Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General

Reuters ^ | 3-24-03

[danzaroni]

casualties does NOT equal deaths. It includes wounded

Uh... I didn't realize this. Thank you for the education.

[John H K]

motexva,

Well, anything that takes you out of your unit for a period of time; anything where you're treated by a medic but you are back in combat an hour later isn't really counted as a casualty.

[BushMeister]

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.

I think you're wrong. There's always the French...and Paris.

[Porterville]

Another thing; maybe we are drawing out the Republican Gaurd by laying low and feigning uncertainty (not that we are, but the media always seems to be on the misunderestimated side).

So, the Rep. Gaurd gets boastfull and stick their heads out just an inch or two further, we enchourage this behavior and fan the flames of confidence; then smack!!!! We nail them in the open desert with a MOAB.

Hell, it worked on Gore and Daschle...why not Saddham??

[Cicero]

Yes, he was clinton's Drug Czar.

And the function of the office of the Drug Czar under clinton was to let the big drug cartel shipments through and just nail the little guys who neglected to pay clinton his percentage. In other words, eliminate the freelance competition. I don't know if McCaffrey knew that, or maybe he was just a bit thick.

[try phecta tom]

"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.

I've been worried about this 'overconfidence' thing as well. But to say that the most powerfull military in the world, facing guys who change uniforms, fake surrender, and use farmers to shoot down helicopters has somehow failed to 'grow' out of a world war II mentality is pure Barbara Streisand

yes, I hope they cut the bastards off before they re-enter Bagdad and then we have a big problem.

yes I know we have equipment and a plan in case of WMD.

Please, in your mind: picture rummy and madame all(notso)bright. See the difference? Feel better?

[FreedomCalls]

Iwo Jima: 6,318 U.S. Marines dead among the 25,581 casualties for a single island.

Okinawa: 12,000 Army, Navy, and Marines dead among 36,000 casualties in yet another battle in a larger war.

We've had casualties before. We'll have more before Baghdad is freed. It won't stop us.

[John H K]

Typically a rule of thumb for the US (hard to tell recently because the number of casualties in combat has been so low you get statistical anomalies) is about one soldier killed for every 3 wounded. However, with the constant advances in combat medical care, even for a city fight I suspect the ratio may go down to 1 killed for every 5-6 wounded.

[fiftymegaton]

If I am not mistaken Rumsfeld wanted to use 50 or 60,000 troops for this war and we now have something upwards of 250,000 in theater for this action. Gen. Franks's option was clearly the one chosen here not Rumsfeld's.

[oursacredhonor]

You are absolutely right. "Fatality" means dead. "Casualty" means dead, wounded, or missing.

[oldtimer]

We are fighting just like they did in the old Testament.

We can't make a call here, but wouldn't it be great to see the ACTION from our Lord and God, and his son Jesus.

[John Valentine]

Yes, Indeed.

[Dog Gone]

The Democrats need to get their stories straight. Either, like Bill Clinton, this is going to be a war with no US casualties (so when there are some, it's a failure), or the US is going to get slaughtered, like McCaffery is implying.

[John H K]

The French in World War II surrendered before German troops entered Paris.

In August-September 1914 the Germans suffered over a million casualties just trying to get near Paris...which they never entered.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I agree. Stop, rest, repair, resupply, reinforce, crush resistance behind you.

[cinFLA]

that figure still sounds kinda high.

Maybe the headline was a little sensational. BM said from "a couple to 3,000". Pretty safe estimate.

"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,"

[Arkinsaw]

Perhaps we can slow the pace down while we secure our supply lines, bomb the enemy lines,and get more troops.

Going static would have disadvantages of its own. It might be better just to pierce their line and make a bull rush for the center of Baghdad. Right into the middle of the rats nest. Or that might be bad.

I am still not discounting something like the left hook of the Gulf War. I am hoping that we are as surprised as the Iraqis at how this plan goes about. We have got smart people working on this and I am thinking that a straight on slugfest may not actually be the main event.

[what's up]

McCaffrey doesn't want Bush to win.

He wants his best buddy Bill back in office.

[rotorhawk]

He's talking to a different audience, mostly the planners at CENTCOM. One of his nightmare scenarios is coalition troops getting caught out in the open and unprepared during a chemical attack.

One of the humorous by lines to the Gulf War was that during Desert Shield you could always tell who was in the 24th Mech because his policy was that the 24th would wear the chemical suits all the time even though none of the other divisions were doing so. It was damn brutal wearing those chemical suits during Aug thru Nov but after awhile you didn't care about being covered in charcoal and didn't notice the suit so much anymore.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I agree. Stop, rest, repair, resupply, reinforce, crush resistance behind you. Let the coalition air power do it's job.