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

The Washington Post ^ | March 24, 2003 | Reuters

[Shermy]

we are so casualty averse it's not even funny.

Played up by the media. Some guys shooting from a hospital is now a "battle" and "strong" resistance.

All played on international satellites, all seen by the Iraqis.

It's an Oprahified war.

[John H K]

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

I personally would be exstatic if Baghdad was taken with only about 600-800 Coalition Killed and 2400 wounded.(Which is what "3000 casualties" means) It would be one of the greatest military accomplishments in history.

[Illbay]

Are you forgetting the 4ID and the 7th Cav coming in from North and West?

[Reagan Man]

Over the weekend, it was reported on Fox and posted on FR, the entire allied force has about 40K fighting troops. The rest are support and backup personnel.

[gettingreal]

dunno, but like many I would like to see much much more in the way of allied forces and tools focused on unseating the Baath party en toto, to a man. When first reading the armed request/recommendation and the secretary's figures, I thought that I would rather see the excess transports and money than to lose one more life as it might be because of limited forces.

We can all pray many times a day that those going in to liberate the world from the grip of the Baaths would be accompanied by the heavenly hosts and that every endeavor they execute will be perfect in accomplishing its intended purpose. One of those purposes is saving coalition lives while freeing the innocents from bondage of fear.

[LenS]

Well, the senior Army leadership went behind Rummy's back to Congress to try to save the Crusader -- powerful weapon but hard to move and too expensive per gun. And if it had been up to them, we'd probably only now be invading Afghanistan. The perfect solution is not always better than the less perfect, quicker response.

Also, I think McCaffrey resents that the 3rd ID has blown past his division's speed and distance record from the Gulf War. His place in history barely lasted a decade. He's like the Scowcroft's who didn't want this war because it pointed out that they didn't finish the job last time.

[rs79bm]

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. Are those the divisions that took the airbases in the West?

[faithincowboys]

do i want to see 3000 die? hell,no!! but we have lost 3000 already in a day, civilians in ny, pa, and washington.

i am absolutely agonized over this!!! goodness, i think we all need to be in prayer. the gloves need to come off, we need to fight smart, we need to fight hard. this 24/7 coverage is brutal!!

[optimistically_conservative]

but one thing is for sure: McCaffrey knows how to fight.

McCaffrey is a brawler, but not much of a strategist. I know I'll be flamed by some for saying that, but before you do, review what other division commanders had to say about the post Desert Storm AAR with McCaffrey and his post-cease fire assault on Iraqi "attackers." You might also seek out some previous SOUTHCOM staff opinions.

[Captainpaintball]

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

The response you'll get from the guys in charge seems to be: "6-10,000 is an acceptable number if it means one less innocent Iraqi child and future terrorist lives."

And you know what? Despite the willingness to sacrifice American lives for good press and political correctness, CAIR, "Koffee Anon", the media, and the rest of the left will STILL criticize the US.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Actual title: Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General

[Illbay]

Shoot, 80% of the tiny number of casualties we HAVE taken are from friendly fire, one fragging, and a wrong turn of a maintenance platoon commander in Nasariah.

Of the latter, it looks like the "casualties" were the criminal act of murder on behalf of the Iraqis.

We have only a handful of deaths from "real" fighting. In two firefight reports, we had over 200 Iraqi dead.

Hate to get into the "body count" thing, but GEEZ!

[swheats]

We'll see how it's played out.

[faithincowboys]

time will tell. let's not assume that everyone's punditry is of a malevolent,petty nature. it could just be that he loves his country deeply and wants us to do what we need to do with the least amount of casualties.

[Illbay]

Another thing people are forgetting:

Coalition air power - Awesome.

Iraqi air power - nonexistant.

Um, how many Iraqi attack helicopters are we facing, again?

How many MOABs?

[rs79bm]

Is McCaffrey a CNN analyist?

[Cobra Scott]

I watched this interview. He was pretty critical of the situation, but they left out that he said "I think we will still succeed" part.

His implication seemed to me that the 3000 casualties would be because of the rush without securing the rear. Okay, I can respect his opinion as educated.

But then he went on to describe their tactics as being indistiguishable from those used in Okinawa. My question to him is, was military planning no better when he was active as well, or does he mean that strategy has de-volved? It sounded pretty hypocritical to me.

[Illbay]

Forward elements of 101st, no?

They took 'em, and they've held 'em, and the cavalry is coming.

[Beck_isright]

Yawn. I don't believe that the good General has all of the strategy in front of him. I'll sit on the sidelines before commenting or passing judgement. But if we have 3000 I can gurantee you, the Iraqis will have at least 60,000.....

V