Posted: 9/26/2002 8:21:22 PM EDT
|
The New York Times September 27, 2002 Fighting Street to Street By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/opinion/27KRIS.html BASRA, Iraq — To understand why an invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk that the White House expects, pay $20 (round trip) and board an Iraqi Airways flight that soars from Baghdad straight through the American-enforced "no-flight zone" to Basra on the southern tip of Iraq. American war planes are authorized to shoot down any aircraft that venture into it, but the Iraqis around me were cool as ice. They knew that U.S. fighters would never attack a civilian aircraft, insha'allah, and that the U.S. military could only bluster. "Sometimes the American Awacs planes warn us on the radio," explained an Iraqi pilot who was amused at my anxiety. "They say, `You are entering a no-fly zone and must turn around.' We reply, `This is Iraqi air space and we're going to fly through it.' " That American restraint is Iraq's ace going into war. Iraq knows that the United States cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of places to hide its army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy an enemy that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent on a different approach. From Basra I drove to the Kuwait border on the "highway of death," to see how Iraq will guard what may be a principal invasion route for American troops. The only military presence was a few guards on the edge of Basra, amounting to what you'd expect at the entrance to an urban U.S. high school. So does this mean that Iraq is poorly prepared for an invasion? I don't think so. Instead of protecting its borders, Iraq will hide its army within its cities, where air strikes are effective only at an unacceptable (for America) cost in civilian deaths. Saddam has a hiding place for himself that is better than Osama bin Laden's caves at Tora Bora: the teeming city of Baghdad, with five million inhabitants, where he already never spends two consecutive nights in the same place. "The Americans are good at bombing," one Iraqi official mused. "But some day, they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting. Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets." That could be a nightmare. As the last gulf war showed, a bombing campaign can knock out bridges and barracks, but unless we're incredibly lucky, we won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces. We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground — which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier. Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly seven million more in Al Quds militia. Karar Hassan, a 22-year-old member of the militia in the city of Najaf, said he had just completed a training session in street fighting, including fighting house to house and even from trees. "I'll fight them till my last drop of blood," he added, in the kind of boast that is heard everywhere in Iraq. "If someone tries to threaten us, we know how to respond," said a farmer named Hakim al-Khal in the bazaar of Karbala, and then he reached under his shirt and brandished a handgun. Most Iraqis seem to have no love for Saddam, and the great majority will probably spend the war hiding under their beds. But if even a tiny proportion of the braggarts are serious, then look out. Moreover, some tribes are armed with mortars and large-caliber machine guns, so that even if they could not stop tanks rolling through to Baghdad, they could seriously hurt an American army of occupation. Perhaps the American invasion will be a breeze after all. The Iraqi army is less than half the strength it was when it crumpled in a 100-hour ground war a decade ago, and U.S. forces are much stronger now. But if we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting, with farmers like Mr. Khal taking potshots at our troops. Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years? |
|
Forget street fighting... thats too dangerous. Maybe we should turn back time and use seige tactic. Surround Baghdad and cut off all water, electricity and stop food from going in. Just sit back and starve them out. I'll bet within a month they'll be comming out begging for food and water. |
|
"The Americans are good at bombing," one Iraqi official mused. "But some day, they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting. Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets." This the same talk we heard last time. Sure street fighting is bad news-but how long will any iraqis really hold out once power food water is gone, not to mention moral problems when surrounded by a foe that has defeated them once and has once again wiped all there pieces off the board. Karar Hassan, a 22-year-old member of the militia in the city of Najaf, said he had just completed a training session in street fighting, including fighting house to house and even from trees. "I'll fight them till my last drop of blood," he added, in the kind of boast that is heard everywhere in Iraq. Big talk from a man who has not yet faced a heavily armed US Marine intent on turning him into a spot of goo. |
| I wouldn't trade the life of one Marine for 5 million Iraqi civilians. I say bomb the shit out of them day and night, 24/7 until Baghdad is nothing but pea gravel for miles around. Who is this guy trying to kid? The average rag in uniform will never die for Saddam. The Republican (why couldn't they call themselves Democrats?) Guard will fight a little but in the end they will kill Saddam if we don't. This war will be another cake walk. If they use Chemical/Bio weapons we should/will use nukes. If we blow the damns on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers we won't have to fight anyone in Baghdad. It will be washed away. |
|
What a laugh!Hassan just got done "training" on the jungle gym in the local elementary school playground ,so that makes him a match for the best equipped ,trained and motivated fighting men on earth? I know urban warfare is no joke,and it might be tough at first.But we're not talking Stalingrad here. I just cannot be convinced that these people(civilians and all) are going to commit national suicide for that fucker. What the hell has he done to endear them or win their loyalty?He's been a disaster for that country.A one man holocaust on his own people. Maybe some hardliners put up some stiff resistance at the beginning(as much for fear of being shot in the back),but once its clear that we're not leaving till the jobs good and done,I think they all come out with white flags wavin. Maybe even tring up sadam in the town square like mussolini. |
|
"But some day, they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting. Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets." yea uh huh, ah hem, pardon me, but BRING IT ON BEEEEOTCHES!!! you'll never beat a bunch of pissed off michiganders that just got off work, and had a couple of "navy seal" drinks (bacardi & cokes), and furnished with our own beloved CAR 15's. yer totally screwed!!!!! "nice shot bill, get ya a case a beer fot that one!" [only thing i have to worry about is the cowering democRAT hugging my leg, begging to go home.] [50] [beer] [devil] [heavy] [bounce][rocket] [pissed] |
|
That is why our forces should grid the city, prioritize grid sections, and go to work. First, clear and level every tenth block in a selected area. Push the debris into protective berms and set up a defensive area with shooting lanes down every street. This will give control over most movement in the area and refuge within reach of civilians, who will trade information for food. From these areas, surgical atacks can be made to suppress resistance with maximum effectiveness and minimum risk. Snipers would work from high ground, Engineers would clear booby trapped buildings on a schedule of their choosing, supply routes could be easily maintained, and the fighting would occur on our terms within easy reach of defensive outposts and reinforcements. Civilians would bring stories of good treatment and food supplies to conflict areas which will encourage more civilians to seek haven. As grids sections are pacified, assualt forces are moved into new areas, which fall faster as more intelligence comes in and the weakening defenders are isolated and starved out. I don't think it would take very many weeks to bring down the city, and if civil order was turned over to local forces quickly, we would operate less as an occupying force, which would help the new government to take shape more quickly. See, I have an answer for everything. |
|
Sure, everybody has a gun. But bullets? Well not so fast... The fact remains that the US slaughtered the Somalis. Casualties were high because they never got the support they asked for. 120mm DU sniper rifles are a definate advantage. Sending in lightly armed troops to slug it out is a last resort, too third world. Special Ops do special ops, not human wave attacks. We could drive M1A3's up and down the streets until they run out of ammo. |
|
Ignore the New York Times - especially when it comes to the subject of war with Iraq. They have been against the idea since it was broached after 9-11. Unfortunately their never ending editorials against ousting Saddam have spread to the rest of the paper, including the front page. Totally biased reporting! They are doing everything they can to sabotage it - more than just opining. They deliberately misrepresented Henry Kissinger's postion on going to war with Iraq, saying he was against it when he is for it. Attempted and succeeded in acquiring and publishing the very war plans we will use in any conflict there, for the sole purpose of forcing the administration to call off the attack (or face an opponent armed with our vital tactics & strategy). That's treason! |
| You guys are forgetting a very important thing. In order for there to be a fight, there actually has to be somebody to shoot back at you. If the Gulf war was any clue, as soon as we set foot in country, they will probably be surrendering in the same droves as last time. |
|
Quoted: I wouldn't trade the life of one Marine for 5 million Iraqi civilians. I say bomb the shit out of them day and night, 24/7 until Baghdad is nothing but pea gravel for miles around. I would have to agree with you! Give everyone-civilians and military- 72 hrs to get out of whatever city we want to neutralize.After that LEVEL IT to the sand. Repeat once or twice, and watch them beg "The Great Satan" for forgiveness.[:)] |
|
Quoted: Iraq knows that the United States cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of places to hide its army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy an enemy that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent on a different approach. Instead of protecting its borders, Iraq will hide its army within its cities, where air strikes are effective only at an unacceptable (for America) cost in civilian deaths. Saddam has a hiding place for himself that is better than Osama bin Laden's caves at Tora Bora: the teeming city of Baghdad, with five million inhabitants, where he already never spends two consecutive nights in the same place. "The Americans are good at bombing," one Iraqi official mused. "But some day, they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting. Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets." That could be a nightmare. As the last gulf war showed, a bombing campaign can knock out bridges and barracks, but unless we're incredibly lucky, we won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces. We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground — which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier. Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly seven million more in Al Quds militia. Karar Hassan, a 22-year-old member of the militia in the city of Najaf, said he had just completed a training session in street fighting, including fighting house to house and even from trees. "I'll fight them till my last drop of blood," he added, in the kind of boast that is heard everywhere in Iraq. "If someone tries to threaten us, we know how to respond," said a farmer named Hakim al-Khal in the bazaar of Karbala, and then he reached under his shirt and brandished a handgun. Most Iraqis seem to have no love for Saddam, and the great majority will probably spend the war hiding under their beds. But if even a tiny proportion of the braggarts are serious, then look out. Moreover, some tribes are armed with mortars and large-caliber machine guns, so that even if they could not stop tanks rolling through to Baghdad, they could seriously hurt an American army of occupation. Perhaps the American invasion will be a breeze after all. The Iraqi army is less than half the strength it was when it crumpled in a 100-hour ground war a decade ago, and U.S. forces are much stronger now. But if we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting, with farmers like Mr. Khal taking potshots at our troops. Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years? One word: Kabul. Mosques [rocket] Schools [rocket] Private Homes [rocket] Hospitals [rocket] |
|
MOUT has never been easy, and people fight their hardest when it's in their own backyard. One thing that worked for Aidid in Somalia that will work for Hussein is the fact that the average Joe (translated: Ahad?) doesn't get any other news than what is fed to him over his nation's tv and radio. They're going to tell horror stories about US troops. The average villager is going to think occupation troops are going to force porkchops down their throats and convert them to Christianity, or the marines eat little kids for breakfast. We have the best trained, best equipped forces in the world, but do not underestimate the power of scared ignorant people in large numbers in their own backyard. |
|
In '91, "they" said that the regular Iraqi military was mostly veterans of the Iranian War and would be experienced and would give the US quite a fight. The regular troops surrendered on their knees to journalists. In '91, "they" said that the Republican Guard was the fiercest, battle-hardened army in the whole Arab world, had immense desert-warfare experience, and would cut the US soldiers to ribbons. The Republican Guard ran without a fight. PREDICTION: Iraqi civilians will support the overthrow of Saddam just like the Afgahnis supported the overthrow of the Taliban. |
|
Nikki-boy and the NY Times crew have been drinking too much sparkling water and eating too many bran muffins instead of doing their homework. My guess is you could take one USMC Division, withold food for two days, drop 1000 BLTs and seventy cases of ice cold beer in the middle of Baghdad and turn 'em loose and this shit would be wrapped up in a few hours! |
|
The realist in me thinks that the siege of the city of Baghdad, will be the most complex exercise in siege warfare since Leningrad. One only has to look at a map of the city of Baghdad, check the distance scales and do a little quick basic manpower per square mile calculations, to see the true magnitude of the problem the American military will face. Take a look at the city of Dallas Texas on a map. It would appear that the Dallas metoplex is much smaller than it actually is, what the map does not convey very well is the fact that with it's urban sprawl, the area of urban operations would extend all the way out to Denton! Baghdad's urban sprawl is much the same. While Urban operations are a nightmare to be sure, the assumption that effective siege warfare in the modern age, is easy is deceptive in the extreme. The U.S. military, has not ever really attempted A siege of this size (the city of Hue does not count because the conditions and objectives of the reduction of that city were very different than Baghdad, Hue never being a real siege.) There has been little training regarding siege warfare at the National Training Center or our war Collages. In this day of highly mobile war of maneuver, little American military thought has been given to the lowly medieval art of siege warfare, there isn't a lot of doctrine or American military thought laying around on the shelf regarding the effective use of siege. American military thinkers are desperately scrambling to come up with a Baghdad siege plan. Culling the lessons and mistakes of the German siege experience in World WarII and the Israeli experience with the siege of Beirut Lebanon in the early 80's. In both of these examples of siege warfare, the people laying the siege's fell far short of their stated objectives given when the sieges began. With the single exception of the German siege of Sevastopol. Servastopol lasted 250 days and while not terribly costly in casualties by the standards of the Eastern front in World War II , cost the German's numbers of men that would be considered a blood bath by the current standards of American public opinion. Sevastapol was also on a peninsula with a third of the city cut off by a sea, lessening the size of the siege ring quite a bit. There is also the ugly possibility, of Julius Caesar's experience during the siege of Alasia in 55 BC. To rear it's ugly head. Where a large outside army of Gaul's descended on Caesar's siege of Alesia Besieging the Besiegers and forcing Caesar to fight the classic double donut encirclement of history. Not that I think, that a large army will materialize to actually do battle around the siege of Baghdad, but with the huge amount of American troop strength tied up in a siege that could very easily drag it self out for months, other areas of Iraq could be left open for Iranian supposed liberation of the Shia areas around Basra and South east Iraq. Are we going to lay siege to all of Iraq's major cities, Basra, Mosul, Tikrit, etc. or just Baghdad and if we are going to do that for some undetermined length of time, what kind of troop strength numbers do you think that will take? 100,000 troops is starting to look like a awful small number. Who ever told the guys in Washington that siege warfare was easy, needs to have a little talk with the spirit of Caesar. |
|
The New York Times September 27, 2002 Fighting Street to Street By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF BASRA, Iraq — Most Iraqis seem to have no love for Saddam, and the great majority will probably spend the war hiding under their beds. I think that says it all. From thecleaner "nice shot bill, get ya a case a beer fot that one!" Too damn funny! Red Dawn- the export version. |
|
Something that artcle left out was the suicide bombers/Islamic militants who will be flooding into Iraq from other neighboring middle eastern countries just for a chance to kill American troops, and a good portion may already be there waiting. I think the best hope is to do what they did with the Nothern Alliance in Afganistan - find a willing native 'army' to do the dirty work and take the losses and bad publicity. That way we can spin the war as more of Iraqis fighting back against their own cruel dictator. |