Why Baghdad fell without a fight

Hindustan Times ^ | May 31, 2003 | Pacific News Service

[Rennes Templar]

Is this fact or some French fantasizing?

[DoughtyOne]

While I find it interesting, I don't like the idea of burning a guy who might have saved us a lot of lives. There are times when I wish the press would use more discression.

[Grand Old Partisan]

This is probably French-Arab (is there a difference?) BS-ing to cover for their failure to withstand the American military.

[cake_crumb]

I really have to wonder about the press sometimes. It's not a secret that there were US agents in Iraq desguised as human shields. The idea was to gain as much cooperation from the locals as possible in order to save as meny lives as possible.

The article appears to be trying to make this sound like a BAD thing.....they seem disappointed that so many Iraqi people cooperated in Saddam's fall. Deeply saddened even.

Are they trying to get some more Ba'athist retribution killings going in Iraq?

[DouglasKC]

The fate of Gen Maher Sufian al-Takriti is key to a central mystery surrounding this poorly reported war: Why did Baghdad fall without a fight?

If it did happen this way then that was a good thing. No matter how much they paid him it was certainly less than they would have spent on an all out offensive. It also saved lives on both sides. Smart move by the US.

[MindBender26]

Bahgdad did NOT fall without a fight. It's just that the Iraqis fought very poorly.... like they were.... well....French!

[justlurking]

Is this fact or some French fantasizing?

If the CIA did indeed cut a deal with high-ranking officers, it most likely saved a lot of American, British, and Australian lives.

As far as I'm concerned, that that's a good thing. But, I don't think it changed the ultimate outcome.

[cake_crumb]

"Why did Baghdad fall without a fight?"

Heck, the cable news channels were reporting we were deep in talks with Iraqi sympathizers highly placed in Saddam's regime. The infrastructure of the city was saved.

It wasn't exactly without a fight either. I'd like to remind everybody that we still have soldiers being killed by Saddam's terrorist friends.

[cake_crumb]

"But, I don't think it changed the ultimate outcome"

It certainly did not. The objective was to win the offensive quickly, with MINIMAL LOSS of lives and infrastructure. I'd say it was a success. It sure beat carpet JDAMing the city.

[VOA]

If the CIA did indeed cut a deal with high-ranking officers, it most likely
saved a lot of American, British, and Australian lives.

And civilian (Iraqi) lives.
That's the sort of factor that usually gets left out of the mainstream press...
e.g., the number of Japanese civilians actually saved when a bloody invasion battlegroud
was prevented by 2 nuclear bombs.

[jwfiv]

Is this the redhead who called the Kuwaiti minister a monkey in their confrontation at the Arab pow-wow before the war?

This article implies he did not simply stand down, but sent his troops out to be slaughtered.

This article implies that we didn't fight our way to victory, but bribed our way there.

I don't know jack about what the redhead did or did not do, but the U.S. was real clear up front about the means of 'gentle pursuasion' we were using before the war to induce the Iraqis to resist little...there were stories about how our PsyOps guys were emailing the Iraqi generals.

I like to think that looking out over the field of battle, and seeing the power in the Eagle's claws was a pretty effective inducement to resist little...the greenbacks were just a little sugar to sweeten the pot and tempt the cowardly.

[bert]

The article places one face on my thought that Iraqi commanders had been bought off in advance. Bagdad is but one of several examples. The 51st division commander surrendered with no fight. The oil fields were taken intact. The oil export terminal south of Basra was taken with no resistance and the token charges intended for its destruction were easily removed.Mine layers were captured with all their mines on board. A general was waiting to surrender a high security government chemical plant before 3 ID troops arrived.

It is sour grapes to denigrate the raw power of the technoweapons because there are lots of dead Iraqis.

By the way, what do you think happened at Renne Chateau?

[11th Earl of Mar]

Methinks this story is simply a way to explain why the 'fierce Iraqi fighters' chose to go French instead of fighting.

But even if true, it was a very shrewd move by the US. It takes a lot of suitcases full of cash to pay for just one Tomohawk missle.

[ChadGore]

Re: April 8 -- the day before US forces captured Baghdad without resistance.

This is absolutly FALSE. Baldly and utterly an untruth.

[ChadGore]

From a military point of view:
1) If you can shoot the enemy before he shoots you, it's a good thing.
2) If you can shoot the enemy before he loads his weapon, it's a good thing.
3) If you can prevent the enemy commander from ordering his troops to fire, it's a good thing.

All 3 of these kills render the enemy combat ineffective, and of them all, the best is #3 because it insures victory and saves lives.

[plusone]

If true, it was money well spent. It saved the destruction of a city and many lives on both sides. I'm no big fan of the CIA, but if this is their doing, give somebody a medal.

[Calpernia]

AND Iraqi lives.

[fish hawk]

If big corps can buy off a politician, what's wrong with a country buying off a couple of Generals? No big thing, hell, we've bought off countries.

[VaBthang4]

I hope it is fact.
Some creative warfighting/strategery by the Conservatives/CIA/SpecOps.

[adam_az]

True...

But that decision tree relies on the assumption that the individual in question is interested in saving lives.

Arab dictatorships? Not a priority for them.