What make’s everyone so certain that Saddam will even be in Baghdad? Saddie’s got palaces and bunkers all over the country. Surely, even he’s smart enough not to try and hide in downtown Baghdad!
Is it just me or does the prospect of house-to-house fighting over WMD strike others has being weapons grade irony?
Well, they all vote for Saddam, so I’m sure they love him.
Personally, I’d go for the siege option, if for no other reason that urban fighting is going to be extremely nasty for those trying to take baghdad. I’m sure the army hasn’t forgot the “Battle of the Black Sea” in Somalia, 1993 (AKA, The “Black Hawk Down” incident) and it’s only going to be harder considering this time it’s having to actually secure the city with military units running around, not just hold out for 18 hours againest unruley mobs.
Unfortunatly, I’m not sure there is going to be anyway to take baghdad without massive civilian causlities, if for no other reason then it’s going to be very hard for the US army to figure out exactly who and who isn’t an innocent civilian in the heat of combat. The human shield thing comes into play as well.
In mogdishu, 1993, the military was firing machine gun and mini-guns into crowds because the armed militia was mixed in with the unarmed civilians. They were not in the position to pick out indiviual gunmen. If something like that were to happen in IRAQ.
Then again, there’s only so much one can hide in a either. AAA guns and tanks are going to be rather hard to hide in a hole.
Or the city surrenders. All one would have to do is cut it off from supplies and wait until the defenders are too weak to fight back effectivly or surrender.
Takes a while, but not nearly as dangerous for the attackers.
The US military isn’t going to be targeting civilans, but likely will put their mission before that of saving all the civilians in baghdad.
If I ever happen to live under a brutal tyrranical dictator, and my choices are to remain under his power or become “collateral damage” at the hands of the self-appointed global police force, I’d like America to please keep their asses out of my country. Thanks.
[hijack]Who the hell came up with the term “collateral damage” to represent people that they had just killed?[/hijack]
The Siege of Baghdad sounds just as bad the Battle of Baghdad.
From time immemorial the purpose of a siege was to starve the besieged into submission. So Bush directs the US Army to encircle Baghdad, not let anything in or out, until the Iraqis give us Saddam, dead or alive. Starving Iraqis on CNN and Al Jezeera every night for who knows how long? days, weeks, months? Good old fashioned medieval sieges are not of much use when the stated objective is the removal the country’s evil leader, not the defeat of an enire society.
Or if it can be proven that Saddam isn’t in Baghdad, then the US Army sets up the world’s largest soup kitchen for the 4 million residents, plus millions of refugees for weeks, months, years?
Just want to point out that the OP put us at the gates of Baghdad. If we “keep our asses” out of the country, the topic goes away. Didja read the topic, DMC?
Collateral damage is a defense department euphemism which people over criticize. Collateral damage includes non-human losses like buildings. There is a seperate category for civilian casualties. Although, civilian casualties is subsumed under collateral damage.
Once again, absent any counterarguments, I suggest that it may not be necessary to enter Baghdad right away. Killing Saddam may involve entering the city, it may not. I don’t think most high ranking Iraqis know where the sumbitch is from day to day.
I think the U.S. has something a little more clever and dramatic in mind than simply driving the tanks into Baghdad. For example, there is Tikrit, which is the home of Saddam, and a major center of the families of the leadership. You may see a lot of special forces in that area soon.
My understanding that the general war plan is for a lightning strike at command and control, hoping to fracture the government on the spot and disconnect all the communication links so they can’t coordinate. Then a small strike force goes directly at the Iraqi leadership. And there is probably a high probability that once the people around Saddam realize that he WILL be dead in a matter of hours, they will stop obeying him and possibly even arrest him or kill him.
But no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. So how will it turn out? I dunno. The Iraqis aren’t stupid either, and I’m sure they’ve thought of the possibilities and have their own plans.
Perhaps it might break down like this. After capturing the Iraqi countryside and securing complete and total air dominance we encircle all major Iraqi cities and start building huge temporary camps. We flood the cities with leaflets and radio broadcasts informing all Iraqi citizens that if they leave and walk x miles in any direction they will be met… inspected, disarmed and provided with food, shelter and medical care. Any military personel who wish to surrender will also be disarmed and treated likewise in seperate facilities awaiting a general surrender (we comb through the POW camp for high ranking generals, possibly even Saddam himself trying to weasel their way through). After a certain amount of time, if there hasn’t been a surrender and the cities are fairly empty except for the loyalist regime and any die hard civillian supporters they might have, we go in and mop up. After all is said and done we rebuild and provide aid on a massive scale overseeing general elections. That’s what I’d like to see.
And you’d see Saddam’s troops machine-gunning anyone trying to leave. Then everyone would hole up in their houses and wait out the siege.
The best hope is for the Iraqi government to fall quickly.
**
No.
Why would they? Assuming our intentions ARE as pure as the party line suggests, why would a society who knows nothing of us other than that we bombed the shit out of them, and whatever Iraqi propoganda tells them be informed of our True Benevolent Intentions?
Using people’s natural instinct to defend their homeland, Iraqi propoganda could easily whip them up into a frenzy and convince them that we’re there to take over for oil. Where are they going to get more information
Nope - the moment we step in there, we’re the Foreign Invading Bad Guy. It’s not hard to get people to rally to the defense of their homeland.
I’m a bit skeptical of the, generally accepted, will to spare the citizenry.
If the going proves to be tough in the suburbs, you can bet your sweet ass that those B-52’s will flatten that city faster than you can say ‘collateral damage’.
Afterwards, deep regret will be shown but it was clearly necessary in order to shorten the war and save American lives.
Latro, I hope to god that you’re wrong. I honestly believe that the US will try to avoid Civilian Casualties as much as possible. NOT because of some warm and fuzzy altruism, but purely because it will make them look bad.
But if, god forbid, they do decide to carpet-bomb civilian areas for the sake of expediency, that the US will have lost any moral high ground it had (if it ever had any), and will be denounced as genocidal by the world…
Almost as bad would be the spectacle of a million refugees roaming the countryside outside of Bagdhad. While it’s tempting to fantasize about the city being emptied of civilians leaving only military targets which we’re then free to carpet bomb into oblivion, this is unrealistic. Any seige would be likely to produce not only dead civilians within the city, but dying and miserable civilians outside of the city with no place to go and no means to live.
Probably ‘fair’ warning will be given beforehand.
Something like ‘You have 3 days to leave the city. Those remaining will be considered military targets.’
This will nicely ease the conscience. ‘Hey, they chose to stay.’
Maybe a nice sounding new word will be invented.
Any road, don’t expect any warcrime tribunals.
When has that ever been the case in such an issue?
No, you’re right. Sadly, it hasn’t.
Usually because of the doctrine that bombings are useful as a morale breaker.
There might be an opportunity for it in this scenario though.
Assuming we have a situation where Baghdad is the last remaining bullwark.
Having run down the list of these scenarios, and assessed their likelihood, is anyone prepared to say it would be worth it?
And yes, it isn’t just Baghdad but every city in Iraq, and comparisons to Somalia and Panama are instructive.
greco loco, this hasn’t been said enough IMHO, but I’m grateful you decided to participate on this board. We’re desperately short of facts and informed reasoning, but you have done much to help us out. Thanks.
I think the reaction of the Iraqi people is unpredictable at this point and depends largely upon US actions. As in the case of Afghanistan, we may see Saddam fall quickly, and the people tenuously embrace his removal… only to devolve into factional issues that have been suppressed all along.
In any event, I agree with the sentiment that Saddam will almost certainly NOT be found in Baghdad. He will more likely take a page from the Taliban leaders and go into hiding with a small circle of insiders who have just as much to fear from potential war crimes trials as he does. (Semi-rhetorical: When was the last time a foreign power captured any enemy head of state outright without surrender or the assistance of the native populace?) The only way we’re likely to catch him is if his trust is in some manner betrayed, particularly if the Iraqi army leadership rebels against him. A canny general, one who has managed to survive Saddam’s suspicions of loyalty and yet maintained a secret ambition for power may take an opportunity to make a deal with the US, providing Saddam in exchange for a provisional presidency.
But that is an extraordinarily iffy proposition, and the odds would seem against it based on my impression of our current approach. WAG: If we go, Saddam probably escapes our grasp, perhaps being strung up by his own people, but more likely in hiding, and perhaps becoming a larger terrorism threat to the US proper than he ever was before. Certainly he will have funneled cash to foreign accounts before he runs…