In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

From the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, even before the fall of the last Taliban strongholds, some in political and media circles had been advocating a decisive resolution to the lingering problem with Saddam Hussein, and the Bush administration wasted little time after bringing down the Taliban regime before turning its attention to Iraq. Fearing Hussein was developing “weapons of mass destruction” and that he was working in league with terrorist organizations, George Bush called for the nations of the world to join in a military campaign to oust the dictator . A chorus of critics opposed to an invasion, however, quickly emerged around the world and at home. One position called for more time for UN inspectors to complete their work of proving whether or not Hussein had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Other critics opposed military force on any grounds whatsoever. While the diplomatic wrangling continued through the fall of , Bush’s anti-Hussein coalition, led primarily by the United States and Great Britain, began massing troops in the region. The diplomatic positions had not been reconciled by the time the invasion began, meaning that this war was going to be one of the most controversial military adventures since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan . The diplomatic pedigree, however, was not the only controversial legacy shaping the context for this war. In military circles another controversy stemmed from Desert Storm, the earlier war against Iraq. To the public, one of the most enduring memories of that war had been the air campaign and the riveting images of laser-guided bombs hitting with unerring accuracy. The future of war seemed clear—paralyze the enemy through air power, then roll over the helpless ground forces. At least it seemed clear to the public; to military and government leaders, interpreting Desert Storm and the future of warfare became one of the chief controversies in the years leading up to the War on Terror. This controversy reached its peak in what Donald Rumsfeld considered his main agenda prior to  September: military transformation—the effort to re6 . A Controversial Invasion in a Context of Controversy 98 Danger Close organize America’s defense establishment to take greater advantage of modern technology. This was more than a drive to get modern weapons into the hands of the military; it focused on how to use those weapons. The rapid decisiveness of Desert Storm suggested to some that modern warfare had been radically altered—what they called the revolution in military affairs, or RMA—and military reformers were determined to bring America’s military structure, kicking and screaming if necessary, into that modern era. There was, of course, opposition. Other observers argued that despite big changes in the details, the fundamentalprinciplesofwarwerethesame,thatitsnaturewastimeless. Each side had powerful constituencies—not just the infamous militaryindustrial complex, or entrenched service interests, but something new that might be termed the think tank–bureaucracy complex, a cottage industry of scholars, policy analysts, consultants, government staffers— and of course lobbyists—who study in depth every aspect of government activity and advise politicians and decision-makers in their deliberations . This group has tremendous influence and thus constitutes a great shaping force not only on the military but also on all other government agencies. Hardly a governmental function at the federal, state, or local level is conducted without consulting or commissioning studies of some sort. The battles over military transformation launched countless analyses of the details, interpretations, and relative merits of the air campaign versus the ground campaign in Desert Storm, as well as various air and ground capabilities that had evolved since then. To a great extent this debate pitted the army, and to a lesser degree the Marine Corps, against the air force, and the debate was still in full swing as the last remnants of the Taliban were being chased around the mountains of Afghanistan. The transformation debate evoked great passions and was at times extremely bitter. This fight entailed more than just the usual fighting over budgetsandweaponssystems;itthreatenedcherishednotionsofnotonly the fundamental nature of warfare but also the different services’ cultures and notions of relative worth. As often happens during debates of this sort, each side presented a faulty analogy: they held up a perfect version of their own position and capabilities contrasted with a gross caricature of their opponents’ position and capabilities. Character was also brought into the fight as each side’s most strident partisans presented their side as the paragon of virtue and the other as the embodiment of evil. Neither side...

Share