MILITARY UPDATE
Pre-emptive action requires a different military mindset
Military Update focuses on issues affecting pay, benefits and lifestyle of active and retired servicepeople. Its author, Tom Philpott, is a Virginia-based syndicated columnist and freelance writer. He has covered military issues for almost 25 years, including six years as editor of Navy Times. For 17 years he worked as a writer and senior editor for Army Times Publishing Co. Philpott, 50, enlisted in the U.S. Coast Guard in 1973 and served as an information officer from 1974-77.
By Tom Philpott
In the winter of 1998, three years after the United States led a multinational peacekeeping force into Bosnia, I visited with soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division in Tuzla. For security reasons, soldiers weren't allowed outside the base camp to mix with locals, mostly Muslims. Yet one young trooper already had concluded that Bosnians didn't like Americans.
How did he know that? When he walked the fence line on sentry duty, children had tossed snowballs at him.
A day earlier I had visited the town and, with an interpreter, had interviewed many locals. Most of them said they appreciated and admired the Americans. One favorably contrasted the character of U.S. soldiers with Russians, and said lives would be lost if the Americans left.
I suggested to the soldier that he view the snowballs in a different light: Those children were saying we know Americans won't harm us.
The moment captured an image of U.S. service members that still is shared with much of the world. They are strong, patient, humane and well-trained. The image is enhanced by our liberation of Kuwait, ending genocide in the Balkans, driving terrorists and Taliban henchmen from Afghanistan.
What about war with Iraq?
There is much unease within the nation and the military. President Bush drives toward that war under a doctrine of pre-emption: strike an enemy before he strikes us. The nature of terrorism requires it. It is hard not to agree, given the horror of 9/11. Still, it is an uncomfortable leap without undisputed evidence Saddam Hussein, a distant nuisance for a dozen years, intends suddenly to do us harm.
The rush to war has split NATO. Germany, France and Belgium say there are methods short of war to contain Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. The split won't prevent victory but it is not insignificant, psychologically, for U.S. forces. It adds to the sense of unease.
War planners already have a lot on their minds: how to counter weapons of mass destruction, apply overwhelming force, limit civilian and U.S. casualties, particularly if Iraq adopts a fortress Baghdad strategy.
After victory, priorities will shift. U.S. forces will have to restore civil order, shape a new government, prevent slaughter among ancient religious and political factions, all the while protecting themselves in a region that seethes with hatred for America and makes martyrs of suicide bombers. The military commitment, of people and resources, will be deep and long.
Even with those challenges, the doctrine of pre-emption causes the greatest stir, Gen. John M. Keane, Army vice chief of staff, seemed to hint at a conference last month. He described the war in Afghanistan as "very much like every single war of the 20th century. It was a war that was unexpected, for the most part. And we did not start it. And that has been the character of America's involvement in war, certainly through our adult life and throughout most of the history of our country."
One Pentagon source said a purely offensive campaign is so foreign to the U.S. military psyche that war planners have had to change their mindset. It is unprecedented and uncomfortable. With Iraq, America won't be absorbing the first hit and striking back with justified fervor, the kind of action troops rally around. Americans who have known Saddam for years as a late-night punch line must adjust their thinking, too. Saddam's army remains within its borders yet they are asked to see a mass murderer intent on using or sharing with terrorists his deadly arsenal.
Pre-emption is reacting to a loaded gun instead of a smoking gun, said one official, and raises questions beyond the comfort level of troops. Who else should the world's only superpower attack to save itself harm? Is Pakistan justified in attacking India if it feels sufficiently threatened?
Proponents of pre-emption say deterrence worked well during the Cold War when we knew an opponent's capability, could match or exceed it, and only had to worry about intent. With terrorists, the intent is known; they want to kill Americans. So war must be continuous and aimed at capability.
But is Saddam a terrorist or just a homicidal dictator personally despised by Bush and his father? Bush made an unfortunate comment when he referred to a plot to kill his father that was foiled a decade ago. "After all," Bush said of Saddam, "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
In an instant he personalized the war and raised suspicions over its urgency.
However, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a strong case before the United Nations that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction and harboring at least one terrorist tied to al-Qaida. Does that justify pre-emption?
It's an important question for America and its military. President Bush must believe the lasting images of this war will be throngs of cheering Iraqis free of Saddam with caches of poisons destroyed.
If the most memorable scenes are only of the dead, his pre-emption doctrine will have changed the image of United States and its military for a long time to come.
Questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, or send e-mail to: milupdate@aol.com.
