Allies risk 3000 casualties in Baghdad - ex-general [Quagmire flashback]

Reuters | March 24, 2003

[JohnHuang2]

LONDON, March 24 (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 towards the Iraqi capital.

"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Programme 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 Two that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.

U.S. forces have advanced more than 200 miles (320 km) 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 valour in the United States.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

Quote of the Day by rageaholic

[rrrod]

McCaffrey is a clintonite..he has been reduced to a monica lewinsky commando!

[Howlin]

One thing this was IS doing is finishing off the careers of these losers.

[dirtboy]

One thing this was IS doing is finishing off the careers of these losers.

We wish. These guys can turn on a dime and pretend they never uttered that nonsense a couple of days ago. Hackworth was grinning like a beagle with a mouth full of bees last night on Larry King - congratulating the wonderful war plan after spending months trashing it.

[Howlin]

You are kidding, right? And nobody challenged him on it?

[FierceDraka]

McCaffrey - what a joke. Clinton-appointee as "drug czar". Oh, yeah, he really won the drug war, didn't he?

My advice to General Clymer: "SIDDOWN, WALDO!"

[Grampa Dave]

This worthless POS is another Clintoon Flack, aka Perfumed Princess, pretending to be a knowledgeable general on the Clintoonian Noodling Net.

[dirtboy]

You are kidding, right? And nobody challenged him on it?

CNN. Larry King. Rephrase the questions.

[RetiredArmy]

Concur. In fact, I went to worldnetdail.com today, found his article, his email address and sent him an email and told him he needed to admit his blunders of the past few months, that he was wrong, out of touch and did not trust the leadership or troops. He served under LBJ in Nam, not GWB. I doubt he admits it.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Remember, safety first.

It's remarkable when we lose more from errors and accidents than enemy efforts.

3000? What were they thinking? Wishful thinking?

"I'm saddened, deeply saddened that things have not gone according to plan."

[JohnHuang2]

Re: #7 -- LOL!

[Only1choice____Freedom]

>>"One thing this was IS doing is finishing off the careers of these losers."

The media loves losers.

[Grampa Dave]

Here is a little history of how close this Clintoon Perfumed Princess was to the Clintoon Administration and the Clintoons.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876173/posts

Jed Babbin's Warnings Re: Barry McCaffrey
National Review Online ^ | March 26, 2003 | Jed Babbin

Posted on 03/26/2003 7:54 AM PST by the_doc

You might wonder why Gen. McCaffrey--like Gen. Wesley Clark and several others--seem to be shilling for the Dems who oppose the war.

A pal of mine, who was a Navy officer at the time, told me about how the entire staff of the European command he served in was summoned on short notice for an urgent briefing one day in 1996. Seems like some bigshot White House general was coming to get everyone straightened out about life. My pal glanced at his classified files, threw them in the safe, straightened his tie, and went into the briefing room.

Forty-five minutes late, Gen. Barry McCaffrey walked in, and not to do business with the staff. McCaffrey took the occasion to lecture them roundly and soundly about how the kiddie corral that made up the Clinton White House were the best and brightest ever, and how the assembled officers should be proud to serve under such a president.

McCaffrey--once Clinton's drug czar--had been seduced, and remains so. His judgment, like Clark's (who wants to be the Dem candidate for president), is entirely suspect.

[Howlin]

Excuse me, Your Honor. It's early for me.

I'll just withdraw the question out of sheer stupidity.

[JohnHuang2]

Re: #13 -- thanks for posting.

[azhenfud]

"McCaffrey - what a joke."

Hate to see the old guy on TV because he either whistles through his dentures as he talks or makes that un-nerving sound as he snaps them back in place.

[Gee Wally]

Hackworth was grinning like a beagle with a mouth full of bees last night on Larry King - congratulating the wonderful war plan after spending months trashing it.

These last few weeks have really illustrated how out-of-touch the so-called 'experts' are. I used to have some respect for Hackworth's opinions, as they seemed to be rooted in close contact with the troops. But he seems to have as much insight into the war plan as the Republican Guard did. Here's what he wrote as of April 1, just one week ago:

George W. Bush needs to immediately reassess his war plan, bring in more combat troops, heed the advice of his fighting generals on the ground rather than his team of mainly chicken-hawk advisers and immediately readjust his tactics. He needs to get real and apply the lessons learned from the Russians in Chechnya and the Israelis in Lebanon – and to understand what went wrong in Vietnam.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%2edb&command=viewone&id=8&rnd=926.3889159743019

A lot of hard-earned credibility has been flushed away by Hackworth and others.

[Leisler]

Didn't McCaffrey almost get zots in GW-I because he moved his division too slow?

[Grampa Dave]

There was some note on that. Then he got the faith on the Bloody Alley Road.

The fact that he was an early supporter of the Clintoons is proof that he is not to be trusted nor listened to.

[Oldeconomybuyer]