Urban warfare. I hope we learned from the Mogadishu experience. This doesn't sound like it will be Desert Storn redux. washingtonpost.com Iraqis Say Their Forces Will Fight U.S. in Cities By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, September 26, 2002; 6:33 PM BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 26 – Iraq's military likely would respond a U.S. invasion by attempting to lure American forces close to Baghdad and other large population centers, where Iraqi commanders believe their soldiers will be less vulnerable to air strikes and civilians will be more willing to fight for the government, according to senior government officials and diplomats here. The strategy appears based on Iraq's experience in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when it lost thousands of soldiers in its vast southern desert. During that war, U.S. ground forces were able to easily overrun Iraqi troops, whose trenches and bunkers provided them little cover from American artillery and bombs. Now, Iraqi officials have indicated that they would fight a very different war by shielding their soldiers in cities and trying to draw U.S. forces into high-risk urban warfare. "Take the desert," Mohammed Mehdi Saleh, a senior member of President Saddam Hussein's cabinet, said in an interview today. "What's in the desert? If they want to change the political system in Iraq, they have to come to Baghdad. We will be waiting for them here." Although there has been no visible military buildup on Baghdad's streets in recent weeks, Western military analysts say they believe there are at least three divisions of the army'sRepublican Guards, Hussein's best-trained and most-loyal troops, stationed in and around this sprawling capital of 4.8 million people. The main Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, reported this week that Hussein had centralized command of the Republican Guards and had ordered new fortifications built around Baghdad. Iraqi officials have not commented about troop deployments other than to emphasize their readiness. "We take this very seriously," an adviser to Hussein said. "We are fully prepared for any eventuality." A Western source with close ties to Hussein's government said Iraqi officials repeatedly refer to Mogadishu, the Somali capital, which U.S. and allied troops occupied in 1993 and abandoned two years later after encountering stiff local resistance. "They believe they have a tactical advantage in the cities because they can mix with the civilian population," a diplomat here said. "If soldiers start sniping from apartment buildings filled with people, what can the Americans do? They can't very well blow them up." The continued enforcement by the United States and Britain of "no-fly zones" over southern and northern Iraq also has contributed to the government's strategy to mobilize much of its forces around Baghdad and other cities in the country's center, according to diplomats here. Since shortly after the Gulf War ended, U.S. and British pilots have targeted Iraqi antiaircraft guns, surface-to-air missile batteries and radar installations in a broad swath of the country's north and south. In the latest such strike, Iraq said today that U.S. warplanes attacked the airport in the southern port city of Basra, damaging a radar system and the terminal building. Iraq's state-run television channel called the incident "a terrorist act" that breached international civil aviation regulations. A Pentagon spokesman confirmed that aircraft from the U.S.-British coalition attacked the airport, saying that the facility housed a military radar installation. The spokesman said coalition aircraft struck the airport and another target about 80 miles south of Baghdad shortly after midnight this morning, about 90 minutes after Iraq fired at coalition planes. The Pentagon did not specify the location of the Iraqi attacks. The southern no-fly zone, which begins at the 32nd parallel, was designed to protect Shiite Muslims, who rebelled after the Gulf War. The northern zone, beginning at the 36th parallel, is intended to safeguard ethnic Kurds who have carved out an autonomous enclave. Iraq does not recognize the no-fly restrictions. Iraqi Airways has been flying passenger aircraft from Baghdad to Basra twice a day in defiance of the ban. A senior Iraqi official accused the United States of increasing the frequency and intensity of its strikes in the no-fly zones as prelude to a ground invasion. "They're preparing for more aggression," the senior official said. "Their first step is destroying all our installations in the north and south through the excuse of protecting their so-called no-fly zone." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered U.S. pilots to expand the scope of air strikes in the no-fly zones, targeting not just guns and radar but Iraq's air defense command and communications systems. But Pentagon officials have denied that they have increased the number of no-fly patrols or attacks in recent months. The U.S. Central Command estimates that Iraq has about 700,000 active-duty and reserve troops. Iraq's stated figures are much higher: State-controlled media have reported that at least a million Iraqis have received military training and have been inducted in a reserve force. The Republican Guards have been specially trained for urban warfare, according to diplomats and military analysts. The U.S. military estimates that Iraq has six Republican Guard divisions, each with between 8,000 and 10,000 soldiers, and one division of Special Republican Guards that is assigned to protect Hussein and his most vital installations. Western military analysts believe none of the Republican Guard units are south of the 32nd parallel, suggesting that Hussein has placed less importance on defending the southern border than he has on protecting Baghdad. Although U.S. military planners predict many soldiers may choose to give up rather than fight – as numerous units did during the Gulf War – the Republican Guards are regarded by analysts as unlikely to surrender. Their ranks have been vetted for devotion to the government, and many come from tribes with longstanding ties to Hussein's family. In addition to Baghdad, analysts said the military is reinforcing defenses around Tikrit, Hussein's home town, located along the Tigris River about 100 miles north of the capital. There appeared to be a high level of military activity in Tikrit on Tuesday, with several uniformed soldiers on the streets and a convoy of armed militiamen patrolling along the highway. Tikrit, which is surrounded by at least two large military bases, is regarded by Western officials as a place from where Hussein draws his strongest support and where many of the government's security activities are coordinated. Hussein also reportedly has several presidential palaces in the area. "Tikrit will be protected as well, if not better, than Baghdad," a diplomat here said. "It is the heart of the regime." How ordinary Iraqis will react to a U.S. invasion remains unclear. Government officials insist that most people will join the military in defending the country, but several civilians interviewed over the past week said they have little desire to participate in a war. "We'll stay at home," said Samir Lewis, 59, a pharmacist in the northern city of Mosul. "We're tired of war. If it happens, we hope it will end quickly." But Saleh, who serves as Hussein's trade minister, said he and other top officials believe that the commencement of war will incite Iraqis to defend the government. "If the Americans want to invade Iraq, it will be just like someone who comes into your home to kill your children and rape your wife," he said. "You fight with all your strength
This looks very ugly and bloody. Urban warfare in a city of five million people. We might as well just surround Baghdad and starve it until they give up rather than go in and engage them in house to house fighting.
T and DD-- I understand what you are saying, but his is one of those situations where a purely military solution will not work. Think about it... If we starve out Iraqi cities, we get horrible press from pictures of starving children, we give the folks that don't think we should be in the area at all weeks to organize and cause trouble, we have to sustain diplomatic relations with countries that would be put under terrible internal pressures to cut us off, we inspire thousands more to hate the US for what we are doing to the innocents. We need to have a long-term post-war plan for this area (actually several depending on how the fighting goes) that is based on reality and not on ideology or we set ourselves up for failure even if we win the war. It's questions like these that the current administration has not answered with any clarity that give folks like me pause. I am not a defender of Hussein and would feel better with him gone. I would also like the ME to be more stable, but I'm not sure the avenue we're walking down is the best way to get to our destination.
I understand what you are saying, but his is one of those situations where a purely military solution will not work. Think about it... If we starve out Iraqi cities, we get horrible press from pictures of starving children, we give the folks that don't think we should be in the area at all weeks to organize and cause trouble, We also have to go in because many of his WMD materials (assuming he has any) are likely to be in the city. Everyone who's come to speak to our school (2 military guys, head of Stratfor, and Admiral Inman (ex CIA/NSA head) have all said this urban warfare thing is a huge problem / issue. Good point made today was that we're not likely to go to war until January at the earlier - sending troops back home in bodybags at Christmas time is a PR disaster.
RimRocker, Set up relief stations all around the cities where citizens can get food & Water etc...... Show the people that we mean them no harm but want their government out of power. Also create a blockade of them so that they are completely bottled in....then start a propoganda campaign on TV and Radio inside Iraq telling the people the truth. DD
Yeah I don't like the sounds of this at all but people starving in the cities will try to leave the cities. We could drop leaflets over the city and tell them to leave, inform them of what is really going on so they're getting the truth instead of what Saddam is going to tell them. If we go into the cities we're going to kill a lot of civilians anyway and get a lot of our guys killed too just because of the nature of the fighting. I really don't see how invading the city is really an option until Iraqui troops start surrendering in massive numbers.
I have spoken w/ 3 different individuals who were in Baghdad during Desert Storm. From each of their accounts the city was essentially carpet bombed and as one explained "tens of thousands were massacred." I see no reason why we will change that basic offensive strategy in a future war. With a good media blackout and a duration of air strikes on the cities, we will probably then send in ground troops to minimize any casualties on our side.
I have spoken w/ 3 different individuals who were in Baghdad during Desert Storm. From each of their accounts the city was essentially carpet bombed and as one explained "tens of thousands were massacred." I see no reason why we will change that basic offensive strategy in a future war. With a good media blackout and a duration of air strikes on the cities, we will probably then send in ground troops to minimize any casualties on our side. The difference is we didn't invade Baghdad the first time around - we were just trying to destroy infrastructure. If you want regime change, you have to actually go into the city and hunt down the leadership. That involves house-to-house, building-to-building fighting. Unless you're going to bomb and kill 4 million civilians, the air campaign's usefulness is limited.
Agreed, and even more of a reason to not get bogged down in a seige. If we're sitting out there surrounding the cities waiting for the civilians to come to us for food and water, the Iraqi military is going to be arming, aiming and firing WMD's at us (assuming he has any). We'd be sitting ducks. I don't see any alternative but a quick, decisive and demoralizing strike and of course Saddam is going to do everything possible to keep that from happening. I just hope the politicos making the ultimate decisions let the planners and experts operate in an environment free of ideology so solid battle plans can be made and soldiers can plan for and react to contingencies. I can't shake the feeling that the politicos have in their minds an image of how this thing is going to go and that image may not correspond to the reality on the ground. I hope I'm wrong, but I've got a bad vibe about this as of now.
Oh sorry, my post wasn't too clear....I was only saying that it didn't appear to me the US would be overly concerned with civilian casualties and wouldn't allow that possibility to dictate their military strategy. For example, if they feel Iraqi snipers will be hiding out in inhabited apartment buildings, I think our armed forces will not hesitate to blow up the whole building before taking the chance of incurring casualties to our own troops. Bottomline is that civilian casualties will be able to be kept under wraps or simply deemed as "collateral damage" a lot easier than thousands of body bags of our own boys coming back.
For a change I agree with rimrocker...Putting aside my moral and practical objections to invading Iraq, and focusing entirely on strategy, the prospect of the U.S.'s ability to sustain a prolonged siege and reach it's objective are remote at best... The purpose of a siege is essentially to deprive the besieged of a particular need long enough to force it's capitulation, death, or overthrow by citizens. This is unlikely here for many reasons, with mounting world opinion against the US and sympathy for Iraq being first and foremost. Us troops might be able to maintain the lines of encirclement ( logistically no mean feat for a city the size of Baghdad) for a while, but for how long would the world endure the image of civilians being prevented from fleeing starvation/disease/bombing, or from rejoining their loved ones in the city with provisions. How would the US react to Red Cross convoys seeking to enter the city and feed/treat the people within, thus negating the effect of the siege? It would be a political nightmare, even if most of the world weren't against the action to begin with...as is, it would be next to impossible. Added to that the fact that the political system in Iraq probably predicates that the target of our invasion, the military leadership, would be the very last to be effected by the hardships of the siege, and that it's initial victims would be those we are supposedly going in to 'save' from the tyranny of Sadaam, and it's simply the wrong move. There is a reason that sieges are pretty much seen to be militarily obsolete in large theatres of modern war. DaDakota's solution would basically cause the situation to go on indefinately, with support waning and sympathy for the Iraqi plight growing both domestically and throughout the rest of the world. The only hope is that it might cause an overthrow, but given the insular environment Hussein lives in, and the people's reaction the last time, that is a longshot, with the possible negative outcomes far outweighing the positive. As ugly as it could get, the only way to deal with the Iraqi defense plan is to isolate sectors, depopulate barrier zones, and send in special forces on rotation, with high degree of expected casualties, in quick hitting precision strikes designed to upset the Iraqi infrastructure and hope to hit gold in the form of leadership personel. Kind of like Black Hawk Down, but with better tactical support, all out armed application, and cohesive forces. Either way, it will get really ugly. There is no such thing as clean urban warfare.
Actually, I believe that opinion started against the US plans and if any momentum is building, it's to support insepctors/war.
I don't know how you handle the civilian situation correctly, but once the war starts, it's war. The people will either clear out of the way or be faced with the danger of remaining in it. That's just unfortunate, but I don't see any other way. People talk. They are smart, and they will be forced to make a decision that pretty much sucks. Leave or stay. But it will be their decision.
heck. can't we hire the israelis to assasinate Saddam? it's not like they don't do that already anyway. ... .. leadership? what leadership? you mean the pile of goop they scraped off the walls of the presidential palace?
Oh sorry, my post wasn't too clear....I was only saying that it didn't appear to me the US would be overly concerned with civilian casualties and wouldn't allow that possibility to dictate their military strategy. For example, if they feel Iraqi snipers will be hiding out in inhabited apartment buildings, I think our armed forces will not hesitate to blow up the whole building before taking the chance of incurring casualties to our own troops. Bottomline is that civilian casualties will be able to be kept under wraps or simply deemed as "collateral damage" a lot easier than thousands of body bags of our own boys coming back. Sorry about the misinterpretation. Yeah, this is going to be an interesting test of how our army is willing to operate. From what the two army/navy people we talked to said, Collateral damage is just a necessary part of war; Saddam is creating the problem by hiding in urban areas and that won't stop us. This is basically what you said. The opposing view is that today's war is a bit different than 1990. Then, Iraq was clearly the aggressor, and we had pretty clear world support. This time around, we're already looked at as the aggressor by some people. If we go around blowing up civilians, the media will have a field day -- and the Islam world will absolutely go nuts. That would just give OBL a new recruiting tool and build the hatred over there even further. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
