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.

[Publius6961]

not to mention the billions it would cost to surround and hold a seige on a city the size of Baghdad.

This might have been true in the 10th century.
Care to join us in the 21st?

A minimal surveillance force is all that's necessary, it can be mobile and the backup forces no more costly than our current forces in the middle East.

I am sure glad that as a military strategist you're on the other side.

[Tallguy]

The reference is to the use of railroads to move troops.

WRONG! The steam engine is an external combustion engine -- too heavy for tactical or operational movement. Ever see an old steam-driven farm tractor? Notice how massive & slow they are? Boilers are a liability with bullets flying around, too.

The troops of the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War MARCHED INTO BATTLE followed by wagon trains and pack horses (stretching all the way back to the nearest surviving railhead). Rails are used for strategic movement of men & material. BTW, you could depend on your opponent's cavalry making a real attempt to raid your rail lines -- kinda played h*ll with your railroad timetables.

Many of the conclusions you are drawing about the pending Iraqi operation are based on a faulty grasp of history, strategy and tactics.

[Stavka2]

Hmmm, I must have missed 1 AR or 1st IN divisions deploying to Afghanistan. Do you have any photos of Abrams and Bradlies in Kabul? No? Oh, too bad. Last I checked there were only 3 light infantry BRIGADES in Afghanistan. Oh and some avaiation units, most are still in the north supplied by Russia and her satellites. Go read a bit on supply and quarter master issues and all the fine roads in Turkey. Then we'll talk.

That Turkish army. It's just a bunch of Jannisaries carrying scimitars, right? Turkey just completed a multi-billion dollar arms transaction where they are buying modern equipment from Israel of the kind used by the US military.

Ok smart guy, lets see, the best Turkish US tanks are: ahhh M60A3s, thats a 105mm round...doesn't fire to well from the Abrams' 120mm gun...oh and then there is the issue of depleted uranium rounds...those aren't sold to Turkey...but that's just the tip of the iceburg....we can talk on this later...not enough posting time just on this issue alone.

Welp seems you've already figured it all out on how to take them down...wonder what's taking all those professionals at the Pentagon so long...have you emailed them your telephone number? Bet they'd give you a contract in a minute.

Syria is afraid of Israel so they'll start up with the US? Are you kidding? Iran needs its Islamic version of the Red Guard fully mobilized just to keep the nation from throwing out the mullahs and having a giant pig roast. Saudi Arabia has no military, uses Americans for their air force, and needs the oil money desperately since real per capita GDP has decreased by about 90% since the 70s.

Lets see, Bashier wants to loose a war to get rid of the old generals who don't like him and replace them with men close to him. Iran doesn't need everyone to mine the Gulf...but I'm sure you'll realize that...or to fire missiles. And by the way, Saudi Arabia has 2 divisions of M1A2 Abrams tanks and scores of US plains...better avianics then US military has. Now, how well they fight is questionable...though suiciders make big bangs on aircraft carriers and even taking the Saudies demands a lot more troops.

[Publius6961]

But tell me how exactly you are going to conquer a city without city fighting...

D'oh!

You don't.

Explain how Saddam will run a city of 5 million without a constant supply of food, power, communications, water, medical supplies and fuel.

All internal stockpiles are easily identifiable and easily targetted. I will leave it to your apparently great military mind as to exactly how that can be.

[Stavka2]

Hmm, go read Janes, or do you know better then them? Could get a contract from them too, then. As for Korea...read some history again...the war never ended, it's called an Armestice because the US couldn't move the enemy north of the Parrellel and they couldn't move the UN troops south. So no, the US did not win.

Lastly, the Russian fighter bombers are at the top 3 of the best in the WORLD...why Indonesia, Australia and quite a few other countries are now buying them...just like an article here from a retired US Rear Admiral stated the US should.

[Stavka2]

Yup...just like in Band of Brothers when they just walked all over the place and never lost another soldier afterwards...welcome back to reality...it's a bit grimmer then you think. Again, go read some history...it's all right there, just read and study.

[ZULU]

Real good at hinding behind women and children and hospitals, aren't they?

[Stavka2]

An increase of 5 MPG can be achieved virtually overnight in the US. Taxing vehicles that get less than 20 MPG, eg. Making SUVs subject to fuel efficiency standards. Putting a large tax on gasoline discouraging its consumption. In time of war, countries make sacrifices. America manufactured no new passenger vehicles for the duration of WWII and nobody whimpered. Why should it be different today? America imports only 12.7% of its oil from the Persian Gulf and that includes taking out what we export. In times of war, contracts can get voided, virtually every contract for anything bigger than a toaster has a clause that voids it in time of war. And we don't even have to fail to meet our obligations.

Yup, you're right...does wonders to a politician's popularity...especially for reelection...unemployment due to fuel costs is wonderous for capitalism...or maybe you live in a dictatorship?

[Stavka2]

A minimal surveillance force is all that's necessary, it can be mobile and the backup forces no more costly than our current forces in the middle East

Ahh, you mean just like the one in Afghanistan that spotted every one of those Al Quids heading to the hills, I wonder why the US troops are still patrolling? (/sarcasm)

[Stavka2]

Saddam doesn't have to "run" the city. He only has to survive long enough to make it costly, to costly to the US in terms of men, machines and money and key to all Republics: popular opinion.

[Tallguy]

The Prussians did use the rails to maximum effect, but the French knew this going in and accounted for it. They thought that they could fall back to certain strong points (Metz) and defeat the Prussians well away from their rail lines. The only problem was they didn't properly account for the Krupp cannons that the Prussians brought with them.

If Grant had had artillery like that at Petersburg, he would have made shortwork of Lee's defenses. So you see, a very small miscalculation or incremental change in technology can lead to military disaster. The French were attempting to fight like the Russians against Napoleon, but it didn't work that time.

BTW, who'd have figured that the Somalis would use RPG-7's against helicopters before Mogadishu? Now it's a fairly standard tactic in Afghanistan.

All I'm saying is that we need to account for contingencies at every level against Iraq -- including technological. If he has bio weapons, things could get very nasty.

[AmericanCompatriot]

This will be perfect for our press!!! They can exploit the VULGUR and SAVAGE actions of our military and ask the U.N. to press for war crimes!!!

If this war doesn't go right, Western Civilization is done for.

[meenie]

What a crock! Who says that Sadaam will move his agriculture to the cities? I would assume that his agriculture will remain where his land is.

The article stated that Sadaam would not engage his forces in the open desert. I would assume that he would move his forces into the cities. If not, where will they be? I would assume his heavy weapons would be where his troops are at.

There is the possibility that he will revert to the mountains and underground bunkers for his defense of his WMD weapons. However, this article does not mention this possibility.

It discusses the option by our military dropping into Bagdad in a strike to take out his WMD. Evidently, our military thinks there is a possibility that they are there.

I don't have the capability to be a world renowned armchair general such as yourself but I tend to comment on the article as it appears. There is something to be said for discussing things in a down to earth manner without bringing in personal insults. What a Crock!!!

[mindprism.com]

Name a few names/companies etc.

Whats up with Aramco? (1-23-2002)

The pivotal event occurred without much public notice, on September 23, 1998, during Crown Prince Abdullah's visit to the US, where he met with the presidents of the major US oil companies, "with whom he exchanged cordial talks and reviewed issues pertaining to petroleum affairs," as the Saudi embassy website delicately phrases it. But the reality lurking beneath the veneer of diplomatic phrases was a lot rougher: according to widespread reports in the Arab media, the Prince basically told the Aramco consortium that their monopolistic state-privileged status was about to be revoked. A very interesting piece by Adel Darwish in the Middle East Analyst purports to give us the inside scoop on the Prince's message to this gathering:

"During a private, hour-long meeting on Saturday 23 September at the house of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan in McLean, Virginia, with senior executives representing seven American oil companies: The four American oil giants Mobil Corp, Exxon Corp, Texaco Inc. and Chevron Corp. (which established the Arabian American Oil Co now known as Saudi Aramco, in the 1930s) the other three were Atlantic Richfield Co., Conoco Inc. and Phillips Petroleum Co.

"According to sources close to the meeting, [the] Prince [told] the executives to submit directly to him a study of 'recommendations and suggestions' about the role their companies could play in the exploration and development of both existing and new oil gas fields, said one participant in the meeting. The same source said that the executives appeared 'shocked' by the major policy reversal. Saudi Arabia began nationalizing its oil industry in 1973 and has adamantly excluded foreign oil companies from production operations ever since."

SHOCKWAVES

Adamantly excluded but for the Aramco consortium, that is – until now. Abdullah, the heir apparent to the invalid King Fahd, is a modernizer who has decided that it's time to throw open the doors of free competition and let the free market take over. The deal was off. The Rockefeller stranglehold on Saudi oil production was about to end, announced the Prince, and this surely sent waves of shock through his audience. Indeed, the shockwaves are still being felt today, as the US ponders not only withdrawing its troops from the Saudi kingdom, but whether our longtime ally is really our deadly enemy.

ABDULLAH TO ARAMCO: 'THE PARTY'S OVER'

The Saudis, usually close-mouthed about business matters and subtle policy shifts, were more than forthcoming in broadcasting their declaration of independence. Prince Abdullah went to the trouble of granting an unusual interview, in which he said exactly what happened at that historic meeting:

"In 1998 I had a chance to meet with a number of executives from major oil companies. We had discussed the investment opportunities in the Kingdom especially in light of its stability and the availability of huge oil and gas reserves. I had indicated to them, at that time, that we welcome, and we will be willing to look into, any investment ideas that might be of benefit to both sides."

[Optimist]

Saddam warns U.S. attack will fail
MSNBC.Com ^ | 8/8/2002 | NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

Posted on 08/08/2002 12:32 PM Central by Bobby777

Iraqi militiamen wearing belts of explosives and holding AK-47 assault rifles stand at attention next to a picture of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with his sons Uday and Qussay during a military parade in Baghdad on Thursday.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 8 — Amid indications that Saddam Hussein wants to battle a U.S. invasion force in the streets of Iraq’s major cities rather than the open desert, the Iraqi leader warned Thursday that “disgraceful failure” awaited any army intent on removing him from power. The defiant tone, while not unusual, was notable given that U.S. officials are openly weighing a military strike against Saddam for allegedly building weapons of mass destruction.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Excerpted - Full Article ^

---

TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: IRAQ; SADDAM; Click to Add Keyword

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

---

Let me see if I've got this right ... if the U.S. attacks, they'll blow themselves up? ... hmmmm ... check out the guys in the middle ...

1 posted on 8/8/02 12:32 PM Central by Bobby777