Posted on 03/29/2003 6:09:00 AM PST by LS
Over the past week there have been numerous television generals and armchair pundits pontificating as if they knew "the Plan" and how this war was to unfold. They have generally (no pun intended) argued that
we have outrun our supply lines;
we haven't yet "engaged" the "elite" Republican Guard (RG);
and we have a house-to-house Mogadishu-type fight awaiting us in Baghdad (B-city).
Possibly in between, we have to face chem weapons. One military type on (I think) PMSNBC last night said that "we are running out of time," and that we "might not have time" to bring the 4th ID up for "political reasons" and he "worries that we will do something" stupid militarily for political reasons. Get it? If we wait, it proves our incompetence, and if we act with audacity, it is militarily stupid action taken for political reasons.
Guess ol' George and Don can't win. Or . . . can they?
What follows is TOTALLY from open sources. I have NO inside military information. As to the "what if the Iraqis read it?" I am convinced that Saddam is the arrogant one here, not Rumsfeld. EVEN if he understood this plan, he would not believe it could work. Remember, he has "his" plan too, and the western media is telling him "it is working." After all, the PMSNBC officer just confirmed it!
I think an altogether different scenario is emerging, one that virtually NO ONE has addressed.
1) 3ID is indeed resting. The men are worn out. Saddam isn't going anywhere. They are, according to reports SOMEWHAT short of food, but NOTHING ELSE. My guess is that they need sleep more than anything.
2) I Marine Ex. Force is going to slice eastward, cutting the battle zone in half. But the more important thing that is happening here is that both 3ID and I MAE (as well as the Brits, but they have other missions) are fixing the RG units in place SOUTH of Baghdad. See this quotation from today's AP report, that Saddam has his "military equipment in a residential neighbourhood south of the Iraqi capital" Good. That is exactly where we want them.
3) Last night on FOX, one of the excellent military guys they had pointed out that the AIR campaign will not be directed at Baghdad, but at areas BEHIND the RG units to the south, to keep them from reinforcing B-city. In fact, he said, these rolling bombardments would drive them forward. (Get it? To the west and south, into the "kill boxes" where our "pausing" troops have set up shop?)
4) This is the kicker. This is where Patton said we would hold them by the nose and kick them in the ass. The AS-YET COMPLETELY PHANTOM II Marine Expeditionary Force [11,000 men at least] which left Jordan weeks ago from the western deserts is not mentioned in any media accounts. Hmmmmm. Where are they. Moreover, the 101 AB has been flying in massive supplies to H-1, H-2, and H-3. These supplies are NOT going to 3ID. Wonder where they are going?
While the RG is pinned in the south, getting steadily driven onto the "bayonets" of the dug-in American positions, the Kurds seize the oil and key bases in the northeast. That leaves a huge gap in the enemy's defenses around B-city. . . . to the northwest.
I think we will see in the next few days a "phantom" army come out of the desert, just as Lawrence of Arabia did in WW I, to take B-city from the lightly defended northwest.
SPECIAL FORCES are already inside B-city; today's news carries reports of "insurrections" [!} in B-city. The special ops guys are "shaping the battlefield," paving the way, marking the friendly neighborhoods where II MAE can come. Oh, and in the process, they will seize that airfield to the northwest and be able to reinforce pretty quickly.
Much was made of the 101 "guarding the supply lines" for the 3 ID. Do you really think we are using crack airborne troops to watch trucks roll by when there is an open airfield in b-city?
The final collapse will come when a combination of insurrections, American obliteration of the RG outside B-city to the south, and II MAE liberation of B-city to the north push Saddam deep into his bunkers. We only need to capture one. As I understand, they are LINKED by tunnels.
Oh, and chem weapons? The bombing from behind will take these out at the source. Iraqi troops then would risk using them and being driven (literally, running) into enemy fire in front of them while still struggling with these suits, or not using the weapons.
"Iraq set for more sandstorms"
Don't suppose the Marines would use the cover of these sand storms to move into position do you?
Interesting as I have been making a personal observation of how the left-wing divides from right-wing when it comes especially to supporting the president, in general, and this war, specifically. Those who have served stand firmly on the right, even those who voted for Gore or others. Like the term "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal", I believe you are right; after the war we might need a new term.
I am not military but I have to wonder about this. Wasn't the tunnel rat the most dangerous occupation in wartime Vietnam? Are you saying Saddam's tunnels are safer than the VC's? (Respectfully)
Putting myself in the military planners' shoes, I would notice first the need to maximize effectiveness given the political and manpower constraints. That translates to me to "use all possible non-military advantages available".
Note: including an "adversarial" domestic press corps!
The press gets it wrong so much of the time, why not utilize that fact to full advantage? The easiest way would be to arrange it so that the press does not view the full strength of the military position as it advances; shield a portion of the position from the press. The adversarial press would then report weakness, holes, and failed tactics, while advantage is stealthily being gained on the actual battlefield.
That way, the multibillion dollar mainstream media industry can be used profitably to military advantage, with no loss of life. It is too good of an opportunity to pass up.
This is why press reports, at least at this early stage, do not bother me much if they report bad news.
The only reason not to do this, in my view, would be if the administration had any respect for the press. Watching a couple of press conferences being held by Fleischer, I get the impression that they don't (and that the press doesn't deserve any).
I am somewhat more pessimistic than this. As everyone seems to agree these days, urban warfare is the toughest form. And civilians are concentrated in the urban areas. Therefore Saddam's best defense seems as if it would be to hold onto urban Baghdad at all costs. Counter to this in my estimation is embodied by the expression "we own the night". That would seem to imply that the time needed to control Baghdad would be regulated by the need to hold position without advancing during daylight hours, to minimize troop and civilian casualties. I would think the measure of success would be a comparison with someplace such as Beirut. That is, anything short of total destruction of Baghdad could be viewed as a success, at least by military terms. Not to cast aspersions-- just one line item in the necessary cost of war.
However, yes, obviously, they are much different. We are talking concrete (not mud) and modernized bunker-type tunnels more like those of Nazi headquarters. I'm convinced if we get inside one or two of these, because of his need to be mobile, it would lead to all others. Even if he blows one, you could probably dig through pretty quickly. And he can't blow all of them. So this is not at all like Vietnam.
But this is the last resort---it's all moot when Saddam, his sons, and one or two of his top thugs are room temperature. You cannot convince me that many of these people will continue fighting for a "regime" that exists only in their minds.
I suppose I had booby traps in mind, along with lack of a quick escape route.
I disagree. Someone else posted yesterday that the way to do this is to clear a zone, move the people out, check them thoroughly, then readmit the "free Iraq" loyalists to the cleared zone. At this point you would need the "free Iraq" people close by to help clear people in and out.
Clearing a zone to begin with is, I would think, the hardest part.
But this is the last resort---it's all moot when Saddam, his sons, and one or two of his top thugs are room temperature. You cannot convince me that many of these people will continue fighting for a "regime" that exists only in their minds.
I would not be so optimistic. Support for Saddam crosses national boundaries, and is common to many Arabs in the region. But what it really is, I think, is a cameraderie based on common ethnic, linguistic, religious, economic, and political ties. In such an environment, killing Saddam will probably elevate him to martyr status, without necessarily resolving immediately all the issues that gave rise to the cameraderie to begin with. Some Iraqi leader in exile such as Khoumeni could even pop up. I don't like it, but that is how I see it. Although I do agree that it would be nice if the local population were to give up the fight after Saddam was gone.
Is someone reading FR?
Your point is at least the 2nd time a Japanese reporter has asked a point blank question at CENTCOM briefing and gotten a non-response. The other was a question about which did Iraq receive technical assistance with their anti-shipping mines that were found their ports. These are intelligent questions receiving a lot of silence unlike the really dumb and insulting questions we normally hear from the world press.
Do you think CentCom should be giving up strategy and tactics because a reporter asks an intelligent question? The Japanese appear to have their neurons firing, while the remainder of the (mostly ignorant) press are more interested in propaganda shots at the U.S. -- but that doesn't mean they deserve to have their questions answered.
If the north is the heavens, then I say, "look to the skies!"
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.