U.S. says forces closing in, Saddam defiant

Reuters | 3/24/03 | Nadim Ladki

[Illbay]

Here's my amateurish take on this "skirting concentrations of troops."

I'm assuming that they aren't just leaving them alone, are they?

Would it not be advisable--assuming that these troops concentrations haven't visibly surrendered--to hit the **** out of them from the air and with artillery, and break them apart? Then they can be "mopped up," captured or whatever, as they stream away from their concentration areas.

Those with REAL military knowledge ("though I'm plucky and adventury") please opine.

[Illbay]

Of what units is the "U.S. V Corps" comprised?

[Maceman]

I can't help noticing that Reuters has taken to calling the coalition forces "invaders" in most of its articles.

This from an outfit that wouldn't refer to the 9-11 hijackers as "terrorists" on the grounds that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Hey Reuters -- one man's "invader" is another man's liberator. How about THAT?

[Grand Old Partisan]

Reuters is owned by Arabs.

[San Jacinto]

Reuters seems convinced that saddam is both alive and in charge---or is this just Reuters' wishful thinking again?

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

The objective is BAGHDAD not the obliteration of cities in between. You should keep in mind the standard strategy is to go around fortified cities. The forces are fixed in place and can't do much.

McArthur used the same strategy in the Pacific. He went around the islands that held large opposing forces and attacked those that were lightly held. The objective being to establish bases close to Japan from which to conduct air attacks.

[Mugwump]

"Those with REAL military knowledge ("though I'm plucky and adventury") please opine."

Sorry. Can't tell a Mauser rifle from a javelin... :-)

[shhrubbery!]

A defiant President Saddam Hussein said on Monday invaders sent to topple him were trapped in Iraq after five days of war

Or this time reference correct, or is this just bad editing?

I heard there were no time references in Saddam's latest 'speech.'

[Illbay]

But can you tell me every detail of Caractacus's Uniform?

[Illbay]

I realize this, but "Island Hopping" is one thing--the troops on those Islands couldn't very easily come out and attack.

Don't these pockets of Iraqi troops in the rear areas represent at threat that has to be dealt with? Don't misunderstand: I know there is a plan in place for this, I'm just wondering what it might be.

[Salvation]

**Saddam defiant**

Which Saddam?

[Salvation]

**Saddam defiant**

Which Saddam?

[dighton]

When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at.

[Alas Babylon!]

Iraqi forces on Sunday attacked and killed U.S. forces holding two strategic bridges across the Euphrates River there, stalling advancing armour waiting to cross at that point.

Oh, give me a break, Reuters! Killed US Forces? All of them?

[kattracks]

Desperation is overtaking Reuters.

[marshmallow]

I think the "Decapitation Attack" on day 1 is the clue.

Rather than adopting a "bottom up" approach, and attempting to neutralize or eliminate every military unit before arriving at the seat of leadership, they want try a "top down" strategy to capture the capital and eliminate the Iraqi leadership in the hope that those troops remaining in the field will simply capitulate and cease fighting for a lost cause.

The hope would be that this strategy may be quicker, less bloody and less draining on both military resources and the occupation of personnel with the capture and supervision of POWs.

We'll see if that turns out to be true.

[Paraclete]

Just like the Wehrmacht didn't hit the "Maginot line" head on. Baghdad is the prize and the key. Imagine where this operation would be if we were still consolidating Basra instead of thrusting to Baghdad.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

Sorry. Can't tell a Mauser rifle from a javelin...

But can you tell a Mauser from a Carcano??

[San Jacinto]

Those with REAL military knowledge... please opine.

I don't qualify in that I have No real military knowledge. Nevertheless, I do have some concerns.

Are our supply lines vulnerable? Have we underestimated the opposition that remains to the south of our main force as it engages the RG near Baghdad? Is there a danger of becoming bogged down in or near Baghdad and then not having a secure supply line to our forces? If this happens, does our force have the manpower to suffer sustained attrition and still accomplish the objective? Would it have been better to establish a firm, substantial base in Western Iraq, including a C-130 type landing runway and readily available close air support assets, before engaging the RG at Baghdad?

Just some thoughts--not really opinions. Hopefully, the very aggressive "Rush to Baghdad" strategy we have adopted will prove to be well founded. Perhaps we will dispatch the RG and the Baghdad population will quickly fall in with us. It seems to me that the next 72 hours will be the key. If things don't go as well as we hope, then perhaps there is a Plan B that involves setting up a large base west of the city, and using sustained air power to soften up the enemy. There is no question in my mind that we can beat them. My question is whether we can do so before the Arab uprising gains clout and the liberal media sways domestic opinion.