| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Rumsfeld Hints Laying Siege on Baghdad |
| 2003-03-27 |
| Edited to stay on target. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld suggested on Thursday that U.S. forces bearing down on Baghdad might lay siege to the capital and hope anti-Saddam Hussein citizens rise up against the government before American troops have to invade the city of 5 million. Rumsfeld also said the United States and its battlefield allies would accept nothing short of total victory in Iraq. ``There isn't going to be a cease-fire,'' Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. He said later, ``It will end at the point where that regime does not exist and a new regime is ready to go in its place.'' Rumsfeld appeared before two congressional committees Thursday amid efforts by the Bush administration to counteract speculation that the war effort is bogging down and that it underestimated the need for armored forces to protect attacking U.S. troops' long supply lines inside Iraq. The defense secretary said there is a near-continuous flow of fresh U.S. forces into the Persian Gulf, noting that 1,000 paratroopers from the Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade jumped into northern Iraq on Wednesday. He estimated that between 1,500 and 2,500 troops are arriving daily. The total number of American forces in the Gulf region stands at 250,000. Close to 90,000 are in Iraq, a senior defense official said Thursday. That's an increase of some 13,000 since Tuesday. Asked by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., what American ground troops would do once they reached Baghdad, Rumsfeld answered by alluding to what is happening at Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. British forces there have laid siege, hoping for a successful uprising by the city's Shiites. Rumsfeld noted that both Basra and Baghdad have large Shiite populations. ``And they are not terribly favorable to the regime,'' Rumsfeld said. ``They've been repressed, and they are in the present time in Basra assisting us.'' He said that roughly half the Baghdad population is Shiite. ``The regime has tended to be fearful of them and repress them,'' he said. Rumsfeld said he expected Saddam's loyalists to shoot any Iraqi troops in Baghdad who try to surrender and those who might try to assist U.S. forces. ``We will go through a period where we'll have to deal with that problem,'' he said. Rumsfeld did not say how long Gen. Tommy Franks, the war commander, would wait before launching the final phase of the attack on Baghdad. He left little doubt, however, that Franks has a plan for fighting the 30,000 or so Republican Guard troops north, south and east of Baghdad. ``I think it's only reasonable to expect that it will require the coalition forces moving through some Republican Guard units and destroying them or capturing them before you'll see the crumbling of the regime,'' he said. If the war reaches that stage, the large Shiite population in Baghdad might feel emboldened to revolt, Rumsfeld said, obviating the need for an invasion that could result in heavy losses. The wire is beginning to tighten around Sammy's neck. I'm waiting for the eyes to bug out. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 For years we have had arguements back and forth regarding whether or not to engage in dis-information as a matter of government policy. It is now appearant that the best practioner of this art is the SecDef himself. He uses verbal sleight of hand as well as a master magician does prestidigitation. He never tells a lie, but he mis-directs the media wonderfully. What the media has not as yet learned in this campaign in Irag, is that the DoD is using them to make Saddam chase his tail. It could end up being one of the milestones of modern warfare policy. Drew |
| Posted by: Drew 2003-03-28 00:15:59 |
| #6 He's also playing mind games with a bunch of idiots in the State Department, and several dozen left-wing newspapers in the States, as well. The world will not be the same place in six months. Let's just hope the changes will be for the better. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-03-27 21:31:29 |
| #5 Don't be too hard on Rummy. He's playing mind games with some bad-assed characters in Baghdad. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-27 20:52:00 |
| #4 Rummie should study the German siege of Leningrad. And Stalin wasn't even in town. And of course Hitler didn't give a damn about how many people would die of hunger. The more the better. A siege would kill any chance Americans could later be seen as liberators. And America has no chance to pacify Iraq while being seen as a hostile occupant. The RG will not roam the streets, they will hide in the houses to shoot at anything moving. The key to Iraq is not Baghdad, it's Saddam. ONLY Saddam. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-27 20:07:35 |
| #3 Just be prepared for TV out of Baghdad of bug eyed starving little children and their mothers on the Kim Il Jong(tm) diet. Of course the thugs will be well fed, but that doesn't make good theater to beam across the world on the We-Hate-America Network(tm). You just got a taste of cheap propaganda with the explosion in the Baghdad marketplace. It's not what we believe, it is what the world believes. And if we weren't concerned about World Opinion(tm) why would we be making such a great effort in reducing potential Iraqi civilian and military casualties? The Siege(tm) will be just as destructive as a direct assault in civilian casualties and the noise of the WHA Network. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-03-27 19:29:49 |
| #2 anti-Saddam Hussein citizens rise up against the government It ain't gonna happen. This will be Rumsfeld's second miscalculation. The only way I see this happening is if American forces take and hold a part of the city, allowing the anti-Saddam population to sneak in, re-arm, and go after the pro-Saddam thugs. Revolts don't happen without a spark and fuel source. Surrounding the city will not be enough of a spark. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-27 19:25:56 |
| #1 anti-Saddam Hussein citizens rise up against the government It ain't gonna happen. This will be Rumsfeld's second miscalculation. The only way I see this happening is if American forces take and hold a part of the city, allowing the anti-Saddam population to sneak in, re-arm, and go after the pro-Saddam thugs. Revolts don't happen without a spark and fuel source. Surrounding the city will not be enough of a spark. |
| Posted by: RW 3/27/2003 7:25:56 PM |