It's going to get ugly here at home, too.
In what way?
Posted on 02/22/2003 5:36:22 PM PST by Pokey78
Saddam plans to destroy everything in path of US and British assault
American and British war planners fear that Saddam Hussein may be preparing a scorched-earth policy ahead of any US military attack, destroying roads, bridges and other infrastructure to slow up advancing forces before a final and potentially bloody battle for Baghdad.
The revelation of a series of worst-case military scenarios emerged as military briefers, who have for months been portraying a military operation to remove Iraq as a 'walkover', began to offer more gloomy scenarios of potential pitfalls ahead.
Military analysts on both sides of the Atlantic now believe that an Iraqi strategy is likely to focus on slowing down advancing coalition forces - possibly with the use of chemical weapons or nerve agents - before a final battle for Baghdad.
The analysts believe Saddam Hussein is counting on forcing a stalemate by inflicting sufficient US casualties that any further advance becomes politically unacceptable in the United States and the UK. According to Pentagon officials, Saddam Hussein has given orders to blow up dams, destroy bridges and ignite oilfields.
British sources have speculated that Saddam Hussein may engineer a devastating humanitarian crisis against his own people - perhaps by use of weapons of mass destruction or denial of food - that would also draw in troops for humanitarian support, slowing any attack.
The deliberate leaking of the concerns over nightmare scenarios facing those prosecuting the war may, however, have a more cynical intent: to avoid accusations if the campaign encounters problems after months of leaks suggesting how easy it would be to depose the Iraqi dictator.
There are, however, genuine reasons for concern. Although defence officials are confident that much of the regular Iraqi army will surrender, they are less certain about better equipped and trained formations.
Leaks from Iraqi officers suggest that even the Republican Guard may be preparing to give up without a fight, but defence planners admit they have little or no information about the elite Special Republican Guard, which has between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers dedicated to protecting the regime and is the only force permitted inside Baghdad.
US officials believe that in any attack on Baghdad besieging forces would most likely meet Iraqi forces deployed in 'collapsible concentric rings' who would try to draw US troops into fighting for the city's streets.
A recent order to equip these special units with chemical-protective gear and atropine anti-nerve agents has alarmed officers who fear they may use such weapons in any defence of the city.
The nature of Iraq's potential defence strategy was revealed to Congress by the director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Vice-Admiral Lowell Jacoby.
'If hostilities begin, Saddam is likely to employ a 'scorched-earth' strategy, destroying food, transportation, energy and other infrastructure, attempting to create a humanitarian disaster significant enough to stop a military advance,' he warned.
US and British military planners have been hoping to avoid heavy fighting for urban centres, with the high risk of casualties, and the even bigger political risk of already widespread international opposition to such a war being bolstered by media images of combat in civilian areas.
US troops have also had little training for fighting in urban areas in recent years, despite efforts to improve their urban warfare skills after the debacle in Somalia.
But while planning for the nightmare scenario continues, officials admit they simply do not know if the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard will follow Saddam Hussein's orders in the event of a war, or if they will switch sides to save themselves.
Send a nice nuke special delivery. It will take care of the problem. Glass them in underground (guess I answered my own question of how do you scorch sand).
A few more words: Baghdad has only psychological, not strategic value. Like the Pacific Islands in World War II, it can be bypassed and die on the vine if necessary.
As far as Saddam engineering a humanitarian crisis on his own people, he'd already done that and the UN was silent. When he gassed his own people, the silence was deafening.
Seriously, because we're too humanitarian to just besiege it. We want to liberate and quick. There's something to be said for that.
Both the conservatives here, and the peaceniks suffer from the same delusion.
We both think that Iraq and the other Islamofacist countries will be utterly destroyed in the coming war.
What if all we do is simply station troops in these places to be sitting ducks for Islamakazi raids for the next couple of decades? The only reason that we were successful at occupying Germany and Japan is that we completely defeated and humiliated their military forces. You and I may very well hope that such will happen in Arabic lands, but what if it doesn't? A steady stream of body bags from these lands without sufficient counterstrikes (see what's been happening since "victory" in Ashcanistan) will just demoralize the American people after a number of years. We will bug out, just like Vietnam, and the enemy will win again.
The biggest reason I have been for the war against Iraq is because I have believed that we would finish the job the Crusades left behind. What if Bush is not just lying to our enemies, with all that "Islam is a religion of peace" crap? I can start to see where Pat Buchanan is coming from. If you can help convince me that its certain that we will make the world safe from Islam for our grandchildren, once and for all time, please let me know!
You may be right. But the sooner the war starts (assuming that we actually go to war), the less time the other side has to prepare, the less time to make new coalitions with other terrorist organizations, the less time for the opposition domestically to gain numbers and power and cause political chaos at home. IMO, if we must go to war, the sooner the better.
For me: We are in EXTREME danger. I pray the war WILL start soon.
I just saw a show on TV a couple of weeks ago talking about the training our soldiers were receiving in just this kind of combat. Maybe it only began in the last year or two, but they ARE getting trained for this! I hope Sadaam and his army continue to believe otherwise, however!
It's going to get ugly here at home, too.
In what way?
I don't mean a traditional siege, where you bombard the city, break down the walls, and finally overcome the inhabitants, raping them or putting them to the sword. I mean a siege by ignoring and surrounding the little, CBW-equipped principality of Baghdad. I know, there would still be a humanitarian problem, but it would clearly be of Saddam's making, which might minimize the political fallout.
And re the pumpkin cannons: There's a slow motion video floating around somewhere of a pumpkin going through a garage roof at a distance of 100 or 200 yards that's pretty hilarious. Have you seen it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.