With the US－led allied forces occupying all of Iraq's major cities, people are starting to look at the tactics and weaponry used, and review implications for future warfare. Chinese military analysts believe the war reflects the fast development of the information technology. They say a strategy, which seeks to change the nature of defense, could well lead future warfare.
US precision－guided munitions bombing Iraqi targets. Such scenes were repeated many times during the war. In less than 30 days, the US military dropped some 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 20,000 precision－guided bombs on Iraq. They took up more than 70 percent of all munitions. A number of accurate new weapons were also tested in the field, like the high power microwave munitions, or HPM, used to destroy telecommunication systems. With all this precision weaponry, together with sophisticated reconnaissance systems, the US forces were fighting an unbalanced war against Iraqi troops.
Zhang Tianping, military analyst: This was modern warfare assisted by information technology and precision－guided munitions. It's quite different from previous ones that were based on advanced machinery and the number of troops.
But the most important element that technology gave war strategists was an entirely new way of thinking about modern warfare. Its key designer was US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. His plan was to topple the Iraqi government but with little expense.
Analysts look at the war in three stages: The first two days was the "decapitation" attack to take out Iraq's leadership； the second phase was the "shock and awe" strategy to achieve rapid domination and shock the Iraqis into surrender. The third was to remove Saddam's regime and eliminate his remnants.
From the start of the air campaign on Baghdad on March 19, until the US troops won the last decisive battle in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit on Aril 14, Rumsfeld's theory was gradually proved successful.
Based on "time sensitive intelligence", the war began with a barrage of missiles on where Saddam was thought to be hiding. Then a small group of American ground forces began advancing on Iraqi capital. Rumsfeld's theory was challenged in the second phase of the Iraq war, when US troops encountered tough resistance from Iraqi paramilitary attacks. But even when the fight for the southern cities raged, the Americans decided Baghdad remained the primary objective in the war. That followed air assaults targeting the symbols of Hussein's rule, the presidential palaces, command and control centers, and telecommunication facilities. After concluding that the Iraqi capability had been significantly weakened, US special operation forces pressed into central Baghdad, which resulted in the disappearance of the Iraqi government.
Analysts believe Rumsfeld's theory is likely to guide US military action in future warfare.
Zhang Zhaozhong, military analyst: Rumsfeld's theory shows a new revolution in military affairs. The Iraq war could become a model for future precision－guided blitzkrieg warfare: with preemptive attacks, the US military can achieve its goal； with a smaller but more flexible and potent force, putting faith in precision－bombing to shock the enemy into submission. This will make the large number of ground forces useless.
More than ever before, the Iraq war has seen joint action on land, sea and air, and also psychological warfare. Coalition forces hoped to deal a psychological blow to the Iraqis, to destroy their spirit of resistance, rather than them themselves and their facilities. These tactics seem to be at the core of Rumsfeld's thinking.
As the military operation winds down, attention is now shifting to the reconstruction process. But the war on Iraq will offer military analysts much to think about for years to come.
|
