Saddam plans urban campaign if U.S. attacks - LA Times

Reuters | 8/08/02

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON, Aug 8 (Reuters) - Iraqi President Saddam 
Hussein plans to avoid open desert fighting and mass his forces 
in major cities in case of a U.S. invasion, the Los Angeles 
Times reported on Thursday. 
    The strategy was outlined in general terms to Iraqi 
regional officials, unnamed current and former U.S. 
intelligence officials told the newspaper. The statements were 
relayed from Iraq to U.S. intelligence operatives through Iraqi 
defectors and opposition groups. 
    "Hussein's comments on a defensive strategy represent the 
first indication of how he intends to respond to any U.S. 
attack. A former U.S. intelligence official said he was told of 
Hussein's comments during recent meetings with Iraqi dissidents 
and opposition groups in London. A U.S. defense intelligence 
official said American intelligence has collected similar 
information and considers it reliable," the Times reported. 
    Saddam's strategy appears to center on drawing U.S. forces 
into Baghdad and other cities, where his equipment and troops 
would be surrounded by civilians and less exposed to United 
States warplanes, which played a major part in the Gulf War. 
    "Military targets in Baghdad are sprinkled among a 
population approaching 5 million. Hussein has constructed an 
elaborate warren of underground bunkers and escape routes," the 
Times reported. 
    President George W. Bush and his national security team 
were briefed on several options on Monday by Gen. Tommy Franks, 
head of U.S. Central Command. 
    Among those options was a plan in which the United States 
would strike Baghdad first in an attempt to separate Iraq's 
military forces and equipment and cause a collapse of the 
regime, the newspaper said. 
    Experts told the Times it was difficult to assess how long 
it would take for U.S. forces to seize Baghdad, partly because 
of questions about the potential performance and loyalty of 
Saddam's elite troops and intelligence agencies. 
    President Bush promised on Wednesday to be "patient and 
deliberate" in considering options concerning Iraq but signaled 
that the United States remained committed to toppling a 
dictator accused of developing weapons of mass destruction and 
supporting terrorism. 
   "These are real threats, and we owe it to our children to 
deal with these threats," Bush said in a speech at Madison 
Central High School in Madison, Mississippi. 
    In Baghdad on Thursday, Saddam said he was not frightened 
by U.S. threats and his country was ready to repel any attack. 
    "There is no other choice for those who use threat and 
aggression but to be repelled even if they were to bring harm 
to their targets," Saddam said in a 22-minute taped televised 
speech to the nation. 
    "I say it in such clear terms so that no weakling should 
imagine that when we ignore responding to ill talk, then this 
means that we are frightened by the impudent threats ... and so 
that no greedy tyrant should be misled into an action the 
consequences of which are beyond their calculations," he said. 
    ((Americas Desk, Washington, 202-789-8015)) 

08 AUG 2002 08:39:11 Saddam plans urban campaign if U.S. attacks-LA Times

© 1999 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

[steve-b]

Saudi Arabia? Their army is three Bedouins and a camel.

"You idiot! You ride the camel to town where the women are!"

[Stavka2]

Ok, lets review. First of, I'm referring to city warfare, where you don't have to be a well trained soldier to inflict casualties: aka Mogodisu, Grozny, Stalingrad (at the beginning it was only motivated civilians who held off quite a few Germans for almost a week...actually at the Red October Plant, they mauled 3 German Panzer/Panzerfast brigades of veterans for almost a month). As for the Russian "illiterate" peasant...sorry to, but 1. the Soviets took a poll in '20 of the literacy rate and found that 70%+ of those 19-25 were literate and knew basic arthimatic...which means they were literate in WW1 in 1914. 2. As for being dragged off, there were so many volunteers for the quick glorious war of 1914, that many were turned away for lack of rifles and uniforms. As for the Battle of Tanneburg, the Russian forces were larger, but the Germans fought only one field army at a time, which made there odds on the Eastern front equal...they knew Rumpkov would never come to Samsanov's aid, they hated each other. Most of the German force was on the Western Front. The Russian army was outmatched in leadership...that is why on the Austro-Hungarian front, 3 Russian armies defeated and routed 6 Austro armies and took Moldavia...all about leadership in open huge battles...but we're talking urban, mount warfare...quite a different thing.

As for Mercenaries, please read the context...it is in reference to Afghanistan.

Well, there are several who aren't expecting the Kurds to run anything...one of which is the Turks...remember their Kurdish issue?

I don't count the Sheites in this, their loyalty is to Persia. Again, I'm speaking of city warfare. Counting on all the civilians just rolling over is silly and dangerous...just like the oooh so grateful civilians in Afghanistan are now shooting at the US troops. And by the way a brief history of Lebanon: the Sheite were grateful to the Jews for freeing them from the PLO Sunni...unfortunetly that gratitude ran out after less then a year...heard of Hezbullah?

America has revolutionized warfare in the last few decades in a way that hasn't been seen since the mechanized infantry of the Franco-Prussian War. We are the high-tech army. We don't get stuck with house-to-house fighting. We leave that to low-tech armies who don't care about their own casualties like the old Soviet Union. 72 hours of carpet bombing and Baghdad surrenders. Saddam has ruled through fear and intimidation. He has no admirers in Iraqi society. The generals in the Iraqi army know what's in their best interest and will execute Saddam themselves and sue for peace. If Americans start getting killed in large numbers and that is an enormous IF given our strategy and tactics, we will only need to remind ourselves of the World Trade Center to get recruits

Here you really amaze me. By the way, how long will even average Americans put up with thousands of dead babies from US bombs...and bombing never got the civilians to surrender...remember Yugoslavia...only after Yeltsin sold out and backstabbed them did they go. Or do you believe in the Klintoon/Albright they just need some bombing idiocy.

Oh, yeah, being dependent on foreign oil, trade and key rare resources does mean having to say you're sorry. And I'll say I'm sorry for having to bring you back down to reality.

[Stavka2]

We were able to supply ourselves in Afghanistan. This should be even less of a problem. Turkey will give us access to whatever we need. They need the money and can't stand Saddam and the fundamentalist presence there is minimal(about 15% of the vote max). Since much of the fundamentalist vote in Turkey is actually Kurdish, they will back us too because we are supporting Kurdish autonomy or independence in Iraq. And nothing happens in Turkey if the military doesn't allow it. And they are the most pro-American sector of the society. Supply is easy. Fly the stuff to Turkey drive it across the border into Kurdistan and when you take Mosul just fly it there.

Well hell, since Warfare is so revolutionized, why not just beam it over or hell, just make it appear from nothing...instantaneously. Reality...Turky is on the other side of the world. Sand degrades machinery very quickly. Drinking water alone and food takes up a lot of room. The US merchant marine and air carrier fleet is heavily degraded. Tank parts don't grow on trees...neither does the fuel they use come out of the ground but is highly processed. Do you know how many gallons of fuel one US Abrams burns just to turn the tubine over? I'll let you in on it: 6 gallons, yup, just to start...the rest eats more. As for bullets and bombs, that's a whole different thing too...something the Turks just don't "have".

But tell me how exactly you are going to conquer a city without city fighting...since you are so high tech. Teleport the enemy out? Use your tricorders to find their bunkers? Shoot them with phasers? Should I go on or is the sarcasm getting to thick? Oh, as for the Gulf...a little military know how...mines don't take much to put out...shallow waters keep subs near the surface and very narrow confined waters are not good for Aircraft carriers...especially from shore fired silkworms....speed boats with suiciders do wonders too....oh but Iran and Syria, on the list of Evil, would never do that...and the House of Saud is just ooooohhhh sooooo stable. NEXT!

[Stavka2]

Ummm, that's why there are Chinese troops in Sudan, protecting their oil rigs there. They do have a blue water navy and yes it is the highest tech, fortunetly they can't quite master the Russian technology yet. They don't need to much, since they have enough missile cyloes...there we go again with these missiles...to keep the US 6th fleet at bay. As for their pilots, well they have the best planes, they just don't fly to well. You need to read up on their Army...the body wave thing, unfortunetly...is way over, and even with that, they almost won in Korea.

[Stavka2]

Unless Saddam is some kind of Middle Eastern Dr.Evil, someone else will be firing the WMD for him. Between the time he gives the order and the time it takes to fire the weapons, someone, whether family member or general, will execute him because he prefers living to dying, even if Saddam doesn't

A lot of what ifs make for lousy military strategy. By the way, maybe you noticed, but except for a few German generals, most stayed loyal to Hitler even when the end was an obvious thing...and kept fighting to it.

[Stavka2]

And you increase this 5 MPG efficiency with a wave of a magic wand? The same one, per chance, that will keep you from fighting in the cities by magically turning the enemy into frogs? As for imports...we do understand contracts right? Other nations have contracts on the oil first...what are you going to do, threaten to nuke them too? Hell, just nuke everyone, then you don't have to say you're sorry. Also...you do understand shipping times don't you?

[Tallguy]

America has revolutionized warfare in the last few decades in a way that hasn't been seen since the mechanized infantry of the Franco-Prussian War.

Mechanized Infantry in the Franco-Prussian War? I musta missed that one in my history books! I always throught that the term Mechanized Infantry refered to the wedding of the internal combustion engine with the transportation needs of the Infantry -- something that really didn't begin until WW1. The organization of true mech units didn't happen until the interwar years since the tactics really hadn't been worked out by 1918.

[Tallguy]

Mogadishu was not a war it was an attempt at peace-keeping. As conducted by the Clinton Administration, it is studied by the military as the perfect example of how not to do something.

Yes and no. The peacekeeping mission really ended when the US Marines withdrew. Naturally, things spun out of control as the warlords began to re-assert their authority. Then Clinton sent in the Rangers/Delta/160th SOAR with an offensive mission: to defeat the Adid's militias and grab Adid. Essentially we failed because we no longer overawed the natives with our small, unarmored force.

BTW, the Russians had some very tough troops involved in the Grozny operations of the Second Chechen War. The conscripts were largely on the sidelines. Elite forces are by their very nature small and irreplaceable; furthermore, they surrender many of their advantages in urban fighting. You really ought to listen to Stavka -- he knows what he's talking about.

[Publius6961]

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein plans to avoid open desert fighting and mass his forces in major cities in case of a U.S. invasion, the Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday.

If only this were true!

5 million people at a crack?
Does anyone else see the golden opportunity here for the perfect minimum-loss campaign for the good guys?

hint: groceries do not grow in the grocery store.

[Corin Stormhands]

Germans are afraid that Saddam will not be punished, just the children.

Who cares what the Germans think? After WWI & WWII they need to behave for about 500 years before I give a darn about what they have to say.

[Tallguy]

There is no reason to think things will be any nastier in Basra or Baghdad than in Kandahar.

Military disasters are based on assumptions like that. MacArthur didn't think the Red Chinese would come across the Yalu, either. These Iraqis might just decide to defend their homes. No loyalty to Saddam is required.

[jerseygirl]

and my guess is they will use our actions in the Middle East to obtain their goal----the return of Taiwan to the "Motherland".....

[Publius6961]

I would assume from this that Sadaam has placed most of his chem and bio weapons in the cities. These will have to be taken out, to protect Israel and US forces in the countryside. Air superiority does not help in urban warfare. It's man against man and down and dirty. This man (Sadaam) is evil but not stupid. Expect tactics like this to be employed.

What a crock.

You have no notion of what it takes to support 5 million people indefinitely, evidently.
If this is true waiting is the assured counter-response.

Any attempt at "urban" agriculture can be surgically curtailed.
Water, medical supplies, food, heat, power, communications can all be surgically eliminated one by one.

Saddam has reintroduced the classic Muslim weapon of choice: a long term siege. To his detriment.

Urban house to house combat is not even on the radar screen under those circumstances.

[Stavka2]

That was a disaster waiting to happen. Stalingrad involved some tremendous courage by individual Russians who had military training but it was Marshal Zhukov's application of overwhelming force combined with Hitler's refusal to properly equip the Germans that gave the Russians victory.

Not quite, Zhukov unleashed the forces on the weak flanks and only through surrounding the Germans did he win. As for Hitler, his fault wasn't equipment, it was the Festung Stalingrad that doomed Paulus.

Sugarcoat it all you want to, the Tsar's army got squashed by a much smaller German force and got bounced out of Poland in short order. Sure, they won against the laughable military of Austria-Hungary which was losing to Serbia and barely holding on against that great military powerhouse, Italy, but who cares? As for Russian morale, who exactly were those mutinying soldiers?

Your military analysis is about as good as me stating that the US troops were crap in Vietnam that got their arses routinely kicked till they ran and mutanied to get out.

Now reality. Again, the German military was not much smaller then the Russian. Secondly, it took 3 years to drive Russia out of Poland...the Revolution was in '17, again caused by that defeat. As for the Austro-Hungarians, it held the biggest empire in Europe, if it was so simply weak, how did it accomplish this? By the way, go read some stuff on Tanenburg and it's lead up...maybe you'll be able to speak intelligently on it.

Oscolon is not a communist. Maybe you don't remember that the Turks deny that there is even a Kurdish race and deny them any cultural rights. For one Turk killed they would napalm a Kurdish village...maybe that's why they killed over 50 thousand Kurds? As for their "power" house...maybe you missed the point that for the last year their economy has been in an economic free fall? Hmmm? As for Georgia, just been in Bilisi...didn't see to many Turks..hardly any really...maybe in Ajaria but not in Turky proper...now Englishmen, quite a few.

As for the ROE for American troops, don't count on it. Once the military lawyers are done the ROE will be quite thick.

I guess since the Russians got chased out with their tail between their legs and we rolled the country in days, you're feeling jealous.

You mean the two months of bombing and the advance of the N. Alliance. Can't quite recall any American divisions rolling into Kandagar or Kabul...maybe you can show me some photos. By the way, did the Russian troops leave with their tails between their legs like the US troops left Vietnam and Samalia and Lebanon??

Actually I know Americans quite well...last time I was there, not that long ago, there weren't all that many flags left waving...maybe you noticed? Hmmm? Lived in the States for quite a while too. I know this, talk's cheap...CNN makes it's money off of public opinion and it's shaping...nothing like images of half burned babies....like in Vietnam....nothing like this was ever shown in America in WW2. As a point of history: it was late 1944 before images of the first dead Americans were show in America. The public had no idea of the terror bombings of all German/Japanese cities. Most still don't.

The oil issue was backed only by your over confidence and contested by quite a few posters...so it still remains only YOUR opinion. As for the world being yours...why come and take it...last I checked, possession was 90% of the law...or aren't you willing to join the military and go campheign for your portion of the Liebensrummen?