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.
Agreed. If this takes more than a few American lives, due to errors and a few rogue attacks, then let's flex our muscles and show the Iraqi Regime what "WAR" is really about. I'm tired of this "BS" agenda to "SAVE" innocent Iraqi life at the expense of "innocent" American-Military life. It's a pathetic and disgusting trade off.
I think you may have the wrong number,in past american war's the casuality ratio is something on the order of 750-800 to one. In short if we take 3000 the whackies will take ________. you do the math.
Jews can be anti-semites, too. The country's full of them.
What "idea" did the three men, who all just happened to be Jews, push through? That the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein?
And what's with this "chicken hawk" nonsense?
I'm afraid I don't believe you; you use too many paleo-con catch phrases.
How about we take zero and they take all of the destruction? That sounds much more reasonable to me. It's called BIG BIG BIG BOMBS!
Ok. Let's
1. decapitation. The photo op king of Bagdad appears on a TAPE with 50 to 60 EDITS.? No mention of POWs?
2.Lack of command. We are told radio contact is minimal,unless you are using camels its tuff to transmit. Don't you wonder why the great DICKtator praised, on his taped announcment, a division that SURRENDERED?
3.Losing control. Even liberal sources are saying the resistance has been sporadic and unruly? IF the kingpiin were alive would it be so? Yeah, could be a trap, doubt it.
4. Shock and awe? You have witnessed the greatest precision effort since JOEY CHATWOOD took to the ovals with his famed STUNT team. You saw palaces the size of small cities leveled yet the street lights still shine. I'm in awe.
5.+ 6.Mass surenders, happy to greet?...Depends what you read and where you look. The places I trust see it that way: happy surrenderers. Time will tell, you post me if I'm wrong.
Have Faith in that you trust, GOD Bless America.
The caves of those Pacific islands were harder nuts to crack for heavy artillery and air attacks. Small openings compared to buildings. Plus, near misses didn't cause the ground around them to collapse as they would for buildings. Also, urban environments also provide a lot of cover for attackers to get up closer than one could in Okinawa.
Finally, friendly fire seemed to have caused a very high percentage of casualties in those battles. Our own naval bombardments and air attacks were very dangerous to our troops in that type of hilly terrain.
Ahhh ... make that soul.
We lost 47,000+ lives in the Vietnam War. With a 750:1 ratio, that works out to 35,250,000+ people we killed in that war. Not likely.
Actually I need to take that back. According to my husband and plenty of other officers that I know he was a son of a bitch.
Arrogant. Imperious. Cut-throat. hyper political. He changed General Thurman's and General Joulwan's policies at Southcom in such a way to completely stop any progress made on the Drug War.
Every wife dreaded their husband coming home from work every night and most nights they had to come home late. I could go on but I think I have said enough.
Many Generals are demanding, I know that. Many are also arrogant. But, this guy had no redeeming characteristic. Which is why, I am sure, that he fit in well with the Clinton administration.
Wish we could just march around Baghdad seven times, blow our trumpets and watch the walls of Baghdad fall. :)
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.