General McCaffrey says battle of Bagdhad will be "dicey" risk of 3000 casualties

The Washington Post ^ | March 24, 2003 | Reuters

[OldCorps]

Reuters Monday, March 24, 2003; 10:17 PM 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.

[OldCorps]

Well here you have a senior Army general saying Rumsfeld hasn't been listening to senior Army leadership. Could get ugly over there.

[rs79bm]

I too have been wondering where all these (250,000) troops are? I'm getting the impression from watching TV that there are only a handful of divisions approaching Baghdad? 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers?

[wardaddy]

Mcaffrey has taken some flak himself in the past as I recall.

[Kevin Curry]

Do you think he intimidates and pushes Tommy Franks around?

[sushiman]

3000 acceptable number for you all ? I think it is too high by a long shot .

[wretchard]

I think has blatantly misrepresented McCaffrey. The whole quote in question is:

"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."

McCaffrey does say that nobody has every tried to do a job like this before with so few men. The money quote is: "He said his personal view was that the invading troops would "take them (the Iraqis) apart."

[OldCorps]

That appears to be the case. I'm really speechless. If we are attacking Bagdhad with just 3rd ID, 1st Marines and the British 7th Armoured Bde, then I would say we need more ground forces. I hope this is not true, that there is at least another US mech or armored division out there, but no one is mentioning it.

[oceanview]

i am convinced with must wait for the 4th ID to arrive there before we start this.

[polemikos]

When did the good General retire?

[rs79bm]

I thought there were 250,000 troops on the Kuwaiti border?

[Kevin Curry]

It's about 1.2 percent of the total coalition strength and includes injured and wounded as well as KIA. Judged according to traditional terms, it is very good--especially for an offensive force.

[OldCorps]

'96 or thereabouts. he became drug czar under Clinton. He might be cozy with the Clinton crowd, but one thing is for sure: McCaffrey knows how to fight.

[expatpat]

His high casualty number was based on doing house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. I don't think that our generals are stupid enough to try to do much of that.

[oceanview]

how long until the 4th can get there? they are offloading at the red sea saudi ports, then shooting across the desert, how many days will this take?

[faithincowboys]

let's stop the vietnamization of this war. let's not go there until it even becomes a possibility. we are so casualty averse it's not even funny. i hope mccafery is wrong. too many people have vietnam on their minds.

jesus, we took a couple of casualties, let's settle the hell down!!

[faithincowboys]

for what??

[Illbay]

"None" is an acceptable number, but 3,000 times 3,000 is the likely number of civilian casualties from terrorists in the next decade or so, if these people don't go down NOW.

[rs79bm]

That may be enough if we blow them away with the air campaign, as we have been doing since the start of the war, but I get the sense that there are only a few divisions approaching Baghdad? Or are there others that we are not hearing about? I don't want to be pessimistic, but I believe we should be using overwhelming force both on the ground and in the air, as to minimize casualties.