Projection on Fall Of Hussein Disputed

Washington Post ^ | 12-18-2002 | Thomas E. Ricks

[bigaln2]

With war possible soon in Iraq, the chiefs of the two U.S. ground forces are challenging the belief of some senior Pentagon civilians that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will fall almost immediately upon being attacked and are calling for more attention to planning for worst-case scenarios, Defense Department officials said.

[Fusion]

This article pinpoints with uncanny accuracy the current Pentagon/Hill debate about the US war plan to invade Iraq. The so-called "Hasty Mobilisation" plan now scheduled for a February launch developed outside the traditional military structure --severely unnerving many career military officers.

Based on 1970's Soviet operational options for attacking China with a (then) modern-day blitzkrieg it envisions substantial American casualties during a furious and (for 20/21st century armies) aggressive attack. The modern day Bismarck -- George W Bush -- demanding and receiving a post-modern assault plan that redefines conventional Western warfare.

In many ways this attack eerily similar to the German rampage through the Ardennes in May 1940 from both a military and inter-military political stance. The most significant airdrop since the Legion in Zaire in 1978 is projected at an almost 20% casualty rate -- yet the attack is expected to collapse Hussein within a week.

The American president takes a huge gamble with this plan but it is the right move.

Faint heart ne'er won fair lady...

The forces of freedom on the move. Europe trembles.

[laredo44]

is projected at an almost 20% casualty rate

20% of how many? I seriously doubt we're planning anything with a 20% expected casualty rate - unless it's some 5 man operation.

[The Great Satan]

It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that anthrax, positioned on US soil, ready to kill millions of Americans if we try to take Hussein out. Everything else is just blather.

[kms61]

Large airborne drops historically have had up to 10% casualties from the jump alone, if you count. With that many people jumping onto an unprepared zone, you're gonna have a certain number of broken legs, dinged ankles, tree landings, etc.

Follow that up with a firefight and I can see 20% as being not outside the realm of possibility, depending on how stiff the resistance is.

[kms61]

previous post should have read:

Large airborne drops historically have had up to 10% casualties from the jump alone. With that many people jumping onto an unprepared zone, you're gonna have a certain number of broken legs, dinged ankles, chute malfunctions, tree landings, etc.

Follow that up with a firefight and I can see 20% as being not outside the realm of possibility, depending on how stiff the resistance is.

[laredo44]

Sorry, I misread casualty for fatality. Thank you for the clarification. But I still can't get a feel for the total number you are talking about. 20% of what? If we're planning to do this with 5000 troops with 1000 with casulaties as you describe, maybe. But if we're going to have 20,000 casualties with a significant number of those fatal, I just don't think that is going to happen - my opinion.

By the way, "tree landings"? How many of our guys are gonna hit that one tree? 8^)

[Movemout]

Hmmmm.... a decade later Hussein has units manned at the 50% level, no spare parts, keeps all units but the most loyal away from the capitol, and has two no-fly zones that he can't control. Why does the doomsday crowd think they have credibility?

[Bombard]

I think 5% is more likely. I do not see an airborne drop on to a heavyly defended area. The USA will hit them where they are not.

[CatoRenasci]

Actually, if you consider that there are maybe 10-12,000 who'd actually jump with the XVIIIth Airborne Corps, a casualty (not fatality) list of 1,000 or so from the initial jump and 1,000 or so from initial combat operations doesn't seem either unreasonable or unacceptable. Combat means casualties if there is any resistance.

[mikegi]

Large airborne drops historically have had up to 10% casualties from the jump alone. With that many people jumping onto an unprepared zone, you're gonna have a certain number of broken legs, dinged ankles, chute malfunctions, tree landings, etc.

I'm not a military expert but I imagine that we will pick a few strategically located airbases, bomb the hell outta them, then airdrop a small number of troops to take over the bases. Afterwards, the majority of the troops and equipment could fly in on C-17s, avoiding a jump of thousands. The whole thing would watched over by Special Forces observers around the bases. If any organized resistance emerges, send in the F-16s and A-10s.

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

The whole thing would watched over by Special Forces observers around the bases. If any organized resistance emerges, send in the F-16s and A-10s.

AC-130s more likely