Baghdad siege is hours away

Herald Sun (Australia) ^ | 03.25.2003 | Nick Papps

[SolidSupplySide]

ALLIED forces may be fighting on the streets of Baghdad today.

A British defence source said the ground attack on Iraq's capital was imminent. "We're looking towards Monday night, Tuesday for the ground offensive on Baghdad," the source said.

Last night Iraqi 4WDs mounted with machineguns roamed the streets of Baghdad and mortar positions were set up in the south of the city.

Elite Republican Guard forces have dug in around the capital and sandbags have fortified fighting positions.

"(Baghdad) will be a tough fight," the British defence source said. "It will be interesting to see how they play it. The Republican Guard are going to put up a proper fight."

Defence experts have warned up to 12,000 allied forces may be killed in the battle for Baghdad.

One expert said yesterday a force of up to 120,000 soldiers would be needed to capture the Iraqi capital and 10 per cent could die in the fight.

Australian National University expert Alan Dupont said allied forces would face horrendous conditions in a street-by-street battle.

"It will be the first significant urban battle since World War II," he said.

"The allies will hope they don't have to go into Baghdad. If they do, it will be quite bloody and protracted."

He said allies would face Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians and the allied technological advantage would be limited by urban warfare.

Allied armoured forces are expected to be on the outskirts of Baghdad today and the battle could start immediately.

But Mr Dupont said the allies may pause outside Baghdad for a week so 120,000 allied combat troops could assemble.

During that time, key Iraqi command centres and military leaders would be attacked by precision bombing and clandestine elite soldiers.

If, after about a week, there are no signs of Iraqi forces surrendering, allied forces may starve Baghdad into submission or secure it sector by sector.

Yesterday former US Marine Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold said urban fighting was the last option.

"No prudent, experienced military commander looks at fighting in the built-up areas as anything but the worst of possible choices," he said.

"The advantages that accrue to a defender in a city are that he fights from terrain that is very favourable."

Mr Dupont said that faced with the prospect of so many soldiers being killed, US military leaders may push for a huge bombing of Baghdad to kill Iraqi resistance.

He said this would result in thousands of civilian deaths.

"If you're going to take 5000-10,000 casualties, it may be a better option to bomb certain parts of the city."

[angelwings49]

PRAY!!!

[Illbay]

ALLIED forces may be fighting on the streets of Baghdad today.

Thanks for the heads-up, but I'll wait for confirmation from DEBKA.

[swarthyguy]

Ya think? How 'bout pounding them for a few days instead and wait for more soldiers and equipment.

[AntiGuv]

Pardon my skepticism, but it took nearly two days to make the 50 km or so from Najaf to Karbala. Somehow I don't see us making the 50 km from Karbala to the streets of Baghdad in a couple hours...

[SolidSupplySide]

Somehow I don't see us making the 50 km from Karbala to the streets of Baghdad in a couple hours...

A siege by definition means that coalition troops will not enter Baghdad. A siege is an encirclement. Now how big the radius of that circle is can be debated.

FWIW, my suspicion is that coalition troops will not fight on the streets of Baghdad at all.

[Walkin Man]

Defence experts have warned up to 12,000 allied forces may be killed in the battle for Baghdad. One expert said yesterday a force of up to 120,000 soldiers would be needed to capture the Iraqi capital and 10 per cent could die in the fight.

I find this REAL hard to believe! Any American General that gets 12,000 KIA fighting in Baghdad should be hung for treason! If the fighting is this horrendous, we should call in B-52's with good ole dumb iron bombs and carpet-bomb the muslim savages back into the stone age and leave the rubble as a warning to all of allah's insane children!

[aristeides]

100,000 Russians died in the Battle of Berlin.

[ruready4eternity]

MARK FIDEL COOLES (AKBAR) The Muslim BAstrd Killed Our BOYS> HOW MANY MORE ARE BEHIND THE PATRIOT MISSLES KILLING OUR TROOPS > SABBATOGE?

[aristeides]

Has that sandstorm hit the Baghdad region?

[airborne]

Send in the MOABs! Shock and awe, my ass! FIRE and BRIMSTONE!

[Right Brother]

I'm with you. 12,000 American dead? Screw that. Level Baghdad and whoever comes out of the rubble waving a white flag will be considered liberated.

[the_doc]

All we need to do is broadcast the message for civilians to pull back a mile and drop a MOAB.

[don-o]

Defence experts have warned up to 12,000 allied forces may be killed in the battle for Baghdad.

Balderdash.

[Walkin Man]

Do you think the Iraqi troops are as tough as your average German soldier was in WW2?

HA!

[garbanzo]

There will be no ground battle for Baghdad. All the people making Stalingrad comparisons forget that Hitler (thankfully) didn't have access to satellites, advance signal intelligence, and precision bombers. The siege will last until we pinpoint the command bunkers and destroy them.

[stylin19a]

"If you're going to take 5000-10,000 casualties, it may be a better option to bomb certain parts of the city."

yep....the north,south,east and west parts.

[Sofa King]

"Defence experts have warned up to 12,000 allied forces may be killed in the battle for Baghdad.

One expert said yesterday a force of up to 120,000 soldiers would be needed to capture the Iraqi capital and 10 per cent could die in the fight."

I tend to be cynical regarding 'experts'. I've seen so many of them in the past who were so wrong about so many things.

[Spruce]

The REAL "Shackinaw" is about to commence!