Defensive ring around baghdad

[Akira 0]

It has been mentioned that this form of strategy could have two uses. One forces can withdraw into the city for a long prolonged urban warfare fight aimed at political disaster and to gain the sympathies of world governments.

Two, to draw in US forces so that concentrated gases can be used.

For the sake of arguement on this hypothetical lets just say Saddam DOES have some gas left.

Would he use it? If he uses it he will show the world the US was "right" and sympathy would be lost, but could be a last ditch effort to save his regime if he thinks all is lost. If he doesn't use it he risks being ousted and possible killed, but world sympathy could still be with him.

Thoughts?

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It has been mentioned that this form of strategy could have two uses. One forces can withdraw into the city for a long prolonged urban warfare fight aimed at political disaster and to gain the sympathies of world governments.<span id='postcolor'>

The other question that comes to mind, is Sadaam prepared for a siege? What if he draws up into Baghdad and the coalition forces don't follow? He may be prepared for it, but I doubt the citizens are. It's one thing to valiantly defend your country, it's another thing to sit in the dark without food or water for a few days...

I imagine a mass exodous would occur after this. Not only that, but the actual Iraqi public opinion of Sadaams government would falter even more when the people see the soldiers saving themselves and not the non-combatants.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Jan. 07 2003,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It has been mentioned that this form of strategy could have two uses. One forces can withdraw into the city for a long prolonged urban warfare fight aimed at political disaster and to gain the sympathies of world governments.<span id='postcolor'>

The other question that comes to mind, is Sadaam prepared for a siege? What if he draws up into Baghdad and the coalition forces don't follow? He may be prepared for it, but I doubt the citizens are. It's one thing to valiantly defend your country, it's another thing to sit in the dark without food or water for a few days...

I imagine a mass exodous would occur after this. Not only that, but the actual Iraqi public opinion of Sadaams government would falter even more when the people see the soldiers saving themselves and not the non-combatants.<span id='postcolor'>

It is quite possible that there will be very few non-combatant families. In that case that would not happen.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,12:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is quite possible that there will be very few non-combatant families. In that case that would not happen.<span id='postcolor'>

True, and I have no doubt that many people in Iraq are very patriotic to their nation or that they would fight with anything less then 100%.

My point, however, is that we saw almost none of that in the last war.  If anything the overall morale of the nation of Iraq is much lower then before the first Gulf war.  I'll stand by my prediction.

[cam0flage 0]

Quite a devious plan from Saddam. Urban warfare always causes a lot of casualities for the attacker; I guess if the American forces have to attack Baghdad it will be one bloody fight, and the American public isn't certainly ready for it. They expect a quick war with minimal losses, which isn't possible under this scenario. Of course Bush can always get the B-52s to level the city, but I guess that would cause a lot of complaints from the global community these days. I guess everyone remember how the Allied bombed German cities during WWII, but I think it's a totally different scenario if we compare Iraq to Hitler's Germany.

What do you think about the morale of the Iraqi troops? Can they put up a stubborn resistance?

[Paratrooper 0]

When the enemy is sealed into a city, and a direct attack would we undesirable most armies in history have resorted to a seige. As supplies run low in Bagdad I'm certain the defences would collapse. This would remove the need for urban fighting.

As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Noone ever talked about the potential casualties this war might cost. Urban warfare is the worst that can happen to civillians. Now this is not an accusal or something I am just surprised noone ever put that factor into the IRAQ-war formula. Lets not be foolish, we talk about at least several 10'000 civillians!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Jan. 07 2003,22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quite a devious plan from Saddam. Urban warfare always causes a lot of casualities for the attacker; I guess if the American forces have to attack Baghdad it will be one bloody fight, and the American public isn't certainly ready for it. They expect a quick war with minimal losses, which isn't possible under this scenario. Of course Bush can always get the B-52s to level the city, but I guess that would cause a lot of complaints from the global community these days. I guess everyone remember how the Allied bombed German cities during WWII, but I think it's a totally different scenario if we compare Iraq to Hitler's Germany.

What do you think about the morale of the Iraqi troops? Can they put up a stubborn resistance?<span id='postcolor'>

I have my doubts about Iraqi troop morale in the basic services ie "the regulars."

The Republican Guard is suppose to be Saddam's crack troops but gave little resistance (except a few pockets) in the Gulf War.

But this scenerio could be viewed differently since in the Gulf War their "homeland" wasn't being invaded per se. Plus Saddam fills the RG with loyalists (and if he is smart religious radicals).

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Jan. 07 2003,22:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Noone ever talked about the potential casualties this war might cost. Urban warfare is the worst that can happen to civillians. Now this is not an accusal or something I am just surprised noone ever put that factor into the IRAQ-war formula. Lets not be foolish, we talk about at least several 10'000 civillians!<span id='postcolor'>

Actually we have referred to it....just not with numbers.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For the sake of arguement on this hypothetical lets just say Saddam DOES have some gas left.

Would he use it? If he uses it he will show the world the US was "right" and sympathy would be lost, but could be a last ditch effort to save his regime if he thinks all is lost. If he doesn't use it he risks being ousted and possible killed, but world sympathy could still be with him.

Thoughts?<span id='postcolor'>

USA recently stated that they will use nukes if they are forced to. Does that mean that USA would use them if they were being invaded by an other country?

I believe Saddam is pretty aware of the consequences that would follow a chemical attack. He is not that stupid.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"USA with its morale is obligated to deal with the evil of the world. If USA shouldn't do it then who should?

Do you honestly think any other nation could handle the job?" - One american guy...(not exact words)<span id='postcolor'>

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the enemy is sealed into a city, and a direct attack would we undesirable most armies in history have resorted to a seige. As supplies run low in Bagdad I'm certain the defences would collapse. This would remove the need for urban fighting.

As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.<span id='postcolor'>

But that goes against all sorts of human rights. If you know what will happen inside the city. Supplies run low means mass and in-discriminate deaths.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I think he will try to use it but as with the missiles against Israel I doubt its effectivness. The Americans would be smart enough to be prepared, and the Iraqis would be prepared but simply not smart enough!

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the enemy is sealed into a city, and a direct attack would we undesirable most armies in history have resorted to a seige. As supplies run low in Bagdad I'm certain the defences would collapse. This would remove the need for urban fighting.

As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.<span id='postcolor'>

But that goes against all sorts of human rights.  If you know what will happen inside the city.  Supplies run low means mass and in-discriminate deaths.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think so, I think as with most seiges, the defenders would give in the fight once they run out of ammunition and supplies. This would be better for everyone than a massive assault and urban fighting.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,23:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the enemy is sealed into a city, and a direct attack would we undesirable most armies in history have resorted to a seige. As supplies run low in Bagdad I'm certain the defences would collapse. This would remove the need for urban fighting.

As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.<span id='postcolor'>

But that goes against all sorts of human rights. If you know what will happen inside the city. Supplies run low means mass and in-discriminate deaths.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think so, I think as with most seiges, the defenders would give in the fight once they run out of ammunition and supplies. This would be better for everyone than a massive assault and urban fighting.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd have to go with bn880 on this one.

A siege would be disasterous to all aspects of the operation and to the civilians. Saddam could hole up and feed just his troops until the world community screams at what the "barbarous US" is doing.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,23:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,231)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the enemy is sealed into a city, and a direct attack would we undesirable most armies in history have resorted to a seige. As supplies run low in Bagdad I'm certain the defences would collapse. This would remove the need for urban fighting.

As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.<span id='postcolor'>

But that goes against all sorts of human rights.  If you know what will happen inside the city.  Supplies run low means mass and in-discriminate deaths.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think so, I think as with most seiges, the defenders would give in the fight once they run out of ammunition and supplies. This would be better for everyone than a massive assault and urban fighting.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd have to go with bn880 on this one.

A siege would be disasterous to all aspects of the operation and to the civilians. Saddam could hole up and feed just his troops until the world community screams at what the "barbarous US" is doing.<span id='postcolor'>

The point is after a time the seige will become unsustainable for Iraq. There won't be food for the troops. The people will be up in arms, the line will weaken, all the while military targets are harried by artillery and air power. Civillian and Allied casualties would be minimised in this way. A frontal attack into Bagdad would cause carnage.

[Othin 0]

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,149)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd have to go with bn880 on this one.

A siege would be disasterous to all aspects of the operation and to the civilians. Saddam could hole up and feed just his troops until the world community screams at what the "barbarous US" is doing.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you say it would be disasterous to the operation?  By not going into Baghdad itself you would save countless lives on both sides.  The Iraqi people do no have the stomach for a siege or prolonged conflict in my estimation.  They're not ignorant savages, they're not going to stay in a city and starve to death.

If it did come to a siege of Baghdad, it would be accompanied by a massive Psyops campaign.  The noncombatants of the city would know, through airdrops and the radio, that if they leave the city then food/shelter would be provided.

I doubt the "world community" is going to scream at the fact that the coalition forces are trying their best to prevent civilian casualties.

[Necromancer- 0]

Well... I would use a massive amount of sleeping gas while having Bagdad in siege.

You will catch the most of the remaining opposition in sleep. Civillians will be sleeping in their beds, thus resulting in a more minimal civillian loss.

I doubt you could hold a sleeping person as a human shield.

By the time Iraqi intelligence read this.... they're too late to adapt.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,239)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,23<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the enemy is sealed into a city, and a direct attack would we undesirable most armies in history have resorted to a seige. As supplies run low in Bagdad I'm certain the defences would collapse. This would remove the need for urban fighting.

As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.<span id='postcolor'>

But that goes against all sorts of human rights. If you know what will happen inside the city. Supplies run low means mass and in-discriminate deaths.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think so, I think as with most seiges, the defenders would give in the fight once they run out of ammunition and supplies. This would be better for everyone than a massive assault and urban fighting.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd have to go with bn880 on this one.

A siege would be disasterous to all aspects of the operation and to the civilians. Saddam could hole up and feed just his troops until the world community screams at what the "barbarous US" is doing.<span id='postcolor'>

The point is after a time the seige will become unsustainable for Iraq. There won't be food for the troops. The people will be up in arms, the line will weaken, all the while military targets are harried by artillery and air power. Civillian and Allied casualties would be minimised in this way. A frontal attack into Bagdad would cause carnage.<span id='postcolor'>

But something irreperable will be lost...

World opinion. They won't care if Saddam backed into the city, they won't care if he refused to give up. What they will see is the US blockading a city where hundreds or thousands of civilians die of starvation or disease while Saddam doesn't lose a pound.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Jan. 07 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well... I would use a massive amount of sleeping gas while having Bagdad in siege.

You will catch the most of the remaining opposition in sleep. Civillians will be sleeping in their beds, thus resulting in a more minimal civillian loss.

I doubt you could hold a sleeping person as a human shield.  

By the time Iraqi intelligence read this.... they're too late to adapt.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you joking?

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Jan. 07 2003,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,14<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd have to go with bn880 on this one.

A siege would be disasterous to all aspects of the operation and to the civilians. Saddam could hole up and feed just his troops until the world community screams at what the "barbarous US" is doing.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you say it would be disasterous to the operation?  By not going into Baghdad itself you would save countless lives on both sides.  The Iraqi people do no have the stomach for a siege or prolonged conflict in my estimation.  They're not ignorant savages, they're not going to stay in a city and starve to death.

If it did come to a siege of Baghdad, it would be accompanied by a massive Psyops campaign.  The noncombatants of the city would know, through airdrops and the radio, that if they leave the city then food/shelter would be provided.

I doubt the "world community" is going to scream at the fact that the coalition forces are trying their best to prevent civilian casualties.<span id='postcolor'>

but what if the Iraqi forces hold the entire city hostage? including non-combatants.

Also, soldiers can easily cover themselves between the civillians by wearing a bhurka. Under a bhurka, you can hide a lot of things.

I doubt the USA would check every woman by undressing themselves just to show them they're female and not wearing and weaponry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you joking?

<span id='postcolor'>

Come to think of it....

Saddam would see this as chemical warfare... may be the UN as well.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,23<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,23<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When the enemy is sealed into a city, and a direct attack would we undesirable most armies in history have resorted to a seige. As supplies run low in Bagdad I'm certain the defences would collapse. This would remove the need for urban fighting.

As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.<span id='postcolor'>

But that goes against all sorts of human rights.  If you know what will happen inside the city.  Supplies run low means mass and in-discriminate deaths.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think so, I think as with most seiges, the defenders would give in the fight once they run out of ammunition and supplies. This would be better for everyone than a massive assault and urban fighting.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd have to go with bn880 on this one.

A siege would be disasterous to all aspects of the operation and to the civilians. Saddam could hole up and feed just his troops until the world community screams at what the "barbarous US" is doing.<span id='postcolor'>

The point is after a time the seige will become unsustainable for Iraq. There won't be food for the troops. The people will be up in arms, the line will weaken, all the while military targets are harried by artillery and air power. Civillian and Allied casualties would be minimised in this way. A frontal attack into Bagdad would cause carnage.<span id='postcolor'>

But something irreperable will be lost...

World opinion. They won't care if Saddam backed into the city, they won't care if he refused to give up. What they will see is the US blockading a city where hundreds or thousands of civilians die of starvation or disease while Saddam doesn't lose a pound.<span id='postcolor'>

The DEFENCE would collapse, thereby ending the seige, I'm not talking about starving the city's populace to death!

[Necromancer- 0]

Yes, the defence would collapse eventually, but with a lot of civillian loss as well.

The Iraqi soldiers would just issue a law that they are allowed to take food from the civillians when needed.... You all know what would happen.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The DEFENCE would collapse, thereby ending the seige, I'm not talking about starving the city's populace to death!<span id='postcolor'>

But unfortunately that would be the result. Saddam most likely would not LET his people go, using them as human shields as he has done before.

It would be a simple matter of making his loyal Republican Guards hold the perimeter from anyone getting out. Saddam and his army could eat, while he starves the populace for liberal media sympathy and much of the world would follow.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The DEFENCE would collapse, thereby ending the seige, I'm not talking about starving the city's populace to death!<span id='postcolor'>

But unfortunately that would be the result. Saddam most likely would not LET his people go, using them as human shields as he has done before.

It would be a simple matter of making his loyal Republican Guards hold the perimeter from anyone getting out. Saddam and his army could eat, while he starves the populace for liberal media sympathy and much of the world would follow.<span id='postcolor'>

Not even Saddam could withstand attacks from without and massive unrest from within. As mentioned earlier the compliance of his people is necessary for his defence.

[FSPilot 0]

It'd just make it that much easier to take the rest of the country. We didn't occupy Baghdad in the first war and they surrendered, why would we need to do it this time?