D-day, H-hour

I'll take Wednesday 6pm US time.

 

It'll be tomorrow evening Baghdad time.

 

You know it bothers me a lot that people aren't talking about casualties. I get a very cavalier impression from Americans about war. Maybe it's because we have a volunteer military and people can run their mouths knowing they'll never have to go fight or perhaps we're just a video game generation and that's de-sensitized us. Whatever the reason it's very bothersome.

 

Timing,
It is possible that many people are not talking about casualties because the death rate in the last Gulf War for Americans was lower than the death rate for people in the same age group than back in the United States (or so said my ethics teacher). Yes, it is safer to go fight in Iraq than to drive around the streets of Anytown, USA.

 

Timing:

Casualties are expected to be very low. If our MOPP gear works, that is.

Last time around the Pentagon ordered 33,000 bodybags. This time around we have a better idea of who we're fighting (we know the Iraqis' capabilities very well). No large bodybag orders this time.

 

I really see that as a false sense of security. This action has more difficult goals set out than back in 91. I suppose it still depends on the Iraqi willingness to fight though. We'll see I guess.

 

It does all depend on the Iraqi willingness to fight, Timing. If the RG as well as the regular army actually fight en masse then casualties could be from 1,000-2,000. If most of them surrender as is expected (and not without reason), then casualties will likely be even lighter than before. Remember that the Iraqi armed forces are probably about 30% of their pre-Gulf War I strength; our asir forces are about 10 times more powerful, and our ground forces are about 3 times as powerful. You do the math.

Keep in mind that during the past decade or so - Gulf War I and Panama included - we have lost fewer than 300 people to enemy fire. That includes 3 major wars and half a dozen smaller operations.

Of course, if our MOPP gear doesn't work as well as advertised, then the casualties could be much higher. It is a virtual certainty that Saddam will attempt to use chemical weapons against us. But all of us that have been in the gas chamber have confidence in it (inside joke)...

As in the war against Al Qaeda, it is likely that more civilians will be lost than soldiers, and I'm not talking about bombing accidents. Saddam is likely to target civilian areas in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Israel. It is also likely that he will try to kill as many of his own people as possible in an attempt to get the war stopped by world outrage. He may well try to provoke Israel into nuking Baghdad if it looks like his death is imminent.

 

we have begun...

 

could it just not be any time during the tournament? i wonder if cbs is pissed that their huge sporting event might get overshadowed (not that war isn't more important that some bball games, just talking from the perspective of viewership here).

 

i don't think so...he's talked about another 72 hours at least...gotta make sure all the inspectors are out of there.

 

Well now that war is definate, like it ever wasn't, my curiosity of war tactics is piqued. What are we doing. It's pretty obvious the regular military is gonna surrender. So what happens in Baghdad? Are we going house to house like I've seen them training, are they just gonna role tanks into the cities and towards the palaces? Just curious.

 

While I am concerned for the safety of our troops, I believe we are more than adequately prepared to fight. I am more concerned for the safety of civilians in Iraq and the bordering countries. Saddam's ego cannot handle losing. If he is going down, I would not be surprised if he took many others with him.

 

There will be a major cluster**** when CBS moves games to other Viacom networks. First of all, CBS sends feeds to local affiliates which air the proper game. With cable, there are no local affiliates. The whole country will see one game (I guess people in Pacific time zones may have MTV/Nickelodeon West or whatever). If CBS is generous they may air several games on different Viacom networks at the same time. That would truly be March Madness without paying Direct TV $49.

 

So, does world opinion toward the war change if Saddam actually uses some weapons (assuming he does have them) that he hasn't declared and that he says he doesn't have?

I mean, I know some people will not be swayted no matter what (and that some will believe that the U.S. will have manufactured any evidence that comes out - if any does), but I wonder if it will make a difference if it turns out that the inspections were not yielding the information that many think they have.

By the same token, what if evidence is found during this invasion that clearly establishes a substantial link between September 11th and the Iraqi regime (or evidence of significant Iraqi participation in planned terrorist attacks against the United States). Will the views of those who have protested the war change?

From the inspections so far, it doesn't appear that Iraq has an ongoing chemical, biological or nuclear program underway, or at least one of any real significance, which makes them seem less of an imminent threat, at least in terms of how other countries seem to approach the matter (It doesn't take weapons of mass destruction to be a threat. Iraq's apparent supporting of terrorism is a big issue to many who support the regime change).

But if an invasion shows that the inspectors were not scratching the surface of what was going on in Iraq in terms of development of weapons programs or links to terrorism, doesn't that somewhat justify the actions of the United States?

Of course, it's easy to justify things in hindsight if you turn out to be right. I'm sure there are those who believe toppling Saddam is a no-lose situation. If you find evidence that the inspections were not doing the job in getting Iraq disarmed, you've gone a long way in proving that Iraq was an imminent threat and that, probably, a peaceful solution was never going to work.

And if no such weapons, etc. are found, then you've still taken out a ruthless dictator and potentially taken a step toward installing a friendly, democratic government in the Middle East.

Yes, I understand that ignores many realities and potential realities of the situation. I'm just saying that might be how some look at the situation.

 

Oski:

Re: tactics...

The troops will roll at the same time as or shortly before the first round of bombs begin to fall. The 101st will fan out across the country the first day and sieze key WMD-related installations in order to prevent their use. They will also likely attempt to sieze the oilfields and key infrastructure points such as bridges and dams. SF will hit deployed missile sites that we know of. Air will pound their artillery hard the first day. These actions are all designed to limit the probability that Saddam will be able to use chem/bio weapons against either us or neighboring countries.

The 3rd Infantry Division (a heavy armored division, don't be confused by the title) will make a beeline for Baghdad. The British 1st Armored Division, aided by US Marines, will sieze the Basra area. Elements of the 82nd Airborne will likely drop in and sieze key sites as well (like palaces, if they aren't MOABed). The remainder of Marines will accompany the 3 ID north and surround Baghdad. Baghdad will likely be surrounded by the 3rd or 4th day.

Then things will slow down.

I do not think that we are going to storm Baghdad - that is exactly what Saddam wants, and that is what would produce casualties. But there is no need to. Once Baghdad is surrounded it is just a matter of time before Saddam loses power, because he will have lost both his source of income (oilfields) and his method of control (the army). It would be better to just waqit him out than risk thousands in storming the city. Not to mention, many innocent civilians would be killed and the national infrastructure - centered on Baghdad - would be destroyed. We want none of these things, and we aren't in the business of giving our enemies what they want.

That said, there will be fighting in the streets, but it will not be a massive attack against all city-based assets. Where we have good intelligence on a juicy target whose destruction would hasten Saddam's fall, we will sent in strike teams to destroy or capture it. I'm not just talking about SF raids, I'm talking armored columns moving in in force to strike at specific targets and with specific objectives. Penetrations such as this would make the difference between a 3 month siege and a 3 week siege. All in all, it will be over in under a month. Probably two weeks.

Don't take that to the bank, though. The best laid plans seldom survive contact with the enemy. War is an unpredictable enterprise... But I have confidence that it will play out something like this.

 

Tree-I disagree with your strategy post. I think it will be more surgical...You are posting World War II Tactics. IMO...

Also, I like how casually everyone is talking about MOPP gear. If MOPP gear is necessitated then the people that wanted proof by the UN Inspectors will have it and a whole sh!tload of people should switch alliegance. The only people still opposed to war are the people that oppose all wars, no matter what, or Iraqi sympathisers.

 

could it just not be any time during the tournament? i wonder if cbs is pissed that their huge sporting event might get overshadowed (not that war isn't more important that some bball games, just talking from the perspective of viewership here).

 

hmmm, not sure how i double posted there and apparently edit doesn't work to correct it.