Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General
Reuters ^ | 3-24-03

Posted on 03/24/2003 7:37:15 PM PST by oursacredhonor

LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S.-led force in Iraq risks as many as 3,000 casualties in the battle for Baghdad and Washington has underestimated the number of troops needed, a top former commander from the 1991 Gulf War said on Monday.

Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said the U.S.-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" as it pushes north toward the Iraqi capital.

"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday.

"In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war.

"So if they (the Americans and British) are unwilling to face up to that, we may have a difficult time of it taking down Baghdad and Tikrit up to the north west."

McCaffrey said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had misjudged the nature of the conflict. Asked if Rumsfeld made a mistake by not sending more troops to start the offensive, McCaffrey replied: "Yes, sure. I think everybody told him that."

"I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.

U.S. forces have advanced more than 200 miles into Iraqi territory since the start of the war and are beginning to confront an elite division of the Republican Guards deployed to defend the capital.

"So it ought to be a very dicey two to three day battle out there." McCaffrey said of the confrontation with the Republican Guards.

He said his personal view was that the invading troops would "take them (the Iraqis) apart."

"But we've never done something like this with this modest a force at such a distance from its bases," he warned.

McCaffrey, a former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in Latin America, served overseas for 13 years and took part in four combat tours.

He twice received the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal for valor in the United States.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: battleforbaghdad; casualties; handwringers; mccaffrey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-203 next last
To: PhilDragoo
Maybe they have moved.
161 posted on 03/24/2003 9:22:43 PM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
That's very kind of you...

His name is Eric and he is a Staff Sergeant in the Army. It is unclear which unit he's attached to at this time (I'm not trying to be vague, he just wasn't allowed to tell us but he is based out of Ft. Bragg).

Prayers for his safety are much appreciated!
BB
162 posted on 03/24/2003 9:25:14 PM PST by BoomerBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
If the 4th ID can come up the north east finger of the red sea and unload in Jordan, and haul ass to the east they could make it just in time?
163 posted on 03/24/2003 9:25:53 PM PST by dtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: NeilSmith
"ChickenHawk is a term of art used by the anti war left and right to describe pro war "neo cons" who have never served in the armed forces."

It's even worse than that. Look for further refinements. I hear the comments at work, some from people that were ready to leave for Canada if they were drafted:

So, did you serve in the military?

Ok, was it during wartime?

Ok, did you "see combat"?

Pathetic. Pretty soon, (from a sarcastic standpoint), anyone who was not in a combat arms branch, during wartime, and did not kill someone, will be considered a chicken-hawk by the anti-war left.

164 posted on 03/24/2003 9:26:30 PM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
I hope you're right. I'm probably just a victim of too much TV news.
165 posted on 03/24/2003 9:28:36 PM PST by G-Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

Comment #166 Removed by Moderator

To: diamond6
Good movie and I believe a true story, no?
167 posted on 03/24/2003 9:28:49 PM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: John H K
Instead of surrenders and POWs a lot of troops simply went home.

i disagree, there is animosity since 1991 and they arent very pleased with us...at least the more militant ones. My assumption is they are fighting, surrendering, coming out and doing potshots at our guys again and then re-surrendering, saying "Saddam bad, Americans, good...." Sent home to repeat the steps all over again.

Muslims play the game this way.

168 posted on 03/24/2003 9:31:04 PM PST by smith288 (Visit my gallery http://www.ejsmithweb.com/fr/hollywood/hollywood.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: John H K
"3,000 casualties would likely be somewhere in the range of 600-800 killed. Not many cities with a population of 6 million have ever been taken from a hostile force with attacking casualties that low. None, in fact."

But keep in mind that two years ago if I had told you that the WTC towers would collapse within an hour of blasts during the business day, and only 3000 of the ~100,000(?) normal occupants would perish, you would probably tell me that it would require divine intervention to keep the numbers that low.
169 posted on 03/24/2003 9:32:19 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
Oh, now, come on -- think of how many carpet bags would fit in a B-1 -- you might have stumbled onto the best psy ops possibility yet.
170 posted on 03/24/2003 9:33:15 PM PST by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I assume that one who uses the term "chicken hawk" is referring to a person who did not serve in combat (or perhaps one who didn’t serve at all, or who got a deferment), but who -- in a position of authority -- is advocating or implementing combat.

I have never understood that position.

One of the tenets of our government is that CIVILIANS are in charge of the military. Of course the president is expected to appoint people with military experience to certain positions, and he is to consider their advice and suggestions, but he makes the overall-view decisions.

A president may or may not have combat (or military) experience, but combat or service are neither legal nor moral requirements.

An analogy might be:
- Since Bush has never had an abortion, he therefore isn’t QUALIFIED to
..speak or act on that issue.

171 posted on 03/24/2003 9:38:34 PM PST by Diddley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Diddley
I agree with you, I don't use the term because I think it is senseless. While I prefer a CIC with military experience, I would prefer that experience be as an enlisted man. :-}

Go figure.

172 posted on 03/24/2003 9:40:51 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
I'm just kidding with you. You are fast. Good show!
173 posted on 03/24/2003 9:43:44 PM PST by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

Comment #174 Removed by Moderator

To: Fury
I believe so.
175 posted on 03/24/2003 9:45:17 PM PST by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: G-Bob
I think so. Are technology and air superiority do make a HUGE difference. We don't need to have anywhere near equal numbers to win the war.
176 posted on 03/24/2003 9:46:30 PM PST by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

Comment #177 Removed by Moderator

Comment #178 Removed by Moderator

To: BoomerBob
What does he do? Is he infantry?
179 posted on 03/24/2003 9:51:05 PM PST by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
We're on their turf, and this is when it helps them more than it helps us.

Don't forget: They also have had years to prepare for this invasion. They will have a few tricks up their sleeves.
180 posted on 03/24/2003 10:02:05 PM PST by kosciuszko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-203 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson