It has been nine days since the United States launched its attack against Iraq. The war has not gone as many expected. The difficulties encountered by the U.S.-led coalition have raised questions about Washington's strategy and the assumptions that undergirded the allied assault. Although those doubts challenge the official optimism that preceded the march to war, they should not be allowed to challenge the rationale for the war itself. If the Iraqi regime needed to be overthrown, then casualties must not deter concerned governments from acting.
Prior to the onset of hostilities, the U.S. trumpeted a "shock and awe" strategy that would devastate the enemy and leave it helpless in the face of the U.S. onslaught. Commentary suggested that war would begin with an assault of unprecedented ferocity that would break the will of the enemy. Thus far, Baghdad has been anything but shocked and awed. Journalists in Iraq witnessing the allied attack only belatedly recognized the overwhelming power brought to bear.
The number of weapons rained down upon Iraq has been staggering. Reportedly, more precision guided munitions were used in one 24-hour period than during the entire first Persian Gulf War. But there are indications that the coalition's tactics did not match its might. Iraq's Ministry of Defense was allegedly not targeted, fueling rumors that the U.S. was negotiating with members of the Iraqi military to trigger an insurrection.