The tip came late Monday evening on July 21, 2003. The young sergeant,
an intelligence specialist with the 101st Airborne Division, had spent the day
interviewing a string of Iraqis. They had filtered into his command post with
bits and pieces of information, most of little consequence. This particular
Iraqi, however, seemed different and triggered the sergeant's training and
instincts. As the Iraqi's eyes flicked nervously about the room, he whispered
that he knew where Saddam's sons were hiding—in plain sight at a distant
cousin's house right in the middle of Mosul. The sergeant believed him.
His report set in motion an assault on the building the next day. A company's
worth of soldiers surrounded the dwelling at 10 a.m. An Iraqi interpreter,
using a bullhorn, ordered the inhabitants to come out. After ten minutes and no
response, a small team from Task Force 20, part of the army's elite
counterterrorist organization, knocked and entered cautiously. They searched
the first floor and found it empty. As they inched up to the second floor, a
fusillade of AK-47 fire erupted, and three soldiers fell wounded.
The commander on the scene was Brigadier General Frank Helmick. Like his boss,
Major General David Petraeus, commander of the 101st, he was a lean, athletic
infantryman, famous even within the airborne community for his stamina as a
runner. On Helmick's orders, the soldiers surrounding the building initiated a
"shoot-pause-enter" operation. They sought to escalate the level of violence
directed at the inhabitants of the second floor until they either surrendered
or died. Helmick began with small arms, followed by Mark 19 automatic grenade
launcher and machine gun fire. The fusillade was directed into the structure
with great precision to avoid hurting Iraqi citizens huddling for cover next
door.
An explosive strike followed in the form of AT-4 antitank rockets, along with
machine gun and rocket fire from Kiowa helicopters. At noon, another attempt to
enter was met with a return volley. The air force offered the finality of a few
JDAMs [Joint Direct Attack Munitions], but Helmick refused, preferring to
capture the brothers alive if possible. Instead, he ordered ten TOW
[Tube-launched Optically-tracked Wire-guided missile] antitank missiles to be
fired into the structure. When the noise of that attack subsided, only one
Iraqi remained alive to return fire, and he was dispatched with ease. Qusay,
Uday, a bodyguard, and Qusay's son were taken from the building, dead.
Dueling civilizations
The assault in Mosul is emblematic of a new phase in the Iraq War. The first
was conventional: the superiority of American weapons created a killing machine
that the Iraqis could never match. But the ghost of Carl von Clausewitz, the
19th-century Prussian military strategist, returned after the fall of Baghdad
to teach a timeless lesson: no matter how unmatched opponents may be, wars are
always two-sided affairs. The object is to break the will of the other side by
striking at his vital center of gravity. Saddam's center was his ruling elite,
the Baathist regime that was built ideologically and physically around the
unholy trinity of Saddam and his two sons. After the fall of Baghdad, that
center was shaken to its foundations, but it did not completely collapse.
Machines alone will never be decisive in this new phase of the Iraq War.
Watching the retreat from Mogadishu in 1994, Saddam believed that the American
center of gravity was dead soldiers. Spontaneously and with seemingly little
direction, the Baathists who survived the Coalition's drive on Baghdad adapted.
Failing to win the conventional war, they began an unconventional war focused
on dueling civilizations. If they could kill enough Americans in the name of
religion and culture, then perhaps they could regain the support of the Iraqi
people and others in the Islamic world, and the Americans would become
discouraged by the human cost and withdraw.
Technology is useful in unconventional warfare, as the events in Mosul make
clear. But machines alone will never be decisive in this new phase of the Iraq
War. This will be a struggle for the allegiance of the Iraqi people, who must
choose among three conflicting sides: the first represented by the promise of
freedom and democracy imposed by an occupying infidel, the second by a return
to the tyranny and terror of the old regime, and the third by Islamic
fundamentalists.
The tools most useful in the new war are low-tech and manpower-intensive.
Instead of JSTARS [Joint Surveillance and Target Radar Systems], JDAMs, ATACMS
[Army Tactical Missile Systems], and Global Hawk [an unmanned aerial vehicle,
or UAV], the American command will employ night raids, ambushes, roving patrols
mounted and dismounted, as well as reconstruction, civic action, and medical
teams. The enemy will be located not by satellites and UAVs but by patient
intelligence work, back-alley payoffs, information collected from captured
documents, and threats of one-way vacations to Cuba.
The new Centcom commander, General John Abizaid, must match the enemy's ability
to adapt with adaptations of his own. Small units trained for urban offensive
tactics like those used to kill Saddam's sons are replacing the armored
fighting formations of the conventional phase. The hunt no longer focuses on
the remnants of the old regime's leadership but on the fedayeen's middle
management—the violent, fanatical believers.
Success in this new war will not be gauged by how many Republican Guard tanks
are destroyed but by the less tangible and quantifiable measurement of people's
acceptance of a new Iraqi leadership. Attitudes will be influenced less by
demonstrations of fighting strength than by the emotional security that comes
from safe streets, employment, electricity, and fresh water. In a sense, this
phase reminds us all that the nature of war is immutable. Technology may alter
how wars are fought, but it will never change the fact that wars are conducted
by human beings for political ends.
|
The attack (shown above) on a house in Mosul that
killed Saddam's sons Qusay and Uday was emblematic of a new phase in the Iraq
War, the authors argue.
| |
While sophisticated devices like the Global Hawk
unmanned aerial vehicle have proved their worth in both Iraq and Afghanistan,
low-tech tools and special operations are most effective in this new phase of
the war, the authors say.
| |
|