I disagree with some of the assumptions of the OP. CNN cameras will not be on every block. If there are media around they will be either with the US forces or miles away from fighting.
The US is not so concerned about Iraqi casualties to let it interfere with the mission. 100,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War and they have been forgotten.
If it does come to urban warfare Baghdad will be filled with pockets of mostly ill trained and ill equipped conscripts who haven’t heard from a superior officer in days and are out of their minds with fear. Also the US will be involved in propaganda such as dropping leaflets promising safety and food to anyone who surrenders. The choice between surrender with a warm meal and trip home,versus being killed for Saddam by a pilot pressing a button a couple of miles away seems a pretty simple one.
Again, again, I will be very surprised if the war plan involves “bombing the shit” out of civilian areas. Of course, if I am wrong I will admit it in a couple months.
I hope the shrill reactionaries, pining away for the good old days with Saddam, will extend me the same courtesy. I have learned, though, with the peace-at-any-cost-including-surrender-and-death-or-more-sufferingniks actual falsity of predictions is not as important as alleged purity of virtue and ideology.
I don’t think that’s an apt comparison. In the Gulf War, they were enemy forces supporting the capture and occupation of Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia, so it was easy to shrug off their deaths. This time, the war is specifically (among other things) to help them get free of Saddam’s rule. You betcha killing the people we’re allegedly trying to help would get noticed, and would be construed as an example of insincerity at best.
I would like to remind everyone this is not 1945, and Baghdad is not Tokyo or Berlin. Our mission is to disarm Saddam Hussein not destroy Iraq.
I agree with you on this lokij, but who is going to pay for this extraordinary humanitarian aid? US taxpayers, our European allies, or will the US get 'free oil" for 2 years to pay for our services in rescuing Iraqs from Saddam.
Sounds more and more like Bush makes the United States look like 21st Century Mongols.
puddleglum yes the world has forgotten 100,000 dead Iraqi conscripts, 100,000 dead women and children are another story.
Hamsters… Tried to stop me from posting, but this is what I was going to say a couple of hours ago…
Sam, we actually agree on something. Wow. 
lokij, any idea of the amount of troops necessary to do what you suggest? I’m not saying it wouldn’t be preferable, but that isn’t a likely scenario.
Assuming unilateral action (or at least action not directly sanctioned by the UN):
Unfortunately, we will have to stage the highest concentrations of troops, pre-invasion, in Kuwait; the Turks will let us put in a moderate number at the start (they are wavering on a 15,000 figure), while the Saudis, Jordanians, and Syrians probably won’t be able to allow us much of a staging area. Jordan and Saudi will cooperate, to some extent, however large staging areas in Saudi (as in Desert Storm) are pretty much out of the question in the current political climate. Iran will not be a possibility at this time, as far as staging areas go.
Assuming that we stage the primary force in Kuwait, with a secondary force in Turkey, we will probably lead a two-pronged assault; there is some discussion of a third prong, coming in amphibiously near Basra, in an attempt to throw the southern forces into headlong retreat, and to make the move from Kuwait quicker. We are also expecting a great degree of assistance from Kurdish forces as we move south from Turkey, and for de-stabilizing activity ahead of the main strike; there is also some reason to believe that any command and control strikes (preceding the actual arrival of troops in Baghdad) would rely in some manner on Kurd forces that are comparatively local.
And, though the Tikrit areas are important, they are pretty obviously going to be targeted in the early stages of the conflict; Saddam’s best bet would be to run a couple of his decoys (the alleged Saddam “look-a-likes”, who have had plastic surgery to resemble him) around in Baghdad and Tikrit, forcing us de-centralize the attack. Baghdad, being a large urban complex, would be fairly easy to hide in; if he threw a couple of “clones” into the fray while he made his escape, it would be difficult for us to tell exactly where he was.
BTW - the success of SF teams in Iraq during Desert Storm was notably poor; though we have a good idea of the layout of the country, it is quite large and the Iraqis have proven to be effective at decoy, diversion, and camouflage. Finding the C2 nodes will not be easy, and we would need pretty good (and very timely) intel to ensure even a modicum of success. It is arguable that the intel we currently have is worse than at the start of Desert Storm, as many of the systems we relied on for accurate information are no longer in place. The increased paranoia brought on the past year by US saber-rattling has convinced the Iraqis of an imminent attack; they have had quite a bit of time to prepare, and to start a constant shifting of resources. We also now have fewer sources on the ground, in the areas where we will have to face combat: though we have a good relationship with the Kurds (from an intel perspective), we have much less of one with the Shi’a in the south. The Kurd strongholds in the north are not really in doubt; but the Kurds have little influence around Baghdad, so would be of questionable value. During the Iran/Iraq conflict, we developed a strong picture of Iraqi capabilities, and often had a relatively open dialogue; this assisted us during Desert Storm. Iraq has been comparatively closed to us since 1998; the defectors have given information of dubious value and accuracy, and our networks their have been considerably curtailed. We won’t be going in blind by any means, but several essential elements are not in our possession at this time, and may be hard to come by.
I agree that the Iraqi forces will use the civilians to their advantage (especially the SSO, who are mostly Tikriti or associated tribes); any fear or disarray they can foster, they will. And our best hope is, of course, a quick surrender of the Iraqi government; however, that is not the most likely scenario. We would need an overwhelming show of force to really cause the Iraqi troops to take flight, and not stand; something in the neighborhood of 200K has been posited as a good number. Though I can’t discuss publicly how many troops we can actually stage in Kuwait, I can say that it would be difficult to support that number currently, for any real length of time.
I think it is safe to say that even Rumsfeld wants a quick war (he has even proposed having the armored battle groups outrun their supply lines and strike for Baghdad at the outset); the administration is not building a siege mentality, and Rumsfeld is arguably firmly in the driver’s seat on this. If you want a pretty good idea of what the US wants this war to look like, check out the following Time article. Gives a good breakout of what Rummy wants to see, and the assumptions being made.
[url=http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030127/nrummy.html]Pentagon Warlord**
Thanks
Greco
And ElvisL1ves, all I can say is “Thank you, thank you very much…”, but I’m sure you hear that all the time
Congartulations, Marine. You just entered Bahgdad, destroyed all significant resistance and have scattered Saddam Hussiens DNA to Allah knows where…What are you gonna do now?!
…* when you wish upon a staaar…*
You guys are forgetting a most recent example of how the US deals with unfriendly cities. Dontcha remember Afghanistan? This was a warrior nation, no country ever conquered afghanistan, the Soviets couldnt do it, the Taliban will muster every man woman and child for the holy Jihad, American blood will flow on the streets of Kabul and Kandahar…
We let the Northern alliance do the grunt work, bombed the hell out of any resistance, provided intelligence, tactical support and secured supply lines while doing propaganda work on the common folk and the outside world. When they got to Kandahar, all stopped while they talked amongst themselves and in the meantime we were shooting caves around the area looking for Omar and OBL.
I dont see why we cant use the same strategy in Iraq. Any Iraqi general that would like to defect can do so and can lead the ground offensive against Saddam and the US and its allies can knock out any mechanized, artillary, missile or air surpport that Saddam wants to throw away. When the US reaches Bahgdad, they can fly around it and look for Saddam while the Iraqi people talk amongst temselves. Once they know that the Iraqi military isnt in control anymore, they might reconsider their last election vote.
To me the big wildcards are:
- Saddam’s use of WoMD or civilian population like kamikazes.
- How much of the Army will surrender right away?
This is a really depressing thread! A siege is out of the question… imagine how awful the Allies would look sitting outside Baghdad for months while the food ran out, thus making themselves looks both impotent and despicable at the same time. Besides, Leningrad held out for three years…
No, you have to enter into Baghdad and storm the place. Where you get to face the most hardcore elements of the Republican Guard… oh, and these poor guys too http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/singer/20030114.htm
It’s going to be horrid for all involved.
As a side point, how much of it will actually get on TV to “upset civilians over their breakfast”, as Michael Caine would say? TV crews might consider the fall of Baghdad far too dangerous to film. That’s why we never saw the worst fighting in Bosnia in the 90s on TV.
5 Time Champ- Who will pay, undoubtedly we will… but there will be a return on our investment if we do things properly. Although I reject the idea that this war is ABOUT oil, oil will make things alot easier once the war is over. Iraq is not an Afghanistan, they have an educated population both inside the country and abroad willing to return. They have natural resources and they have a private and civil infrastructure to rebuild and improve upon after almost 2 decades of war, the combination means they can pay us to help them rebuild. A rebuilt Iraq will be a valuable ally, regional market and trading partner in the future… IF we do things right.
greco_loco - In my opinion the amount of troops needed to maintain a secure hold surrounding a city in order to empty it is significantly less than what would be required to go in, fight from street to street and then occupy a hostile area. Most of the work would be civil and combat engineering, constructing large scale temporary shelters, kitchens and utilities. I would suspect that many Iraqi refugees would be willing to help with this kind of work on a volunteer basis. I think you could do what I suggest with the 150,000 men that are going to be in place by mid Febuary. Perhaps other nations might be more willing to work with us in providing humatarian relief and logistal support when the see how we’re conducting this kind of operation, especially if we do find large scale WMP caches in the countryside.