Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General

Reuters ^ | 3-24-03

[WOSG]

it's not a matter of overconfidence IMHO... the serpent's head has to be cut off ... or medusa's head, if you will.

You dont need 250,000 troops to do that ... a commando raid on saddam's bunker can do it.

The 250,000 are needed to get close enough to be ABLE to have the commando raid.

If Saddam can screen his way with WMDs or with AK-47-carrying fedayeen, it slows us down. it doesnt change the outcome, unless we get so bogged down in the city we cannot even move.

But I have to think that a division of marines could take on thugs in cars and with RPGs .... especially at night.

[WOSG]

right, but the # of troops in Iraq count is ...???

what, 120,000 or so? the rest of 250,000 is support, navy, air etc.

[sav95667]

Reading the posts in this and other threads about the coming battle for Baghdad all I can picture in my mind is that black monument in Washington with 58,000 names on it. What a waste!

I sure hope we have a good plan, and haven't under estimated the Iraqi's will to defend Baghdad, which I think they will do "any way they can". What have they got to lose?

[WOSG]

I think the problem is 1 and 2 have NOT HAPPENED.
Saddam's regime is still running Baghdad and spewing their bile and keeping troops in line.

[WOSG]

It's an unfair slam.

they gave Gen Franks whatever he needed. in late Feb he said he had enough to go.

[WOSG]

how much of 6 mechanized divisions will be left after the air power is done with them? that's the Q.

Rumsfeld seems to have been proven quite right in Afghanistan. He disproved sekptics.

And over 100,000 troops is not a 'light' force.

We have less numerical disadvantage than Alexander the Great had in his great victory in the same general vicinity against Darius.

Lastly, it is quite clear we are going about this in a way to minimize casualties.

[montag813]

However- as head of the War on Drugs- he said we couldn't win it before he even started so he might just be a pessimist by nature - not a soothsayer!

Or just a realist. Thanks for the info.

[montag813]

Nah. This is a real soldier. He blew up 160 Iraqi vehicles AFTER the ceasefire in GW1, 60 of those were T-72 tanks. Schwartzcoft was worried that they couldn't get him to stop. There was a big investigation after the war and his actions were deemed justifable. (Whew!)

WOW! Too bad we don't have him now. There never should have been a ceasefire.

[CyberAnt]

Well ... if it's any comfort to anybody - war techniques have changed slightly in the last 12 years. And ... don't forget we have a different CIC than the Ex-General had.

[blam]

"WOW! Too bad we don't have him now. There never should have been a ceasefire."

I re-checked my sources. It was 640 vehicles destroyed after the ceasefire.

[BoomerBob]

No not infantry... He was originally attached to an intelligence battalion in the 82nd but we don't know if his group is still in Kuwait or if they moved out with other detachments. His unit did psy-ops in Kosovo so I suspect they are doing a similar function but that's just a guess. My sister-in-law talked with him four or five days before the start of the war at which time he noted they would be out of communication for awhile (understandably). From what we've been told they can receive snail-mail but that is it for now.

[Boot Hill]

John H K says:   "Not many cities with a population of 6 million have ever been taken from a hostile force with attacking casualties that low [3,000]. None, in fact."

While Soviet WW II ROE and equipment were vastly different than wielded by our military today, still one interesting comparison that supports your contention, would be the Battle of Berlin during the closing days of WW II which resulted in 305,000 Russian casualties.

Today, similar casualties would produce a death toll approximating that of all the men we lost during the Vietnam War. Even a tenth of that would be staggering to the American people. Yet, without the fall or unconditional surrender of Baghdad, we lose.

--Boot Hill

[demlosers]

The 21,000 soldiers of the 4th Infantry Division, based at Fort Hood, Tex., could begin arriving at staging areas in Kuwait almost immediately. But the 35 cargo ships laden with the division's heavy armor and equipment will not complete their journey from the Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal and Red Sea, and begin arriving in Kuwait until the first week of April at the earliest, defense officials said yesterday.

Now I've heard the many of those ships have passed the Suez Canal about 5 days ago. I know it doesn't have to take that long to get from the Red Sea to a Kuwaiti port.

It is aproximately 3,600 status miles from the Gulf of Suez to Kuwait by sea. By averaging 20 knots, a common speed for ships, they can cover 480 nautical miles in 24 hours. It is possible without any delay, the 4th ID's cargo ships can be docking in kuwaiti ports in 7 - 8 days from the Gulf of Suez. A week before this Washington ComPost article says.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

McCaffrey is a partisan democrat

That says it all. He's paving the way for Hillary's second-guessing.

And he was a lousey drug czar.

[sinkspur]

But I'm rather sick of hearing this stupid charge thrown around like it actually means something.

Sorry, but these jerkweeds who seem to focus only on the Jewish members of what they call "neo-cons" are going to be called on it.

[Illbay]

I think that one's political opinions and views can be criticized without reference to one's religion. If your rule is adopted, these people would be immune from such criticism.

I reserve the right to criticize, say, Joseph Liebermann or Barbra Streisand without being accused of anti-Semitism.

[sinkspur]

I reserve the right to criticize, say, Joseph Liebermann or Barbra Streisand without being accused of anti-Semitism.

You criticize Ted Kennedy, and Tom Daschle, and Michael Moore also.

I'm talking about those who conveniently only single out Jews.

I'm a firm believer that the Buchananites and Rockwellians and Raimondo-followers are part of an ugly strain of humanity that tries to hide behind political arguments when we all know what this is about.

[Illbay]

I have no use for those you mention, but I don't think that Buchanan in particular is "anti-Semitic."

It is not "anti-Semitic" to prefer the interests of the United States over those of Israel (and they are NOT in perfect alignment, no matter what some of the utopians here allege).

Buchanan is wrong on the issues, not because he is "racist" or whatever.

[TC Rider]

McCaffrey is out of the loop and should shut up.

[sinkspur]

Buchanan is wrong on the issues, not because he is "racist" or whatever.

Well, you're welcome to believe whatever you want about Buchanan.

He's got nearly fifteen years of columns that indicate an obsession with Jewish people. Maybe a little Hebrew kid beat him up when he was young. Whatever. He ought to shut up about Jews.