Saddam plans urban campaign if U.S. attacks - LA Times

Reuters | 8/08/02

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON, Aug 8 (Reuters) - Iraqi President Saddam 
Hussein plans to avoid open desert fighting and mass his forces 
in major cities in case of a U.S. invasion, the Los Angeles 
Times reported on Thursday. 
    The strategy was outlined in general terms to Iraqi 
regional officials, unnamed current and former U.S. 
intelligence officials told the newspaper. The statements were 
relayed from Iraq to U.S. intelligence operatives through Iraqi 
defectors and opposition groups. 
    "Hussein's comments on a defensive strategy represent the 
first indication of how he intends to respond to any U.S. 
attack. A former U.S. intelligence official said he was told of 
Hussein's comments during recent meetings with Iraqi dissidents 
and opposition groups in London. A U.S. defense intelligence 
official said American intelligence has collected similar 
information and considers it reliable," the Times reported. 
    Saddam's strategy appears to center on drawing U.S. forces 
into Baghdad and other cities, where his equipment and troops 
would be surrounded by civilians and less exposed to United 
States warplanes, which played a major part in the Gulf War. 
    "Military targets in Baghdad are sprinkled among a 
population approaching 5 million. Hussein has constructed an 
elaborate warren of underground bunkers and escape routes," the 
Times reported. 
    President George W. Bush and his national security team 
were briefed on several options on Monday by Gen. Tommy Franks, 
head of U.S. Central Command. 
    Among those options was a plan in which the United States 
would strike Baghdad first in an attempt to separate Iraq's 
military forces and equipment and cause a collapse of the 
regime, the newspaper said. 
    Experts told the Times it was difficult to assess how long 
it would take for U.S. forces to seize Baghdad, partly because 
of questions about the potential performance and loyalty of 
Saddam's elite troops and intelligence agencies. 
    President Bush promised on Wednesday to be "patient and 
deliberate" in considering options concerning Iraq but signaled 
that the United States remained committed to toppling a 
dictator accused of developing weapons of mass destruction and 
supporting terrorism. 
   "These are real threats, and we owe it to our children to 
deal with these threats," Bush said in a speech at Madison 
Central High School in Madison, Mississippi. 
    In Baghdad on Thursday, Saddam said he was not frightened 
by U.S. threats and his country was ready to repel any attack. 
    "There is no other choice for those who use threat and 
aggression but to be repelled even if they were to bring harm 
to their targets," Saddam said in a 22-minute taped televised 
speech to the nation. 
    "I say it in such clear terms so that no weakling should 
imagine that when we ignore responding to ill talk, then this 
means that we are frightened by the impudent threats ... and so 
that no greedy tyrant should be misled into an action the 
consequences of which are beyond their calculations," he said. 
    ((Americas Desk, Washington, 202-789-8015)) 

08 AUG 2002 08:39:11 Saddam plans urban campaign if U.S. attacks-LA Times

© 1999 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

[justa-hairyape]

Hiding behind civilians and children. How very brave they are. They nust make Allah proud !

[nevergore]

Oh great strategy...group them all in one spot!
This is the follow-up to his first strategy in '92? Engage us on the open desert when we had air superiority....
Bwahahahaha....
NeverGore :^)

[Democrap]

No food, No water, No power. Going to be real fun after a month or two in Bagdad.

democrap

[Glenn]

The goal isn't Baghdad. The goal is Saddam. Unless he intends to bed down with the unwashed, he's vulnerable.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Saddam's strategy appears to center on drawing U.S. forces into Baghdad and other cities, where his equipment and troops would be surrounded by civilians and less exposed to United States warplanes...

No problem Omego. =] The countryside is the key to victory anyway. Like MacArthur said, "Hit'em where they 'aint.' If they want to surrender their oil fields, harbors, roads, and airports without a fight, so much the better. LOL. Once the oil fields, etc. are secure, we can be patient.

Now for the cities. First we tell the world he is a coward, telling his once proud army to hide behind women and children. Second, we drop leaflets warning civilians that they have 24 hours or 48 hours [or so] to clear out of the cities, and that food and shelter will be provided to them at a certain point. Third, when Saddam forces his women and children to remain near the soldiers [assuming he is that determined], we have three choices....

1. We invite the Turks to take and KEEP the cities while we secure the countryside, the oil, the roads, and the airports. [Or let the Turks have it all.]

2. We let the Iraqis sit in the cities under seige, and encourage revolt from within. Once the Kurds get rolling they can take the cites, one after another, piecemeal.

3. We reluctantly bomb and attack our targets, having at least tried to clear out the women and children, only to have the cowards hold them by force.

I prefer options 1 and 2, a combination of the two. We can also plan surgical strikes.

Truth is, without roads, airports, harbors, and oil, what strategic use is a city anyway? Nadda. Zip. Only good as a base for hit-and-run sorties. And they would be forced to do that, because time would be on our side. And we can dig in WW1 style like no one else in the world.

[The Great Satan]

We aren't going to invade Iraq. Way too dangerous until we've had much longer to prepare our civil defenses, unfortunately. Bush is going to present the evidence that Saddam authored 9/11, then demand that the Iraqis hand him over, like the Serbs handed over Milosevic. At that point, Saddam's threat will still be real, but his blackmail gambit will have failed. Bush is, as he reminded us the other day, a very patient man: once the evidence is layed on the table, time will not be on Saddam's side.

Feel free to bookmark this thread and check back in a few months to see how my prediction fairs. I am very confident.

[piasa]

That all depends on whether we are willing to bomb a United Nations World Heritage Site or not. Those reconstructed historic sites of his would be pretty good places for a despot to tuck his bunkers... remember the furor when the Taliban took out those Buddhas? Europe was more incensed about that than about all the poor people who were getting their limbs chopped off in the name of Allah. Or, he may be tucking his hideouts beneath hospitals.

[Thumper1960]

Saddam's "Mother of all battles" redux.

I used to wonder why the military had trained so frequently in the past few years for urban warfare, much to the chagrin of tin-foils who decided it was for use against American citizens. Perhaps, the military chiefs knew something?

[AntiGuv]

Huh?! The only United Nations World Heritage Site in Iraq are the ruins of the ancient Parthian capital of Hatra (City of the Sun). I've been there back in 1986. Here's a picture of this fearsome 'bunker' fortress....

http://www.peterlanger.com/Countries/Middleast/Iraq/images/IQHTR003BW.jpg

I don't get what the point of your comment is, unless you just have something against archaeology or the arts. Especially since Hatra is up in the middle of the Kurdish held region where Saddam & his guards no longer dare tread....

[2sheep]

>Saddam plans urban campaign if U.S. attacks - LA Times

This title could be read another way.  I expected it to mean that Saddam plans a chem/bio-war campaign against U.S. cities if the U.S. attacks Iraq.

[Dallas]

Flashback, if you will.........LOL

When CNN's Peter Arnett reported on the seventh day of Desert Storm that an infant formula plant in the Abu Ghraib suburb of Baghdad had been bombed, Washington was categorical in its dismissal. "It is not an infant formula factory," Gen. Colin Powell said, "... It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure. ..."

[lavaroise]

Engage us on the open desert when we had air superiority....

Heck, he never engaged us fully, they just sat there while they could have destroyed a good chunk of our ground forces by going on the offensive. They do the same again hidding behind children now.

Germans are afraid that Saddam will not be punished, just the children. But this is a war to stop him from getting the bomb and confining the world while he massacres people around.

it seems like the US marines Cobras will be employed as they were quite effective in Jenin.

[lavaroise]

IT's kill or be killed.

[Stavka2]

And now for a reality check. First off...if the mission is to take Iraq and force the leadership out, then you must take the cities, because as long as the leadership holds out the war is not over. You assume that the Iraqies will just roll over this time. I don't think they will. This is not '91. They have no reason to love Americans this time...they've watched 500,000 children die, their children...from pointless embargoes, when the West could have removed Saddam....next: the Turks are not going to take the cities for America...sorry to inform you, this time around there are no mercenaries to do the dirty work, only US/British troops. As for the Kurds, 1. they are split between pro Saddam Communists: KPP Kurdish People's Party and 2. Al-Quida allied religious fanatics...no convenient N. Alliance troops here. Not to mention, the Kurds are just happy sitting in their semi-autonomous region and have little wish to die conquering the rest of Iraq and a totally different ethnic group.

Next, what makes you think the civilians won't fight to defend their homes...this is not the Iraqi army dieing off on some fool hardy foreign adventure, this is the people's homes, personal property. Enough will fight to cause casualties and when it comes to urban warfare, casualties are the name of the game and taken land is counted in houses and at best blocks not kilometers.

As for a seige, they last way to long and make for very bad foreign press, not to mention the billions it would cost to surround and hold a seige on a city the size of Baghdad. Personally, this is the smartest thing Iraq can do. It's armies can't win straight out against the US but they can attempt to atrit the US as much as possible hoping that with enough body bags (as recent and not so recent US history proves in their favor) the US Congress and people will get turned off to the whole war...not to mention that prolonged street battles will be a drain on men and machines to the point that present US recruitment levels will not be enough, counting all the myrad US deployments, and a draft will eventually have to be implimented...further friction with the public.

Lastly you conveniently ignore the martyer syndrom. As it is, desperate peoples do desperate things, but when you throw in a religion that promises endless pleasures if you die in it's defense...watch out for a lot of suiciders coming your way.

But then again you ignore a few other military points: supply...expensive and a must...this is something on the other side of the world with no really friendly powers about to locally get the US what it needs, outside of maybe the oil. What does this mean? The longer a seige goes on, the more the local public opinion turns against the US. This will cause the other local powers to turn against the US and at best deny portage and at worst be out right hostile. The Persian Gulf is a long, narrow water way, easily cut off with mines and missiles. Turkey is a long mountainous road. If other countries attack: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc...the war, troop needs and supply problems multipy almost as quickly as casualties.

I am not saying this can not be done, but you ignore tons of issues and over simplify into black and white the rest.

[Stavka2]

Yes and just who exactly is going to hand Saddam right over? Or will his guilty conscionce just get the best of him? The Serbs had an election and heavily backed CIA opposition on the ground with a Deputy Prime Minister who is a CIA stooge....no such thing here...plus the other local powers are all Saddam friendly.

[meenie]

I would assume from this that Sadaam has placed most of his chem and bio weapons in the cities. These will have to be taken out, to protect Israel and US forces in the countryside. Air superiority does not help in urban warfare. It's man against man and down and dirty. This man (Sadaam) is evil but not stupid. Expect tactics like this to be employed.

[Stallone]

This strategy is disguised propaganda to appeal to Socialists around the world including America's own enemy within, the Democrats and the major media.

By making the political costs of war high (innocent civilians being killed, including little babies), they are hoping America will be prevented internally from upsetting the Liberal bleeding hearts. Defeat yourself, as it were.

Brilliant actually, exploiting the stupidity of the powerful Left-Wing in America, our Traitors Within.

[ASA Vet]

few Big Oil sleazebags

I don't think the oil business men would have to much problem with pumping oil though a greenish glass covering.