Posted on 07/29/2002 1:07:54 AM PDT by kattracks
WASHINGTON, Jul 29, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- The Bush administration is considering taking Baghdad and other key Iraqi centers first in the event of an invasion of that country, the New York Times reports Monday.This "inside-out" approach, as the strategy has been dubbed, would aim to disrupt Iraq's potential use of its weapons of mass destruction and topple or kill Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The pros and cons of the plan are being discussed, but have not been presented to President Bush or senior members of his national security team, the Times said. Senior administration and Defense Department officials said other alternatives were also being considered.
Officials told the Times it may be possible to hit Iraq's centralized command-and-control system in which mid-level officers are not taught to improvise. Those mid-level officers may not fire weapons of mass destruction if they fear Saddam has been killed.
The Times said the plan would require less than 250,000 troops and would appeal to neighboring Arab states whose bases the United States would want to use in the event of a war. Most Arab states have opposed an attack on Iraq.
The Times said, however, something near the 250,000 figure might have to be deployed anyway, to ensure any forces dropped into Baghdad are not become isolated.
Saddam's elite troops surround the city, which is filled with antiaircraft batteries, the Times said. The Times said any new attack of "Iraq would probably include intense air attacks followed by a combined airborne and ground assault on strategic targets."
The Defense Department did not comment on the report.
But the plan has some supporters on Capitol Hill.
"There is a divergence of views on how can one best diminish the prospect that he uses weapons of mass destruction, with any efficacy," said Senator Joseph Biden Jr., D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden said he had not been briefed on the plan.
He told the Times: "That is where the argument for an inside-out operation gains credibility. There is a diminished possibility that he will use chemical or biological weapons."
The operation is expected to be mostly U.S.-run, with Britain contributing significant forces.
Copyright 2002 by United Press International.
Can you say "Canary Trap"? I knew you could ;))).
<straight face>Hi, Saddam! How are you this morning? </straight face>
It's sanctioned by nobody. It is a thinly desguised leak, however. It is designed to make Saddam pull in his horns around Baghdad so that the rest of the country will be relatively easy to overrun. Believe me, the guys at the Pentagon have already relearned the lessons of Operation MARKET GARDEN. But they are betting that Saddam doesn't know that.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Xenophon lead the retreat of 10,000 Greek Mercenaries who had to fight their way up the river from near present Bagdad and over the mountains to the Black Sea in 401 BCE.
So9
Good call. I'll bet that's exactly what it is.
Arnhem may have been a disaster, but the Germans did succeed in taking Crete with paratroopers and airborne troops. It was a close-run thing, and they suffered heavy losses, but they did succeed.
True. Crete was a stunning success, as was Narvik. Eban Emael was another outstanding feat of arms by the Luftwaffe's Fallschrimjaeger. Our own troops did well at St. Mere-Eglise and made a daring go of it at Market-Garden itself, as did Britain's Pegasus Division.
However, what happened to the Pegasus Division is instructive in regard to the use of airborne troops in an urban environment.
An assault on Baghdad proper would almost certainly involve siezing the airfields around Baghdad and driving on the city center. That's if we follow the New York Times Leak Plan and dive into Baghdad with guns blazing. However, we have to have some certainty that the population will not oppose us and Saddam and his high command will escape to fight another day.
It may work. Personally, I prefer the overkill approach. Armor. Heavy air. Mobile Infanty. Air assault. Artillery. I say we use all the arrows in our quiver to convince the Iraqi general staff that they have no chance. Then it will be so much easier for them to accept an offer they can't refuse.
Basing a whole operation on a tactic is not something that reassures me.
Let's do it big, and do it right.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
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.