Baghdad Tough Turf For Military

New York Daily News ^ | August 25, 2002 | Richard Sisk

[robowombat]

New York Daily News August 25, 2002

Baghdad Tough Turf For Military

Army, marines shun big-city combat

By Richard Sisk, Daily News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - A march on Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein would violate the cardinal rule for U.S. infantry fighting in big cities: Don't do it.

Army and Marine military doctrine and the bloody history of the U.S. in urban warfare - from Atlanta and Manila to Hue and Mogadishu - warn against taking high casualties in the "short-sword war fight" of street combat.

The doctrine spelled out in current and past field manuals advises commanders to bypass or isolate cities unless their capture is deemed vital.

The preference is to meet an enemy on open terrain, where the overwhelming U.S. advantages in maneuverable, high-tech armor and air power can dominate.

Those advantages would disappear in the narrow confines of Baghdad's street grid, which is split by the wide Tigris River.

But one of the various war plans leaking from the Pentagon - dubbed the "inside-out" plan - would have U.S. airborne troops dropping on the city of 5million to seize command centers and cut off dictator Saddam Hussein from his army.

The plan relies on estimates from Iraqi opposition groups and defectors that the Iraqi Army of 400,000 would not fight or would offer only token resistance to a U.S. attack, which would be likely to trigger a popular revolt against Saddam.

The view that the U.S. would win with ease has been echoed by top Bush administration advisers, including Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, both members of the civilian Defense Policy Review Board. Adelman has described war with Iraq as a cakewalk.

But military analyst Tony Cordesman told the Senate this month that it would be "dangerous and irresponsible" to start a war on a guess by "armchair" strategists - who never served in the military - that the Iraqis would not fight.

Grim Scenario

Army Field Manual 3-06.11 on Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain, issued last February, paints a grim scenario for an attacking army forced to fight at close quarters in a defended city.

"Some of this combat can be quite violent for short periods," the manual says, adding that to avoid civilian casualties such combat would involve "the conscious acceptance by U.S. forces of the need to focus and sometimes restrain the combat power used."

Big-city battles "can be casualty-intensive for both sides," the manual says. Fighting would be on the squad and platoon level, with young lieutenants and sergeants forced to make grim decisions on their own, with radio links to commanders limited by buildings and power lines.

The enemy might use human shields, and the risk of civilian deaths must be "balanced with mission accomplishment and the requirement to provide force protection," the manual says.

U.S. forces would face battle in "three-dimensional terrain," with the enemy fighting from the rooftops and the street, and popping up from cellars and sewers.

"Air power may not be of any assistance to an infantry force fighting from buildings," the manual continues.

"An adept enemy will use the technique of 'hugging' American forces to deny them use of their overwhelming firepower."

In such combat, U.S. tanks and armored fighting vehicles "may not necessarily be of much use," the manual said, and "soldiers can expect booby traps on doorways and windows, and on entrances to underground passageways."

At the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory in Quantico, Va., Maj. Dan Sullivan would not speculate on Iraq, but he said U.S. forces must be prepared for sustained urban combat in future operations.

"Our enemies, unfortunately, aren't that stupid," said Sullivan, of Dix Hills, L.I. "They're looking at how to mitigate the strength of the U.S., and they know if they array a conventional force against us in open terrain, they're gonna get shellacked."

[Khepera]

This is why we should bulldoze or otherwise flatten Baghdad.

[Wright is right!]

Well, that settles it, then. We shouldn't attempt a regime change in Afghanistan, because no one can fight the Afghanis in their cold, mountainous terrain. Look at what happened to the Russians. No, if we go into Afghanistan, we will find ourselves mired in a Viet Nam-style quagmire that we can never win.

What? Oh, never mind.

Michael

[SoCal Pubbie]

Does the word siege ring any bells?

[Hugin]

Does the word Hiroshima ring any bells?

[tcostell]

I agree. Nuke them from 90,000 feet.

[LarryM]

Give Ariel Sharon a call. The IDF fought very successfully in urban areas.

[hgro]

Do like what was done in middle ages warfare, hold Bagdad under siege until they see the light.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Saddam thinks we'll re-fight WW II on their turff.

[July 4th]

Another wussy hit-piece on a potential war. Expect them to pick up in volume and intensity over the next month or so.

[section9]

Hackworth put this silliness to rest.

You liberate the rest of the country and proclaim a provisional republic run by dissident Iraqis or a restoration of the Hashemite monarchy.

Put a ring around Baghdad.

Cut off water and power. No one goes in. Anyone who comes out has to surrender.

Slowly, we close the ring towards Saddam in the Fuhrerbunker as we make deals with regimental commanders.

Saddam is so delusional its not funny.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[AmericanInTokyo]

You oughtta be runnin' one of the 'shops' ramping up for this action...

[stalin]

Are we pussies or what ?

I know that our servicmen arn't but our politicians are cowards.

We only have two choices if the Iraqi's fight in the streets and we want America to be secure.

Blow up or buldoze every building that resists ; or fight house to house. Personally , I prefer the first choice. The Isreali's lost dozens of men trying to save palestinian lives and that was a relatively small engagment with an enemy that wasn't well armed.

It's unfortunate for the inocent Iraqi wonam and children that would be killed but it is Sadam that is responsible. We should not loose American lives trying to save Iraqi's.

It is imperative that we take Iraq by force not just change the government.

The Iraqi army will fold in front of American troops and remove Sadam for us before we can get to him and it is unlikely that there will be much house to house fighting even if that's what Sadam tries to do.

We must occupy Iraq for a time after the war like we occupied Japan and Germany after WWII. If we don't we might as well leave Sadam in power. Just changing governments in Iraq andnot occupying it very likely will be even worse than leaving Sadam in power.

[beekeeper]

There are a lot of assumptions on both sides, including the Iraqis. Yes, urban warfare is tough, but you only need look at the Afghan war to get a semi decent model. That was the plan of the Talban and it did not work. What is necessary is to defeat one of these fortified cities and the rest will follow because of the psychological impact. Selectively pound the daylights out of the first including lots of psy warfare. When that happens, lots of people close to Saddam will be having second thoughts and it will be over quickly.

[philosofy123]

Did you see the liberated Afghani women? They are still dressed with cover head to toes! They are going to the semetery to seek miricals from the dead Arab Islamists! Give it a rest, these savages, and their barbaric religion should be isolated away from the civilized world. Let them kill each others or even eat each others. We should not get in their way!

[SoCal Pubbie]

This was, by and large, the prefered method of warfare in The Middle Ages. Combat on the open field was too unpredictable and the loss of your entire army in one day too risky. You simply surrounded your enemy's castle and hoped he ran out of food before you did.

I have no idea what tactics will actually be employed but this srticle is made of the same stuff as the Afghans as unbeatable warriors tripe we read last September.

[jpl]

Army and Marine military doctrine and the bloody history of the U.S. in urban warfare - from Atlanta and Manila to Hue and Mogadishu - warn against taking high casualties in the "short-sword war fight" of street combat.

That downtown Mogadishu battle that went so poorly for us? 50-1 kill ratio, U.S.A. And it would have probably been closer to 100-1 had Slick Willie approved armor from the get-go.

[goldstategop]

All of this assumes we do the bulk of the fighting in Baghdad. The reality is we're going to rely on friendly allied forces to take the city and Saddam's army and Republican Guards will turn on the dictator if their own survival's on the line. While an Iraq campaign won't be a piece of cake, its going to be a lot easier than the so called armchair experts have predicted. The British reoccupied independent Iraq in 1941 with ease after a pro-Nazi regime seized power there and what with the technology we have at our command it'll be a lot smoother than in the 1940s. We won't have to worry about getting sucked into a Vietnam style quaqmire cause we're going to make sure we won't play by Saddam's rules; to the contrary we'll see to it he plays by OUR rules. We're going to win with minimal casualties. Saddam thinks he's seen our playbook but he's just getting set up for a fall and so are all the talking heads who think we're going to fight the war exactly as its been leaked to the media. Yeah right! ;-)

[Gritty]

More hand-wringing from the usual effete crowd that tries to pass itself off as "military experts". Don't worry. They'll be proven wrong by actual events, just like they were in Afghanistan.

Imagine if we had looked at Germany and Japan this way in WWII. We would have stayed in Hawaii and Norfolk and sucked our widdle thumbs until they finally came for us!

[arthurus]

The timing, initiation, and progress of the Arab War will come as surprises to the commentators, doomsayers and boosters alike.It will surprise me in that I do not expect any particular scenario, though I do make suggestions about what might happen to get folks to think a bit outside of the straight lines.

We have intelligent men in charge of this. They are not interested in perfecting the tactics of the past nor will they telegraph intentions to the enemy.

The leaks and speeches and even the public opposition (Mostly from Republicans- note) is part of the conduct of the war.

How do we know that Saddam is even a primary target? Deception is the essence of successfull warfighting.