According to media reports, the Arab world was alarmed that the Iraqi leadership fell so fast and they see the collapse as a major humiliation.
Indeed, few expected Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime to fall at such speed. Before the war, it was universally recognized that Saddam's army could not match the US-British forces, and that Saddam would have to pay a high price in such a conflict.
But everyone also expected Saddam to resort to a "people's war," pulling the enemy deep into his territory before adopting guerrilla warfare to attack their supply lines, divide them into a multitude of disconnected groups and inflict severe losses, thus making it impossible for the allies to continue the war they had begun in total disregard of the UN. None of this transpired, however.
How do we explain the defeat of Saddam's regime? From the pre-war strategic layout to the handling of the actual war, we can of course point to hundreds of different reasons for it. One important factor, however, must have been the relationship between the Iraqi military and Iraqi civilians. This should serve as a warning to the Arab world and, indeed to all Third World countries.
First, governments in the Arab world, including Saddam's regime, have a common characteristic -- they are all family businesses. All important government positions are held by members of the ruler's family. People who are not members of the family, even those who are particularly gifted, mainly occupy less important government positions. The consequences of such a political system are very clear -- the ruler becomes unable to expand his power base and increase popular cohesion in order to create a genuine, and strong, feeling of common identity.
This can be seen from pre-war media reports. Before the war, the media reported that Saddam was dividing Iraq into defense zones. However, all the commanders of these zones were members of Saddam's family -- a younger brother, a cousin, a son and so on. This gives the impression that the war was between Saddam's family and the US, not between Iraq and the US. This impression was reinforced by the welcome given to US and British forces once it became clear that Saddam would not be returning to power.
Second, the political environment in Iraq made it impossible to cultivate truly outstanding military leaders. Saddam saw himself as a soldier and maintained a grip on all military matters. This made it impossible for truly outstanding military leaders to emerge; Saddam, considering himself an expert in military matters, would not have tolerated them.
In addition, family members appointed by Saddam would not necessarily understand military matters. Their family ties and unconditional loyalty to Saddam were sufficient to make them top-level military leaders.
This state of affairs makes it difficult to assess an army's capacity to fight. The lack of truly outstanding military leaders could mean that troops were not as well trained as they otherwise would be. It may mean that, in real-life combat situations, army deployments and operations may be totally unstructured and that when enemy forces approach, troops will simply scatter in fear. We should not be surprised that such an army has been soundly defeated.
All this, of course, on top of the fact that the allied forces had total air superiority and superior weaponry, equipment and command, control, communications and intelligence capabilities.
The situation in Iraq was not unique in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia has also been a source of constant concern to in recent years. The Saudi royal government is another example of family politics. Government positions have been monopolized by the royal family, which exerts oppressive leadership over its people. However, the people of Saudi Arabia have, through various channels, been gaining a better understanding of the fact that the Saudi political situation is unreasonable. This has begun to shake the nation's rulers.
Iraq may also serve as an example to Taiwan. As the nation continues to democratize and the transfer of political power becomes more routine, the relationship between civilian and military leaders has become increasingly delicate. Respecting military expertise and maintaining both the military system and military cohesion while creating new defense policies and an army with full combat capabilities is a great challenge for civilian leaders.
The relationship between civilian and military leaders has also led to great controversy in the US during the recent war. As a superpower with abundant resources, however, the US has been able to withstand the effects of the controversy over the relationship between civilian and military leaders. Taiwan, however, may not be able to withstand such controversy.
Arthur Ding is director of Research Division III at the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.