Think Stalingrad, as you consider the below. That's where two million died, where the Soviets lost more soldiers in that one battle than did America in its entire World War II campaign.
And Stalingrad was a much smaller city than is Baghdad which has a population of 5.5 million, many citizens of whom have been armed. The city will likely be fortified and protected by hundreds of thousands of Iraqi solders, conventionally equipped and as able as anyone who'd defend their homeland capital city.
Who in their right mind would send a military force into an enviornment like this without the support of the world? The sitauation nearly begs that WMD become used, by either side, in order to achive a victory in such a hotbed.
I hate to say it, but Bush and his advisory team are complete fools deeply lacking in compassion!
>>>In the same vein, an analysis by George Friedman, co-author of The Future of War, cautions: "The elite of the Republican Guard are competent and motivated. They have benefited from Hussein's regime, and his defeat would cost them personally. They have reason to fight and some sense that it is not hopeless.
"They may not have satellites in space but they are well armed with the basic weapons of urban warfare: rifles, machine-guns, hand grenades, anti-tank weapons and, most important, familiarity with the battlefield.
"In a war of attrition, Saddam's troops merely have to put up a competent fight and, in a worst-case scenario, there could be thousands of American casualties."
So the challenge for the US - to minimise the street-to-street or house-to-house contest - becomes a double-edged sword. Can it break the Iraqi will to fight without a first-up, brutal strike? And if it does not opt for the brutal strike, how does it take Baghdad?
Historically, the US is used to destroying or going around cities. Now they need to isolate all or significant parts of Baghdad in a manner that will break the grip of Saddam's regime before Iraqi nationalism and anger at the extent of war damage stoke the fires of popular defiance.
At all times, Washington will have to juggle the hopes and wishes of its different constituencies - the US voters and families back home, the Middle East and the world at large.
Clearly, Saddam's best option is a slow and deadly war.
Vice-Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, warned Congress this week that to achieve this, Saddam was likely to adopt a "scorched earth" strategy - destroying food, transport, energy and other infrastructure in the hope of creating a humanitarian disaster that he would blame on the Americans even as it slowed their advance.
Leaflets will rain down with the US bombs, telling civilians that the US and its allies are their friends and pleading with Iraqi soldiers to surrender.
The risks are huge - General Anthony Zinni, a former head of the US Central Command, says: "I wouldn't get sucked into the cities. There would be a lot of casualties on our side, we'd kill a lot of civilians and destroy a lot of infrastructure, and the images on Al Jazeera [television] wouldn't help us at all."<<<
smh.com.au |
