John Keegan, arguably the best military historian around, has the goods on the bizarre campaign now concluding. Why did Saddam do everything wrong in the defense of Iraq? How was victory so swift? It seems to me that in retrospect, when this war is properly analyzed and chronicled, it may well be that the question is far less: “What did the allies do wrong?” than “What did Saddam do right?” Money quote:
Because the war has taken such a strange form, the media, particularly those at home, may be forgiven for their misinterpretation of how it has progressed. Checks have been described as defeats, minor firefights as major battles. In truth, there has been almost no check to the unimpeded onrush of the coalition, particularly the dramatic American advance to Baghdad; nor have there been any major battles. This has been a collapse, not a war.
Keegan is particularly brutal about the Western media’s coverage. Their spin was almost as pathetic as Saddam’s defense. And just as effective.
The Dish 