Article

2003-03-25 Iraq

McCaffrey predicts up to 3,000 casualties in battle for Baghdad

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Kerry 2003-03-25 08:01 am|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 3000, hmmm that's way to low, the numbers of casualties will hit twice that number, and it won't be British or US soldiers but Kurdish as the US plans to use the peshmerga's for urban warfare, speaking of moral values and Geneva conventions!

Posted by Murat 2003-03-25 02:54:41|| 2003-03-25 02:54:41|| Front Page Top

#2 My knee-jerk reaction is that McCaffrey is telling it that way he sees it. Most folks on this board don't need the reminder that "3000 casualties" doesn't equal 3000 dead, but I'll do that anyway. Given that, McCaffrey's prediction is not out-of-line with most reasonable prewar estimates of our losses -- and is a lot more favorable than some of the more hysterical ones.

The question of "did we commit enough troops?" is a big one. The generals wanted more troops on the ground (five divisions). Rumsfield wanted less. Who's ultimately right or wrong is still up in the air, but it sure seems that Franks would have found another division very useful.

As for Murat's comments, I don't think that it's in the plan to get the Kurds all the way to Baghdad, except perhaps as a blocking force. And if the Kurds are less than kind with any of their former overlords in any of the regions they ultimately control -- well, that's a whirlwind being reaped.

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-03-25 03:28:59|| 2003-03-25 03:28:59|| Front Page Top

#3 I doubt very much that his BBC audience got the casualties/deaths distinction.

As for the other division, shouldn't we be asking the Turks about that?

Posted by someone 2003-03-25 03:49:14|| 2003-03-25 03:49:14|| Front Page Top

#4 Don't forget thanks to the Turks we have One division (the 4th) out of this fight for a while as well. Would be nice if we had even as many as we planned for, Then with a 2 day sandstorm forecast the Iraqis may have some time to regroup before the tanks come rolling in.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-25 05:01:12|| 2003-03-25 05:01:12|| Front Page Top

#5 someone, I think most of the newsnight audience would have got the distinction, but with different ideas as to what the ratio of killed:injured would be.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-03-25 05:10:43|| 2003-03-25 05:10:43|| Front Page Top

#6 This [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82089,00.html] is the type of thing that pisses me off! Why are we shoving a notepad, mike, and camera in front of every mom and dad of POWs/MIAs? Can you imagine CNN/Fox/etc covering D-Day? The Allies suffered 36 casualties per minute during the first day at Normandy Beach! War is hell and people get killed and slaughtered. If we have to make the focus of this war bodycounts, and not actually winning it, we are in serious trouble....

Posted by CrazyCanuck 2003-03-25 07:48:55|| 2003-03-25 07:48:55|| Front Page Top

#7 3,000 casualties? That sounds really high and scary. But I guess when you compare it to the 3,000 deaths we suffered on 9-11, and the fact that we are there to prevent an even bigger catastrophe than that, it almost seems like nothing.

Though I still think MOAB is the way to go.

Posted by g wiz 2003-03-25 08:02:26|| 2003-03-25 08:02:26|| Front Page Top

#8 His main beef is that his advice wasn't followed. Sore loser. And, besides, he gets paid to pundit, and pundits have to generate headlines.

The Fourth, if it had entered from Turkey, would be working around Tikrit right now. Unlikely they would have bypassed Tikrit, because of the hardcore nature of its defenders. So, no use to us in Baghdad anyway.

You know, very quiet in the West. Elements of First Armored were deployed weeks ago, where are they? Also, is the 4th actually going to Kuwait, or to Jordan? I think there's one more surprise up the sleeve.

Posted by Chuck 2003-03-25 08:12:30|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-03-25 08:12:30|| Front Page Top

#9 Don't forget thanks to the Turks we have One division (the 4th) out of this fight for a while as well.

Thanx to Turks? No buddy, thanx to the big political failures of the white house, who planned everything from the positive side with disregard of every worst case scenario. What about the Shia who were supposed to join in and the Iraqi army revolting? Somebody (Rumsfeld?) really screwed up while typing out the Iraq picnic scenario

Posted by Murat 2003-03-25 08:17:35|| 2003-03-25 08:17:35|| Front Page Top

#10 Point the fingers wherever you like, Murat, but Turkey made a choice and now gets to live with the consequences.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-25 08:37:50|| 2003-03-25 08:37:50|| Front Page Top

#11 It would be real nice if DEBKAfile hit it on the head for a change and an armored division equivalent is coming in from the west.

Posted by Hiryu 2003-03-25 09:26:02|| 2003-03-25 09:26:02|| Front Page Top

#12 Anonymus, I think our government did the right thing, it is not our war nor is it a NATO defense action and certainly not a legal war.

Apart from this strange activity has been sighted at some naval ports. In the port city of Ãskenderun, the freighter 'Republica Roma' who was docked for 10 days started to unload military equipment, amongst them 6 sikorsky black hawks and tracked vehicles. Also at the port of Mersin the ships âPacifik Linkâ and the âMersk Rostolkâ started unloading of military equipment this morning. I thought the US had given up the northern route, does somebody know more what is going on, why are the ships unloading their military freights?

Posted by Murat 2003-03-25 09:29:51|| 2003-03-25 09:29:51|| Front Page Top

#13 "it is not our war nor is it a NATO defense action and certainly not a legal war."

It occurs to me that we made the same mistake in anticipating Turkey's action's that Turkey, (and EU and UN) made regarding us. People like Murat, and others, including the UN don't understand that the word games, like, "legal war", may have played well for Clinton, but, the Bush administration doesn't play the, What is the meaning of the word "is" game. Period. And the American people are sick of it too.

Likewise, we expect democratic govn'ts to change, but everyone expected the Turkish Government to behave as it had done in the past: sane and in the best interests of the country. But Commanders grow old and retire. The assumption that the Turkish military will act in accordance as they have done in the past is as unrealistic as it is for countries like Russia and Turkey to think that Bush will be willing to play the "illegal war" game, any more than he was willing to play the "inspections" game.

Thanks to Monica and OJ, the country just wants to "move on" and "get back to the business of the country", eliminating terrorists. When we want to play word games, we'll pull out the Scrabble.

Posted by becky 2003-03-25 10:24:24|| 2003-03-25 10:24:24|| Front Page Top

#14 I hear the hold-up on the Northern front is that we are trying to link up a division of Armenians with the Kurds. They will be serving as a rear guard, watching for backstabbing poultry.

Posted by Hodadenon 2003-03-25 12:12:03|| 2003-03-25 12:12:03|| Front Page Top

#15 I'd like to see the Turks try and justify their land grab, Murat. They should be treated as hostiles. I believe taht Incirlik and other bases in Turkey will become less useful and eventually Turkey can have them back..they won't need them after their country slides into economic ruin...who'd want to invade them? You used to sound thoughtful and reasonable, even if I disagreed with your points, now you're just trolling

Posted by Frank G 2003-03-25 12:36:08|| 2003-03-25 12:36:08|| Front Page Top

#16 As (ex)Gen. Al Haig said: "Hell, in Vietnam we were taking 500 dead a WEEK."

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-25 12:37:05|| 2003-03-25 12:37:05|| Front Page Top

#17 Anyone can say it is not a "legal" war as long as they do not mind a peverse and willful reading of past SC resolutions (for those who actually give a rat's arse about that formerly viable institution), and conveniently ignore other reasonable grounds for the war.

That's just an excuse, not a justification. Turkey does not want to help, fine, they want to impede our efforts, fine. Then Turkey must accept the consequences, whether they like them or not.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-25 13:37:34|| 2003-03-25 13:37:34|| Front Page Top

#18 Murat: "does somebody know more what is going on, why are the ships unloading their military freights?"

Murat, I wouldn't tell you if I knew. Right now Turkey is drifting to the "foe" side of my "friend or foe" list and I'd treat any armed Turk in Iraq as a possible enemy combatant.

Frankly, I'd give the Kurds their own country too, so I guess I just don't care too much about Turkish sensibilities. I don't see why the Kurds deserve anything less.

Posted by Tom 2003-03-25 20:34:25|| 2003-03-25 20:34:25|| Front Page Top

10:11 raptor
08:38 raptor
01:28 R. McLeod
01:13 R. McLeod
00:54 R. McLeod
00:46 R. McLeod
00:44 R. McLeod
00:20 Bill
00:07 (lowercase) matt
23:45 OldSpook
23:29 tu3031
23:29 tu3031
23:20 tu3031
23:12 tu3031
23:08 tu3031
21:59 (lowercase) matt
21:50 eric
21:44 (lowercase) matt
21:39 eric
21:13 Dar Steckelberg
21:10 Dar Steckelberg
21:09 RW
21:07 Alaska Paul
21:02 Brew