Harlan Ullman: I coined "shock and awe" but didn't support the Iraq War
[Harlan Ullman is a columnist for the Washington Times.]
Recently, my name has been in the press on matters not related to my professional activities. I will deal with those issues separately. [HNN Editor: it's been reported that Ullman's name appears in the files of the Washington DC Madam.] But, intentionally or not, these accounts have also misrepresented my professional standing.
Specifically, numerous statements and media reports have credited me with being a "neoconservative," a strong supporter of the Bush administration's Iraq policies and a key "architect of the Iraq war" through the doctrine of "shock and awe." It is time to correct the record.
The phrase "shock and awe" is mine. But the label of neoconservative could not be further from the truth. I opposed the war from the outset and particularly the assertion that democratization of the Greater Middle East was achievable. I played no role whatsoever in any aspect of that war's planning or execution. And "shock and awe" as originally conceived were not used in toppling Saddam Hussein and his army other than briefly as a slogan.
By mid-2002, it was obvious to many that war with Iraq was inevitable. During those months, I repeatedly argued in print and on many television interviews, particularly Fox where I was a contributor, against war. Saddam Hussein, however evil, was contained.
From my analysis, I concluded Iraq possessed no nuclear weapons and at best a minimum amount of chemical and biological materials, probably unweaponized. Beyond that, there were no real links between Saddam and al-Qaida. Indeed, secular Saddam had every reason to fear radical Sunnis and Wahhabis inside al-Qaida as threats to his rule and to Shiite dominance in Iraq. ...
About shock and awe, a dozen years ago, I had the privilege of co-chairing a distinguished group of retired flag officers and former senior government officials. Our aim was to develop an alternative concept for national security. The forcing function was a shared and instinctive discontent with where American defense policy was heading.
Relying on the wisdom of Sun Tzu and Karl von Clausewitz, we fashioned a strategy based on the simple principle of getting people to do what we wanted and, conversely, to stop doing things we did not want done. The goal was to affect, influence and potentially control will and perception. The means were shock and awe.
Shock and awe were derived from all of the physical and psychological elements of power to convince, cajole or coerce an adversary to accept our will with minimum or perhaps even no use of force, following Sun Tzu's advice that the best way to win a war was by not fighting.
My first alert to the use of shock and awe came from David Martin of CBS News in mid-March 2003 just before the war started. Surprised by his statement, I used saltier words to say "no kidding." When the war began, it was ballyhooed as "shock and awe."
Two days later, London's Daily Telegraph ran a front-page color photo of a huge explosion in Baghdad under the headline "Baghdad Blitz." Shock and awe immediately sunk without a trace. The military assault was many things and often brilliant. But shock and awe it was not. ...
Read entire article at UPI
Recently, my name has been in the press on matters not related to my professional activities. I will deal with those issues separately. [HNN Editor: it's been reported that Ullman's name appears in the files of the Washington DC Madam.] But, intentionally or not, these accounts have also misrepresented my professional standing.
Specifically, numerous statements and media reports have credited me with being a "neoconservative," a strong supporter of the Bush administration's Iraq policies and a key "architect of the Iraq war" through the doctrine of "shock and awe." It is time to correct the record.
The phrase "shock and awe" is mine. But the label of neoconservative could not be further from the truth. I opposed the war from the outset and particularly the assertion that democratization of the Greater Middle East was achievable. I played no role whatsoever in any aspect of that war's planning or execution. And "shock and awe" as originally conceived were not used in toppling Saddam Hussein and his army other than briefly as a slogan.
By mid-2002, it was obvious to many that war with Iraq was inevitable. During those months, I repeatedly argued in print and on many television interviews, particularly Fox where I was a contributor, against war. Saddam Hussein, however evil, was contained.
From my analysis, I concluded Iraq possessed no nuclear weapons and at best a minimum amount of chemical and biological materials, probably unweaponized. Beyond that, there were no real links between Saddam and al-Qaida. Indeed, secular Saddam had every reason to fear radical Sunnis and Wahhabis inside al-Qaida as threats to his rule and to Shiite dominance in Iraq. ...
About shock and awe, a dozen years ago, I had the privilege of co-chairing a distinguished group of retired flag officers and former senior government officials. Our aim was to develop an alternative concept for national security. The forcing function was a shared and instinctive discontent with where American defense policy was heading.
Relying on the wisdom of Sun Tzu and Karl von Clausewitz, we fashioned a strategy based on the simple principle of getting people to do what we wanted and, conversely, to stop doing things we did not want done. The goal was to affect, influence and potentially control will and perception. The means were shock and awe.
Shock and awe were derived from all of the physical and psychological elements of power to convince, cajole or coerce an adversary to accept our will with minimum or perhaps even no use of force, following Sun Tzu's advice that the best way to win a war was by not fighting.
My first alert to the use of shock and awe came from David Martin of CBS News in mid-March 2003 just before the war started. Surprised by his statement, I used saltier words to say "no kidding." When the war began, it was ballyhooed as "shock and awe."
Two days later, London's Daily Telegraph ran a front-page color photo of a huge explosion in Baghdad under the headline "Baghdad Blitz." Shock and awe immediately sunk without a trace. The military assault was many things and often brilliant. But shock and awe it was not. ...