| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Republican Guard losses probably overestimated |
| 2003-04-01 |
| Michael O'Hanlon Special to The Yomiuri Shimbun On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers claimed that some Iraqi Republican Guard units had already been weakened by 50 percent due to air attacks in the war's first 12 days. His comments were repeated later by another military officer. Although I have little doubt the war is going well, these estimates seem misleadingly high. The Pentagon has been very sparing in providing information to the public about how many bombs it has dropped in the war so far. It has been even more circumspect about estimating damage to Iraqi forces. But historical and technical considerations suggest the 50 percent estimate might be high. Perhaps certain very small and select units have suffered that level of attrition, but it seems more likely that Republican Guard forces on the whole have absorbed losses of less than 10 percent to date. It still seems likely to me that a serious ground-air battle will be needed to neutralize Republican Guard divisions such as the Medina and Baghdad units outside Baghdad. While we are capable of conducting that mission successfully, it will not be as easy as Myers seemed to suggest the other day.... This is what worries me: ...the capabilities of U.S. sensors are still severely challenged when looking for stationary vehicles against a complex backdrop. We saw that in Kosovo, where U.S. forces thought they had destroyed one-third of all enemy armor by late May of 1999, only to discover after the June 10 termination of the war that actual Serb losses were only 25 percent of initial totals--and possibly much less. We have more joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) aircraft today than in 1991 or 1999, but they are better at finding moving vehicles than stationary, dug-in objects. |
| Posted by:JAB |
| #4 One way to corroberate the losses is noting that additional troops are being drawn down from the north and placed in the south. We keep putting people into the north, and old hasbeen keeps weakening his defenders up there. That can only mean that he's REALLY worried about the troop strength in the south. I went into an area in Laos after a Buff arclight strike (I was one of those that helped develop "boxes", and they thought this would help me do that). Think of a piece of hard clay ground in west Texas plowed to a depth of 20 feet - about fifteen times. Huge trees five feet in diameter were splintered into toothpicks, then the toothpicks broken. NOTHING lived in a strip three miles long by a half-mile wide. We have new, precision bombs that can target a specific window on a building, but percussion and shrapnel are still the main killing force. Drop enough weapons on someone's head, and even if his skin is intact, his mind is jello. I can well envision a 50% kill after five days of heavy bombing. The big question is, how much equipment do the survivors have, and what kind of condition is it in? Can't fight a war with T-55 tanks if the barrel is bent in the middle. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-01 19:03:16 |
| #3 no doubt the 'corridors' through which we will access points around Baghdad are much more than 50% degraded and other areas much less than 50% |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-04-01 15:41:14 |
| #2 National Review On Line's The Corner has had several posts about this. O'Hanlon has testified before Congress that the President's Defense budgets are too high. The Air Force went to school on the lessons of Serbia and learned a lot. And the geography of Iraq makes it hardly a complex backdrop. Also, we are in contact with the forces that we are bombing. Eyes on the ground help a huge amount. Also, JSTARS doesn't need to see the dug-in tank. It sees the cars driving up to it, the fuel trucks, the lunch wagons. JSTARS identifies the nodes where traffic comes and goes, and the terminuses where it goes and stays. All are then targets. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-04-01 15:28:09 |
| #1 the point about Kosovo is well made - one presumes the Iraqis have learnded from the Serbs about decoys and such. On the other hand, shouldnt Iraq be different because of the presence of US ground forces, which can probe, find decoys, and attack forces that are over dispersed - isnt that the whole idea of combined arms - if he disperses we hit him on the ground, if he concentrates we hit him from the air? Which we couldnt do in Kosovo where we attacked from the air only? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-01 14:39:11 |