| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Iraq | ||||
| HOW IRAQ WILL FIGHT | ||||
| 2003-03-10 | ||||
| With virtually no chance of winning the war militarily, Saddam will try to maximize the number of casualties on both sides in hope of further souring world opinion against the conflict—and eventually forcing America to accept a ceasefire. A.RIDE OUT THE AIR CAMPAIGN Saddam will use camouflage and decoys to protect tanks and artillery, hide his air-defence missiles so they continue to remain a threat, and park military assets next to homes and mosques to ensure heavy civilian casualties. Radio links will be lost, but buried landlines may allow continued communication with forces.
Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain are the key bases in the region for U.S. forces—and the soft underbelly of the offensive. Saddam may try to wreak massive carnage on the bases and force them to shut down.
U.S. troops will be most vulnerable when they are forced to slow down to cross the Euphrates. Saddam may destroy existing bridges, and order Iraqi to blow up U.S.-built temporary ones as arm or rolls across.
The elite Republican Guard will be the first line of defence around Baghdad, while the Special Republican Guard—Saddam’s ÃŒber elite troops—and the Special Security Organization will form the inner ring that fights U.S. forces once they get into the city. Saddam may secretly flee the city early on and go underground to save himself. Some speculate he could use WMD in a last-ditch effort to defend Baghdad.
| ||||
| Posted by:ISHMAIL |
| #4 Saddam tried to take the war to the allies in '91. He failed, horribly. As soon as the Iraqis began their push towards Khafji, we picked them up and started bombing them. They got some forces into the abandoned town, but they were cut off and had to retreat soon afterwards. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-03-10 08:11:13 |
| #3 Maybe Evan Thomas could be Saddam's advisor on military operations. Could shorten the war some. As I said before the Iraqi military commanders will worry us if they actually decide to manuever their forces. If they decide to dig in to fight it out in Baghdad, then once the US overruns the rest of the country, we will wait them out, while bombing and attacking their 'camouflaged' military equipment. Please, please, please, keep your forces dug in, Iraq. It will help limit US/Brit casualties while maximizing your own. Please, make your units target rich environments. We have a whole generation of pilots who need the target practice. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-03-10 04:40:16 |
| #2 Evan Thomas? Come on now... OK, let's take it step by step... A. Wired command functions--during GW1 massive efforts were made to take down Saddam's primitive wired TCP/IP network. It failed. Later, it was theorized (in Penthouse, no less!) that a careless re-routing of less than 1% of the US's illicit internet bandwidth would have rendered Saddam's data network useless. How 'bout it, guys? B. Take fight to enemy option--yeah, he could try it but it would be pretty funny. Saddam's already retrenching his positions, and ours are well-established. Even a minute movement toward US positions would loose all heck. C. chokepoints on the Euphrates--the original article in Newsweek addresses the bridge at An Nasiriya, near Basra. Of course, it assumes that US troops from Kuwait will run as the crow flies D. WMD to defend Baghdad--nevermind the oxymoron of "Elite" Republican Guard, if Saddam looses weaponized anthrax in or near Baghdad, all we have to do is back off, quarantine the area, and wait. Besides, it seems as though Saddam is fortifying his home town rather then Baghdad. I'd anticipate a bunker scene with small caliber sidearms. |
| Posted by: therien 2003-03-10 03:31:21 |
| #1 As I've commented earlier, I'm not brain-dead from the "peace camp vs anglos warmongers" tsunami here in french media and I think the US case for ousting Saddam is quite valid in the WOT agenda. Still, I'm not utterly comfortable with that coming war, as per this article : US forces will aim at minimizing both US and iraki casualties, while Hussein's best hope is to maximize them (and believe me, almost *every* main news outlet is eager for the Eviiil USA to prove once again their bloodlust and/or their inability to fight). Basically, the two sides may not planning on fighting the same war; let's hope US leaders have already thought this out. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-10 03:08:04 |