Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General

Reuters ^ | 3-24-03

[oursacredhonor]

LONDON (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 toward the Iraqi capital.

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

U.S. forces have advanced more than 200 miles 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 valor in the United States.

[oursacredhonor]

[Arkinsaw]

Well, at least its down from the 12,000 stated earlier today. Things are improving!

[Steve Van Doorn]

that figure still sounds kinda high.

[exsolus]

just nuke 'em.

[Poohbah]

For a city battle?

Hell, that's how many NONCOMBAT injuries you can expect.

[Happy2BMe]

Rumsfeld does have a tendency for tunnel vision.

Let's hope the general has missed this one.

IMHO, the foot soldier will definitely be the "smart weapon" to finally win this war though - just like he did in WWII.

[John H K]

As always, for everyone who reads this thread, despite what you hear in the media, casualties does NOT equal deaths. It includes wounded

3,000 casualties would likely be somewhere in the range of 600-800 killed. Not many cities with a population of 6 million have ever been taken from a hostile force with attacking casualties that low. None, in fact.

[Kevin Curry]

It's 1.2 percent of the total coalition forces involved in the operation.

[LADYAK]

Well, I am still going to stand on 2 Corinthians 10 vs 4 & 5 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in god for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captitity to Christ.....Father, please send your angels ahead of our troops...We do not have to have 3,000 slain...Amen.

[LADYAK]

Well, I am still going to stand on 2 Corinthians 10 vs 4 & 5 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in god for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captitity to Christ.....Father, please send your angels ahead of our troops...We do not have to have 3,000 slain...Amen.

[montag813]

Isn't this one Clinton's faggot "Generals"? I thought the rest of them went back to their former jobs as Arkansas State Troopers.

[vp_cal]

he is being kind to Gen Franks. THere are a number of
analysts who are raising these questions.

Perhaps we can slow the pace down while we secure our supply lines, bomb the enemy lines,and get more troops.

sorry in advance if i sound like i have played too many video games.
Perhaps someone with more military experience can share their views. Please speak up!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

"I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.

Does McCaffrey forget that technology has greatly changed since he was in Iraq, let alone during WWII? Wasn't he Clinton's drug czar? What great accomplishments did he perform while in serving Clinton's administration?

[Porterville]

I thought we were winning. Do we still own Afganistan??? Oh, that's right, we do. Can we handle a bunch of Iraqi-Yokels with bombs, missiles, 350000 ground troops? Of course we can.

They always say the same sh!t, "I'm an ex-general and I wasn't asked for my assesment from the president, boo-hoo."

[commish]

We take 3000 and they take 30000+ .. sounds reasonable to me.

[motexva]

And casualties would include injuries like spraining your ankle jumping out of the troop carrier, etc.? Anything that's treated gets counted as a casualty.

McCaffrey is a partisan democrat who is as disingenuous a war commentator as he was drug czar. I don't believe anything he says.

[Will_Zurmacht]

basically the same as the World trade center. Only this time the our folks have a fighting chance, are well armed, and well trained. Saddam must surely realize he is not attacking secretaries and salesmen this time.I know we will lose good men in this fight. The question to ask is how many will we lose if we don't fight? Good luck and God speed to our men...........

[John H K]

We do not have to have 3,000 slain...Amen.

Nobody said anything about 3,000 slain. See my previous post.

This is an ENORMOUS problem because the military is never going to stop using "casualty" to cover killed in action, WOUNDED in action, AND missing in action, and I see no sign whatsoever from the media that they are ever going to stop using "casualty" as a synonym for "dead."

[Poohbah]

Yes.

Cities tend to cause lots of casualties--semi-soft bodies falling on hard concrete will do that.

[Arkinsaw]

that figure still sounds kinda high.

It all depends on what we do and how we do it and how the Iraqis react.

Some British General said 12,000 casualties.

Al Haig said today that this regime will collapse with stunning speed unexpectedly at some point.

Who is right? Don't know.