Posted on 08/08/2002 4:57:18 PM PDT by Pokey78
IRAQ plans to avoid desert battlefields and instead lure invading US troops into the hazards of urban warfare, US intelligence officials said. The strategy would place millions of Iraqi civilians in the way of an aerial bombardment from US aircraft while threatening to maximise casualties among US ground troops. This interpretation raises the spectre of US forces struggling through the streets of Baghdad in chemical weapons suits, while Iraqi forces snipe at them using a warren of underground tunnels and bunkers to escape. It also plays on American fears of street-fighting against an unpredictable foe. The 1993 debacle on the streets of Mogadishu, when 18 US soldiers were killed by Somali rebels, the subject of the film Black Hawk Down, affected US foreign policy for the rest of the Clinton Administration. The urban scenario is based on the accounts of Iraqi defectors and an assessment by the Pentagon war planners. The Los Angeles Times reported that President Saddam Hussein has told his officials to be prepared for urban fighting. His ploy derives in part from the lessons of the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraqi tanks and forces were easy prey for the coalition’s air superiority. Pentagon officials have already begun to try and factor the risks of street-fighting into their war plans. One of the strategies leaked in recent weeks envisaged an “inside-out” assault on Iraq, which aimed to cripple Saddam’s command by striking Baghdad first, as opposed to a ground invasion from the north, south, and possibly west. Such a strike could be launched swiftly, with as much surprise as remains possible for an attack that, although months away, has been so heavily telegraphed. It would require around 70,000 US troops, either in the region or within striking distance. Although the eventual number of US troops to be amassed in the Gulf would be far greater, an “inside-out” attack could be launched while forces were still arriving. Michael O’Hanlon, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution, said that street-fighting, and all the additional dangers to Iraqi civilians and US forces involved, was a “foregone conclusion” if the US invaded. “Saddam won’t fight out in the desert,” he said. “We’d win decisively. “But it’s a tough kind of war. I’m not sure President Bush has fully signed up to that kind of war.” US military chiefs believe their high-tech weaponry is precise enough to hit targets in cities. The technology that produced cruise missiles that could turn the corners of Baghdad streets in the Gulf War has improved dramatically. In Operation Desert Storm, less than 8 per cent of the munitions dropped over Iraq were precision guided. That figure rose to 35 per cent in the 1998 Kosovo conflict, and to 56 per cent in Afghanistan. Saddam would know, however, that any missiles that strayed off target to hit civlian workplaces or accomodation, as many did in Afghanistan, would heighten international opposition to the war. Although reserves of precision-guided missiles were heavily depleted by the war in Afghanistan, munitions manufacturers have bolstered supplies, and despite initial doubts about their availability, the Pentagon is confident in a few months it will have enough for a war with Iraq. Saudi officials offered further complications for US war strategists when they said that the US would not be allowed to use Saudi air bases to launch attacks on Iraq.
Since we appear headed irrevocably in that direction, I'd say just nuke the bastards from Bagdahd south and be down with it.
Make one big sheet of glass out it all.
I won't lose any sleep over the thousands of radiated and vaporized men, women and children. They are Muslims - ie, terrorists in training.
"... any "siege of Baghdad" would follow quickly upon successes elsewhere across the country. Given the overwhelming advantage the Americans and their allies would hold outside the city, Iraqi forces (both elite and not) would realize this was the end of the line for Saddam and company. Whether the leaders of the Republican Guard would fight to the death at that point is unknowable, but it is likely the rank and file would not. Iraq's soldiers know that an American conquest of their capital will not result in the wholesale destruction of their homes and the slaughter of their families.However Saddam came to power and ruled in his early days, he has remained in power by creating overwhelming fear among his subordinates. Once he loses the ability to sustain that fear, how can he maintain the discipline and loyalty of a sufficient number of troops to hold out in Baghdad?
No doubt some in Saddam's inner circle figure that, once captured, they will be held accountable for the crimes they have perpetrated against their countrymen. On the other hand, being captured, tried by an international tribunal, and sentenced to life in prison beats dying a violent death for the sake of a tyrannical thug. No doubt many of Saddam's cronies will prefer to rip off their uniforms and try to disappear into the crowds of Baghdad or into the countryside en route to escaping from the country. This was the choice made by many in Manuel Noriega's Panama Defense Force in 1989 (when, by the way, there was significant urban combat). Once Noriega's officers and soldiers reckoned that he would no longer be ruling Panama--and that the Americans would--their perception of their own interests was reversed. Generals in Iraq who have understood President Bush's rhetoric over the past year may already have made this calculation. ..."
So now we have to save up our munitions to go to war with the likes of Iraq???? I hope we never get into anything with a larger power.
The lightning capture, by Americans, of twenty significant offices, palaces and command centers in Baghdad would put Sadaam on the run and would mean the vaunted Republican Guards would have to counterattack exposing themselves to US airpower.
Civilian casulties would be minimal because the US troops would be in Iraqi Government installations and the Iraqis would be in the urban open. No civilians would hang around.
Of course, the Iraqi troops really do not like to fight other armies and may just quit.
"To: rightwing2Dropping lots of light infantry, as opposed to small special ops teams, within range of enemy mechanized forces but well away from friendly mechanized forces and worse, in terrain unfavorable to light infantry, is so silly that disinformation has to be the objective.
The number comparisons don't hold up, though. Throw in the division slices for a more accurate figure.
We also have Gulf War II experience to use. Few Iraqi units then did not either surrender or run away on contact. The ones which did try to fight aren't there anymore save as unit names/numbers. So-called "elite" Iraqi forces these days are those of Saddam's Tikrit clan of military age who they think probably won't shoot him given the chance.
The only thing the Iraqis are fanatical about is not being shot.
We could probably take the place with one division and a lot of replacements, but more would do it faster with less casualties. Use a lot more and we'd probably suffer only a few casualties.
I wouldn't tempt fate by re-enacting Operation Market Garden. One each armored, mechanized and Marine division, plus the 101st and a cavalry regiment is IMO the way to go. I prefer Franks' rejected plan, with a lot more special ops to nab the nukes and biological weapons ASAP.
THEN, we get to "Field Test" our "ICKY-GAS ATTACK!!"
We get to see how effective our "Tearing-Nauseating-Disorienting-MEGA-Itching gasses are in Urban settings!!
WE GET to capture WHOLE BRIGADES of weeping, Itching, retching "Republican Guards " with NO casualties!!
OH, PLEASE, let "Saddam" concentrate his "Soldiers" in small areas; he will inadvertently save many lives!!
Saddam is STILL fighting WW11!!!
Doc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.