| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Blackhawk Down Author asks ’Will Baghdad Fight to the End?’ |
| 2003-03-27 |
| A rather sobering analysis by MARK BOWDEN With Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard dug in on the outskirts of Baghdad and thousands of his most loyal defenders no doubt armed and waiting in the city's neighborhoods, he might be on the verge of delivering the "mother of all battles" he promised 12 years ago. He has ceded the majority of his country to the rapidly moving American and British forces, but has left pockets of determined loyalists in cities large and small. These troops, many dressed in civilian clothing, will shoot at coalition forces from densely populated areas, daring return fire that might kill the very Iraqis whom President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain hope to liberate. It is a strategy both cunning and cruel, and it may work. The outcome will depend in large part on the people of Baghdad, each of whom has a decision to make. What they decide could mean either a quick defeat of the regime or a protracted mess that would amount at best to a Pyrrhic victory for allied troops. Saddam Hussein is betting that his people will rally around his crack troops. The allies are betting they will betray the dictator and flush out his enforcers. I'm afraid the odds at this point favor Saddam Hussein. Even those Iraqis eager to turn against the regime are still caught between the guns, and won't dare make a move until they are sure one side has the upper hand. Neighborhood by neighborhood, they will have to decide when it is safe to make their move. If Saddam Hussein wins his bet, then coalition forces could face fighting reminiscent of the 1993 battle of Mogadishu. There would be important differences, of course. The 150 American troops trapped in the streets of Mogadishu were members of a light infantry unit cut off from backup or supply, without armor, dependent on a small number of helicopters for air support. Allied troops in Baghdad would number in the tens of thousands, with full armor and air support, and, as soon as the coalition manages to buttress its overextended supply line, a huge support system. But no matter what kind of power can be rolled into Baghdad, if it faces a hostile population, as our troops did in Mogadishu, the scene could turn into a nightmare. Soldiers would be moving in a 360-degree battlefield with obstructed sight lines and impaired radio communications, trying to pick out targets from a civilian population determined to hide, supply and shield the enemy, unable to attack Iraqi firing positions without killing civilians. Even in victory such a battle would outrage the Arab world and fulfill the fears of the war's critics. But why would the citizens of Baghdad rally around such a tyrannical regime? After all, Saddam Hussein has turned what was once one of the most prosperous and modern of Arab nations into a destitute state. His terrorist apparatus, modeled on Stalin's, has tortured, imprisoned and killed hundreds of thousands. The problem is that each war develops an interior logic. Immediate traumas supersede the larger context, just as the fog of war plays havoc with generals' plans. Allied military commanders have wisely waged a careful air campaign, leaving most of the city's nongovernment buildings undamaged and keeping civilian casualties low. But every death and wounding — of a child, a sister, a father, a neighbor — no matter how unintentional, creates passionate new enemies whose anger eclipses politics. And even Iraqis who despise Saddam Hussein can be expected to recoil from a foreign invasion, which wounds national pride. There are reports of Iraqi expatriates who fled the regime now returning to fight for their country. For Iraqis who distrust the United States, it will be a choice between their own local devil and the Great Satan of the world. And Iraqis get their information from the propaganda ministries, which amplify the grief and play upon nationalistic sympathies. Much of this happened in Somalia. When American forces landed in 1992 to enforce the United Nations humanitarian effort, many were greeted with smiles and gifts from the Somali people. Mohammed Farah Aidid, the most powerful of Mogadishu's warlords, was not a popular figure, even within his own clan. But then the United Nations decided to pursue him after his forces began attacking and killing peacekeepers. Clumsy military attempts to capture Mr. Aidid in the summer of 1993 left scores of Somalis dead or wounded and destroyed property. The people of the city quickly soured on their Western saviors, and the warlord's repeated escapes transformed him into a local hero, the sly Somali David tilting with Goliath. By the time Task Force Ranger arrived in August to apply more skillful tactics to the search for Mr. Aidid, thousands of local citizens were ready to fight in the streets to protect him. The result was the debacle that left 18 Americans dead and ended the humanitarian operation. I suspect the coalition plan assumed that images of jubilant liberated Iraqis from southern cities, awash in humanitarian aid, would help sway the hearts and minds of Baghdad. So far that hasn't happened, either because the Iraqi people are less enthralled by this invasion than its planners hoped, or because Saddam Hussein's enforcers have managed to keep the population in line. There was hopeful news of popular uprisings in Basra, but it was not clear if they were widespread. If there are such happy scenes to report, then it is time to shut down Baghdad's propaganda machine and give Iraqis a full range of independent reporting about the war. In the Battle of Baghdad, information will be as important as guns and bombs. But only if the truth is what we hope it will be. Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," is national correspondent for The Atlantic. |
| Posted by:kgb |
| #9 First of all, they have been carefully targeting, bombing and destroying communications facilities so that centralized coordination gets disabled. Also, they have made a deliberate decision to withhold bomb destruction assessments. I think that a couple of crucial psych ops strategies need to be formulated and implemented, too. I am not in favor of just going in and doing street fighting. We need to get the upper hand and put them in a reactive posture, not the other way around. Going in would be fighting on their turf with them having the advantage of an intimate knowledge of all the alleys and hidden shortcuts in the casbah-- we don't need that aggravation. If you saw what happened to the IDF going into a casbah at the refugee 'camp' or in one of the other cities, you should know that we need to avoid that. Let's not get sucked into that. |
| Posted by: button 2003-03-27 18:07:31 |
| #8 360 degree combat? I don't see it. We're not having our guys inserted in the middle of Baghdad - we're starting around the edges and working slowly towards the center - using fire support to take out any units that attempt to go to the rescue of the building we're clearing. I think Mark Bowden is a fine journalist, but as a combat tactician, I'm not sure he's as knowledgeable as he could be. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-03-27 16:07:14 |
| #7 Why would the US bother to take Baghdad. Easier to encircle the city, take over radio and television and wait it out. Bombing targets of opportunity of course with occasional nightime incursions into the city to keep them off balance. While that is going on we set up a new Iraqi government in the rest of the nation (shown on the telvision we now control) and push for an uprising of the people in Baghdad. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-03-27 15:03:25 |
| #6 Old Patriot, Mr. Bowden is not anti-military or anti-US. Having read his books and a number of his articles, I get the sense that he loves the grunts and is reasonably clear-minded. Brian's thought might be more spot-on: having seen and written about Mogadishu, it's all he knows about urban warfare right now. I'm hoping Gen. Franks has a better plan. I'd rather listen to Bowden than at least half the "analysts" employed by the networks right now. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-27 13:53:11 |
| #5 Bowden strikes me as being far from anti-American, or anti-patriotic in my own encounters with the man. At the very least his son is (was?) a Marine. The point remains is that all roads lead to Baghdad and that Saddam knows this and can plan for it. The question is do we have some alternative to siege or urban assault. Considering that the administration seems to have been taken aback by the partisan war, some hard thinking is in order about just how to bring this show to a successful ending. I don't have any great answers, I just know that I'm starting to nurture some real distrust for Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz. Maybe, just maybe, Eric Shinseki knows what he's talking about. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-03-27 13:42:08 |
| #4 Patriot-- Mark Bowden is NOT anti-military or anti-US. You could argue that his article is excessively influenced by Mogadishu.... |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-03-27 13:38:26 |
| #3 Another da$$$$ anti-military, anti-US apologist. Disgusting! Still, there are a couple of nuggets to be mined from this boxcar-load of drivel. We at least are fully aware of what sadista-in-charge sadsack plans. Beyond that, it depends on Franks, and his battle plan. So far, none of us know that for sure. I think we will see something unexpected. So far, this war has NOT been a by-the-book set piece, and it's not only caught the Iraqis by surprise, it's also caused many of the second-guessers to tear their hair out in huge clumps. Two reasons why the "mother of all battles" won't succeed: air superiority, and unconventional warfare tactics. I'm sure there will be dozens, if not hundreds, of small-unit forces inserted into Baghdad from all directions once the seige begins. They will wreck havoc on an isolated group here, there, and then disappear, only to reappear somewhere totally unexpected and do it again. In the end, the lack of food, water, and supplies will force the Iraqi Republican Guard to either surrender in large numbers, or launch an attack that will be totally destroyed. Sadsack is not smart, only shrewd. He can be out-thought as well as his troops can be out-fought. If all else fails, we can pull back and engage in an artillery exercise a la Stalin. Lots of civilian casualties, but you end up with nothing to hide behind. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-03-27 13:04:23 |
| #2 RE: "Once the siege of Baghdad has started, if needs be, Saddam will have no resources to support his thugs." Good point. I just hope there are enough people who are ready to do what has to be done. The desire to be free is powerful. |
| Posted by: kgb 2003-03-27 12:37:15 |
| #1 Once the siege of Baghdad has started, if needs be, Saddam will have no resources to support his thugs. Further, anytime they choose to terrorize, torture, or murder the people of the city, these people will be reminded of why he is known as the Butcher of Baghdad and they will think they'd be better off without him. There is no need to enter Baghdad to get him -- the Iraqi are already there and will do it for us. Remember Ceaucescu. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2003-03-27 12:28:32 |