Regards, Ivan
Posted on 03/14/2003 4:47:22 PM PST by MadIvan
The war in Iraq is expected to be a two-stage operation with a pause to allow time for Saddam Hussein to be toppled by his own people.
Allied planners expect only limited resistance in the south of the country when the main thrust is finally launched by British and American forces currently completing their deployment in Kuwait.
Troops are under orders to do everything to minimise military casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure in order to consolidate goodwill and apply further pressure on the Baghdad regime to turn on Saddam and remove the need for an attack on the capital.
A senior British Army officer said: "No one's going to go charging into Baghdad. Fighting in urban areas is a hugely risky business." If the regime does not fall under the shock of the initial assault, a stand-off around Baghdad is "a very likely scenario".
There are high hopes that demoralised and ill-equipped Iraqi troops barring the road to Baghdad will surrender at the first opportunity and that civilians will welcome the invaders as liberators. "Certainly in the south the Iraqi army are not that well equipped and their resolve to fight does not appear great," said the officer. "But we are still prepared for some resistance."
Planners have drawn up "hard" and "soft" options to take account of the level of fight the Iraqis show.
"If you can bring about the defeat of the Iraqi army with a minimum amount of destruction to civilian infrastructure, mosques and even the Iraqi army itself then the second phase of post conflict infrastructure is so much easier." The intention is to hand over to the Iraqis "a basically functioning country without creating a legacy of hate".
The advancing forces will look for every opportunity to bypass Iraqi formations and arrange local ceasefires and to demonstrate their goodwill towards civilians.
"It's about not picking a fight unduly but reserving the full right to use maximum force if problems arise," he said. "That's firmly understood in the British division. It's a more subtle approach. It all comes down to the end state, which is achieving regime change. Bringing the Iraqi people on board is a very good way to do that."
The British forces will be engaged in and around the major southern city of Basra. Their responsibilities are expected to include securing the Gulf port of Umm Qasr, a major oil terminal.
Capturing the huge and easily exploited southern Iraq oil fields is seen as another key element in the Allied plan to force Saddam out.
"The military planning takes full account of the economic significance of the oilfields for Iraq's future," said the source. "If you can get [them] intact that's a huge pyschological message to flash to Baghdad. Sixty per cent of the oil comes from the south."
The Allied planning appears heavily weighted towards an incremental strategy that applies mounting pressure and allows time for Saddam's henchmen to decide their self-interest lies in risking a move against him. "This is all about getting someone to tip him over," said the source.
Resistance is expected to grow as forces approach the capital and encounter Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units.
Once at the gates of the capital there is no intention to fall in with Saddam's declared plan for a bloody showdown in the streets of Baghdad. Allied troops are likely to hold back and wait for the collapse of the regime.
Regards, Ivan
Regards, Ivan
Viet Nam was not lost due to the Military failure of the American Soldier, it was lost due to the lack of support of the American People. We gave up, came home, and then ended support for the people of South Viet Nam. The North continued to get support from their allies (as well as some of ours) and was able to win the war.
Did the "hearts and minds" doctrine hurt us in Viet Nam, I don't think so, did it help, I like to think it did.
Yeah, but if it takes more than a few days to win them over, we go in on our own. We aren't reliant on this strategy to win the war, we're just thinking about using it.
"We invade the North, the war is over in days" I don't think so. First reason, China, second reason Soviet Union.
Review the Korean conflict, as soon as we pushed the North Koreans back, and move into North Korea, China sent troops south.
The goal in Viet Nam was to stop the spread of Communism, not start WWIII.
A case could be made if continued to provide supplies, and air power, the North would not have been able to take the South. But we did neither, and in the end South Viet Nam cease to exist.
We are still too close to Viet Nam to get a proper perspective on it. It will be up to historians to sort it out.
Fortunately, the same restrictions the United States faced in 1950 and the 1960s are not in play today. The end of this conflict will be much different. But, it does not hurt to go after the "hearts and minds" of the civilians, just keep on guard, and don't trust them with your life.
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.