The Brits do have better mililtary historians. Tough decisions at Baghdad gates By John Keegan, Defence Editor (Filed: 25/03/2003) Gloom-mongers are already complaining that the campaign in Iraq is "bogging down", apparently because of the appearance of Iraqi irregulars in the rear areas and the resumption of fighting in towns described as having fallen. It is far too early to talk of the campaign bogging down or even faltering. Doom-mongers should remember that the allied attack started only four days ago. They have been spoilt by memories of the briefness of the Gulf war of 1991 and the rapidity of the recent Northern Alliance victory in Afghanistan. Click to enlarge Wars do not usually obey Hollywood timetables. Progress can be slow and setbacks frequent. The Falklands, a short war by historical standards, lasted a month from the first landings to the Argentine surrender. In Iraq the allies have done astonishingly well, having advanced nearly 300 miles since crossing the start line. This is one of the fastest advances ever achieved, surpassing that of the British liberation army in the dash from the Seine to Brussels in 1944. They have also secured the vital bridges at Nasiriyah, taken the Faw peninsula, captured Umm Qasr and isolated Basra. What happens next is the question, in more senses than one. Gen Tommy Franks's difficulty is that he is fighting a one-front war but rapidly approaching his main objective. His task would be far easier had he troops on a northern front as well, allowing him to encircle Baghdad. The nearer he gets to Baghdad the more urgent will it become to make correct decisions. He certainly does not want to commit troops to entering the city, because street fighting would cause serious casualties. He does not want to drive the defenders back into the city either, not at least in the initial stage. What would suit him best is if the Republican Guards came forward and offered battle in the open country short of Baghdad. There, under the plentiful close support the air force provides, the American armoured forces could win a decisive engagement, which would do both material and moral damage to the regime. If the Iraqis will not fight outside Baghdad, and it is one of the simplest military principles not to do what the enemy wants, then Gen Franks may have to organise a siege of the city. His object would be to deprive the defenders of electricity and water, food and other commodities. The trouble is that a close blockade would inevitably inflict hardship on the civilians as well as the soldiers. Indeed, Saddam would certainly make sure that his troops got the lion's share of whatever was going. It may prove to be a difficulty in organising a siege that there is a shortage of troops. The breakneck speed of the advance has disguised thus far how thin on the ground the allies are. Almost the whole of the British force, amounting to a light division, is engaged in the south around Basra. The drive on Baghdad has been conducted by only two American formations, the 3rd Mechanised Division and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, a reinforced division. The 101st Air Assault Division is making its way forward, largely by helicopter lift. However, the 101st has no tanks, while the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force is largely infantry. The formations that Gen Franks expected to have received via Turkey by this stage, the 4th Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division, effectively an armoured force, are in transit and in unsatisfactory fashion, with the equipment aboard ships proceeding through the Suez Canal and the personnel arriving by air, mostly from the United States. The anxiety must be, therefore, that if Saddam's best troops are not committed to battle outside Baghdad and defeated, but retire into the city, the Americans may find themselves forced to impose a siege but without sufficient troops to form an impermeable cordon. A siege that leaks is not an effective siege at all. Meanwhile, if the main campaign is seen to be running into difficulty, pro-Saddam elements may begin to mount irregular operations against the lines of communication from the south, in the countryside which General Franks lacks the forces to garrison. None of this could have happened in the Gulf war of 1991 because the Iraqis were isolated in the desert, the allies had only to defeat them in their positions and civilians were not involved. Moreover, Gen Norman Schwarzkopf commanded nearly twice the number of troops that Gen Franks has. It may be the French who have won the most hostility in America but it is the Turks who have thrown the spanner in the works. No doubt the Americans will remove that spanner but they could have done without it in the first place.
Boy, I feel less gloomy already. It's so uplifting to know that: 1. We "may have to organise a siege" of Baghdad "to deprive the defenders of electricity and water, food and other commodities," even though this will cause civilians to suffer and starve long before it affects armed defenders. 2. We have "a shortage of troops" to enforce a siege because "the formations that Gen Franks expected to have received via Turkey ... are in transit and in unsatisfactory fashion." 3. "... if the main campaign is seen to be running into difficulty, pro-Saddam elements may begin to mount irregular operations against the lines of communication from the south, in the countryside which General Franks lacks the forces to garrison." And that's the good news?!?!
Good article. I would tend to agree that more forces are desired, particularly the 4 ID. They are on their way right now (ships w/ equipment are in transit and the troops have begun to fly over to Kuwait). I would also agree that a seige may be necessary, but I expect raids in that event to speed things up.
A little perspective, man. We are winning and they are losing. We may have difficulties but it is a disaster for Saddam. We may in fact be doing better than we planned.
Swopa: You have a better idea? This was in the cards from the beginning. It should not be a surprise. I suppose that you'd rather storm the city and get tens of thousands of people - soldiers and civilians alike - killed? This means that they are on their way and are not set up yet. As I just said, I would rather that they were already there, but if a seige is in order, they will be there soon. This is largely what the Brits and some of the Marines are there to do. And again, more forces are on the way. You worry too much.
I haven't seen spin like that since Linda Blair in The Exorcist. "Shock and Awe" was supposed to get them to capitulate in the first few days, remember? It's apparently a surprise to the folks we have in charge of this war, since they didn't have the troops in place for a siege. I mean, who decided when this war started? Who spent months in advance planning it? And we don't have the #($)@#@! troops in position to do what "was in the cards from the beginning"? That's appalling ineptitude, and the result is going to be more U.S and Iraqi deaths.
Geez, we lost a grand total of 13 American combat deaths and 7 captured while conquering a third of the country and Saddam is losing divisions. The horror!
Well, I can see now why your threads get ignored by a lot of people. I talk about our lack of preparation for what's going to happen next, and you pretend that I'm talking about what's already happened. Why do you bother to post to a message board at all if you can't discuss issues honestly? Bye.
You are right, we are not prepared. Bush to Tell Americans War is Dangerous (2003-03-25) -- President Bush will give a live TV speech tonight to tell Americans that "people get hurt in war." The President reportedly just learned about this danger by watching TV and reading newspapers. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that despite months of planning, no one in the Pentagon or the administration knew the hazards of firearms aimed at our soldiers. "We also didn't realize that the enemy could capture some of our troops and hold them as prisoners," said Mr. Fleischer. "This was a complete shock to us. I'm sure the American people had no idea these things could happen. We have to thank the journalism community for alerting us." The President and his advisors have also been alarmed to discover that mechanical and electronic devices sometimes fail, and that some people do bad things to others. "Up until now the news media has been shaping our expectations about the war," Mr. Fleischer said. "But it seems that war is not so predictable. We're now rethinking everything."
I wonder what engineering project could be used to make the taking of Bagdad easier? We're obviously going to have to go in there, sooner or later. Maybe dam the rivers. That would be a twist. Then you have the beds as a highway to command and control centers. I would guess all conventional roads are booby-trapped and set for artillery fire. perhaps we should bulldoze directly through buildings to the telecom, computer grids, & power, water and sewer plants. I wonder if they will drop those e-bombs to take out all electronics. I'm guessing it hasn't been done yet because a) the assaults not ready. b) humanitarian hardships c) trouble rebuilding. Also seems like we should be able to take the grids out with conventional airpower. We'd probably also want to kill all bridges and roads so the enemy can't move to attack US, and we can hunt them down separate and isolated without having to worry about co-ordinated artillery. We may want to decoy - kill the grid, roads and bridges and move drones from 4 sides to take mortal fire (possibly chemical mortar). Then, tactical retreat. Pull the enemy out, and kill. Will be interesting to see it develop.
It's pretty clear now that we have to kill many, if not most of the Republican Guards in order to win the war. I see several new Highways of Death developing between their current positions and the city of Baghdad.
Good article. I don't consider it gloomy, just realistic (and rather detached) about military issues. (I am dissappointed that no one mentions how long it will take for the 1st cavalry to arrive, but maybe that is intentional) Remember that the article emphasizes military issues but not the intangibles like sudden loss of leadership or removal of the fedayen(sp), etc etc that could change the scenario overnight. There are some potential negative unknowns that work in saddam's favor (e.g. Iraqi use of WMD), but most of the unknowns will work in favor of the coalition forces (and even saddam's use of WMD is a double-edged sword for him).
Swopa: I don't think that you understand exactly what a seige entails. No, we do not have enough troops to completely ring the city and catch every f*ing mosquito that tries to get out. Yes, we do have enough troops to keep any significant number of troops from getting out. Yes, we do have enough troops to stage raids in force into the city in order to hasten the regime's demise. Which tactic do you think we're going to use? BTW, nice to see that you're suddenly smarter than the generals who signed off on this plan... They know what they're doing. Why don't you leave the driving to the adults?
treeman, What do you think the chances are that we can destroy the Republican Guard divisions before they retreat into the city of Baghdad?
hopefully it will happen. THey are the guys who have no future if a regime change happens, so they are fighting for their lifes now.
We're in the process of destroying them right now. Part of me thinks that they intend to give battle; there is no other good reason to leave the city limits in the first place other than that. But that would be stupid... It is a certainty that if they do make it back into Baghdad, they won't do it as full divisions.
