I’ve been around and around on this with a couple of people I know, all of whom are pretty good at tracking down historical references to war strategy. None of us, though, can see a good answer.
What do the coalition forces expect to do when they reach Baghdad, assuming that the Iraqis don’t throw their hands in the air? A city of 4.5 million is a tough nut to crack.
It’s clear that a ground-based fight in the city could be disastrous.
Siege? Maybe, but it’s a big city, and it could be difficult to contain. Plus, it would be a drain on coalition resources, and puts the war into a stagnant mode of operation.
Whittle away at them via smart bombs, followed by Apache air strikes?
Send Rambos in to infiltrate and sabotage the Rep. Guard command?
I’m at a loss to understand what the valid options are, and which options are most likely to be used (and effective).
ANd maybe this isn’t the right question. Maybe Baghdad isn’t the ultimate destination?
Likely start by forming a premeter around the city and broadcasting, dropping leaflets, etc trying to get them to surrender. Not likely to happen. Likely air strikes and artillery will hit any troops and tanks visable from the air(kinda hard to hide a tank except in a warehouse) and send in troops to begin house to house operations in certain areas. Anything bigger then a breadbox that appaears on the street will likely be hit by air support.
Sieges take far too long. Months at least, sometimes years. It’s out.
I cannot believe that troops will go house to house in Bagdad.
The casualties ratios and number of casualties would be not only politically unacceptable, but downright horrifying.
Unless, as HPL says, these are confined to certain areas. I’m not sure quite how that’s defined, but in a city that size, you’d have to hope it meant one house in a million.
I suppose the idea is still that they’re (sorry ‘we’re’) after the one dude and once he’s accounted for, the rest of the regime will crumble away and the ‘people’ will just want to rock the casbah with a democratic beat.
Actually, ‘the rest’ will sort out who’s been naughty and nice between them and as we turn a blind eye and ‘justice’ is meted out.
That way, we get to rule and the ‘new’ Iraq gets to adminster democractic justice with a meat cleaver.
You’ll notice that there are some assumptions in the above. Whether those assumtions are biggggg or small, is, at the moment, just a matter of opinion.
But, yeah. In theory and at the moment, it’s not about taking Baghdad by force, it’s about engineering a way for someone, anyone, any which way to get us to the man and about his regime crumbling away - worst case scenario is having to drive in and go look for a large elderly gentleman trying to make good his escape in a dress and wig.
With all the serious stuff going on lately, it was nice to spontaneously CRACK UP at this one! Thank you! I got this mental picture of a Monty Python-esque character stumbling along in high heels, with a big purse and talking in a high voice.
My guess is that a siege of Baghdad would not take months. 4.5 million people eat a lot every day. Individual people will be less reluctant to leave the city and surrender to the besiegers than in previous sieges.
