Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General

Reuters ^ | 3-24-03

[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.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

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 wonder who he means by everybody.

[John H K]

or the US is going to get slaughtered, like McCaffery is implying.

600-800 Coalition troops killed taking Baghdad isn't a slaughter; strikes me as the optimistic side of a realistic estimate.

[FRgal4u]

I agree with the assessment on Rummy...America, esp. Prez Bush put way too much faith into him...Rummy is playing a very dangerous game here...he put only just enough force in the theater and yet we still have to get the 62,000 troops from the 4th mech in place (which should be in place over Turkey)...there were noises of not having enough boots on the ground before the war starts...and yet, the politicians are playing with the unrealistic timetable...Rummy is a micromanager, smart, but abrasive and love to direct all the minor details in a plan...and worst yet, he has no experience in leading men in battles...

look at the rummy hyperbole...

1) decapitation - 2) lack of command and control 3) losing control 4) shock and awe 5) massive surrenderings and 6) happy iraqis to greet us...

how many of that came true? the next hyperbole is the precision bombs will do the job, light and mobile units is what we need, we own the night....

I sure hope rummy is not drunk with his own koolaid as I have friends and family serving in the theater now...I want them to come home safe and sound...

seriously, if this war goes badly, I really wanna hear what all those neocons who never served in military will say..the likes of Kistol, Wolfowitz and Perle...

maybe I am getting cold feet here, but the hubris, overconfidence from Rummy is what scares me the most...

[Blood of Tyrants]

Speaking of advances in combat medicine, have you heard of the clotting foam that can be sprayed on a wound and seal it up? Supposedly, it can stop even arterial bleeding.

[Lauratealeaf]

McCaffrey doesn't want Bush to win. He wants his best buddy Bill back in office.

Exactly. We have so many friends who had to serve under that ass in Panama. He was despised and for good reason.

[Arkinsaw]

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

If necessary yes, but if 3ID is still in great shape I say keep killing their Army. Going static would encourage the Iraqis and the press would have a field day with it. It also would give them time to reestablish their communications and control and "de-chaos" their side of the battlefield.

We shouldn't be worried about territory right now (secure supply lines yes, holding territory no). The whole point is destroying the army and thats easier to do if you keep the pressure on.

[xkaydet65]

Technology is a wonderful force multiplier, but it does not take place of boots on the ground. Rumsfeld is a believer in technology and he was a fighter jock, but this kind of war against an enemy of some strength defending its capital and backed by numerous irregulars requires more than precision guided munitions. We are about to engage six mechaninzed divisions in fortified positions with one heavy division, one light division and one air mobile division. The Brits have been left to deal with Basra because their equipment was not designed for grand prix warfare.

Unlike '91 we are not catching them in the open, far from their base of supply, having endured 35 days of aerial attack. Are we going to lose? No! But McAffery IMHO is right. We stand to suffer casualties because Rumsfeld did not provide enough troops and equipment. The issue will be decided before 4ID and 1st Cav arrive. I hope your confidence in technology is proven correct, but I fear McCaffery is correct.

[John H K]

1) decapitation - 2) lack of command and control 3) losing control 4) shock and awe 5) massive surrenderings and 6) happy iraqis to greet us...

1) is still somewhat uncertain, but all of the other 5 have happened.

Instead of surrenders and POWs a lot of troops simply went home.

Believe me, if the Iraqis DID have effective command and control, and if the entire Iraqi regular army was actually fighting, we'd probably have about 500-1000 killed by now.

[aristeides]

German losses in the War in the West in 1940: 29,640 kllled, total casualties of 163,213. Paris was surrendered without a fight.

[Arkinsaw]

We stand to suffer casualties because Rumsfeld did not provide enough troops and equipment.

That is not Rumsfelds fault, that was sabotage in the State Department. Rumsfeld's intention was to have 4ID coming down from the north. HUGE difference. You can bet that Rumsfeld had every intention of 4ID being there. Lets not turn on Rumsfeld for a State Dept. blunder/sabotage.

[Dog Gone]

600-800 Coalition troops killed taking Baghdad isn't a slaughter; strikes me as the optimistic side of a realistic estimate.

I think that's probably on the very high side, but it misses the point. If you'll read the context, McCaffrey is trying to paint a worst-case scenario, one that will shake domestic confidence in the war. So much so, that perhaps it's not worth attempting.

[dts32041]

Isn't this the General in charge of the War on drugs, like his opinion means something.

[xkaydet65]

Ask the Iraqis who died under his guns even after the ceasefire about his being a faggot general.

[AaronInCarolina]

Wasn't he Clinton's drug czar?

Yes, and did you notice the article made absolutely no mention of his connection to the Clinton administration. A very conspicuous omission indeed. That tells me the author was afraid one might form the conclusion that McCaffery was being political. That's the conclusion I'm drawing.

[sinkspur]

seriously, if this war goes badly, I really wanna hear what all those neocons who never served in military will say..the likes of Kistol, Wolfowitz and Perle...

maybe I am getting cold feet here, but the hubris, overconfidence from Rummy is what scares me the most...

You're not getting cold feet. You're reading too much Buchanan bullshit.

Stop believing Justin Raimondo, and watch what happens.

Don't go anti-semite on us, son.

[peeve23]

I do think it's in the neighborhood of 1-2 thousand deaths that are POSSIBLE depending on strategy used. Less if they are patient and take 3 or 4 months to slowly locate clusters of defenses and take them out with precision fire power.

More if they just drive straight ahead to get it over quickly.

I like the slower strategy.

[HardStarboard]

>>>I am still not discounting something like the left hook of the Gulf War.<<<

Where would the left hook go? Sooner or later you have to face whatever is in Bagdad, or sit outside and lay siege and starve 'em out.

I heard some military guy on FOX saying that the plan is to surround the city but stop short of going into Bagdad, and then let Spec. Forces start cleaning out the pockets of resistance. Damn, I hope it works - but it will be nasty work.

[Arkinsaw]

I like the slower strategy.

We shouldn't rule out the "hail mary/left hook" play at some point.