught in military colleges around the world, urge practitioners in their military planning to use Offensive Action.

What this means is that in planning a military campaign one should be offensive. This is advocated for many reasons. General Wavell in the Second World War noted that attack is not only the most effective but the easiest form of warfare, and the morale difference between advance and retreat is incalculable. Being offensive is always desirable but the defensive is sometimes a temporary necessary measure until a change of conditions permits us to go on the offensive again. Even when inferior in numbers it pays to be as aggressive as possible.

Wars are won by attack, not defence. If one adopts a defensive posture, eventually an enemy can win simply by attrition. For example, in October 1973 the armies of Eygpt and Syria attacked Israel. They were far superior in numbers: five divisions, with 45,000 troops, and 1400 tanks against the Israel's two brigades of 6000 men and 170 tanks. In the ensuing battle Israel was reduced at one point to twenty tanks manned mainly by wounded soldiers, some of whom had returned to their posts from the field hospitals. Their strategy was one of defence of the weakest points but despite excellent ability and morale they were being worn down.

General Moshe Peled argued that this would lead to further attrition. He convinced the Israelis that they should launch a surprise attack from an unexpected direction. The Syrians they engaged were in a position of extended supply lines and had suffered disproportionate losses, and they eventually began retreating, and the day was Israel's.

After September 11 the world changed in terms of the West's strategic need. Under attack by fundamentalist Islamicists, it must pursue its political end--to survive and preserve its way of life--and in many respects this cannot be just a political struggle where diplomacy or negotiation carry the day. There is little room for debate. The terrorists have made their aim clear. As Jemaah Islamiyah leader Abu Bakar Bashir says: "We reject all of your beliefs; we reject all of your ideologies; we reject all of your teachings. Between you and us there will forever be a ravine of hate and we will be enemies until you follow Allah's law."

The enemy sees its campaign as a military one, which it fights asymmetrically by means of bombings--so far--with probably alternative tactics to come. If we see our struggle as primarily a military one, it makes a lot of sense to take Offensive Action.

Iraq was a clear and obvious target. It was a nation warring against the West. While its weapons of mass destruction have not been as much of a danger as thought, there is plenty of evidence--the recent CIA report, and the writings of Iraq's chief nuclear physicist Mahdi Obeidi, amongst others--that it intended to resume its campaign as soon as it could. Let us not forget that the Iraqi regime financed suicide bombers to destroy Israeli targets and destroyed more human lives by chemical warfare than any other nation in history. There was a clear link between units of al Qaeda and Iraq: ...