Personally I don't think Hussain is dead, and if he is, he has left explicit intructions to his successors. I read somewhere that he studied under and idolized Stalin (might have gotten the name wrong, the evil russian ruler). But in World War 2 or another war with the germans, Stalin or whoever the ruler was, let the germans get to the capital before surrounding them and massacring them. This is what I think is being done right now, for so far it has been pretty easy and we'll reach Bagdhad within a few days. Lets hope we aren't stepping into a trap.

Baghdad is a huge place, bigger than L.A. if memory serves and would say that the coalition is going to take massive casualties if they try to walk in the front door.

Taking a city the size of Baghdad is not an easy accomplishment, and will take more time than anyone thought. This is one place where air support will not be overly effective if the coalition wish to keep civilian casualties low.

I heard a couple of retired generals on CNN refer to Baghdad as a "potential bloodbath" if Iraqi forces do not surrender.

That said, the people of Baghada have some of the most potent "Saddam Indocrination". They could be a bunch of "dead enders" to use some military jargon. That is the danger of a bloodbath.

Of course the bombing campaign of terror and fear....I mean shock and awe...( synonyms?) ;) could just cause most all of them to surrender, but that has yet to materialize.

I wonder how much public and political opinions towards the war will sway in the face of extreme coalition casualties. I wonder how much extreme Iraqi casulties would effect those opinions as well.

That said, a "low" number of casualties would not change my opinion that this war is unneccessary.

Urban fighting will be bloody no doubt about it, but there is a time honored way to avoid urban fighting, it's called a siege. Seal Bagdad off and it becomes irrelavant. Give them a choice drop all weapons and walk out or starve.

[ 03-24-2003, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

A siege is a risky proposition. First-off the Iraqi could harras the seigers using guerilla tactics from home territory, causing casulties and bad press.

Secondly the humanitarian concerns of starving a city of 5 million is defintly bad press.

I think special forces will probably be brought into Baghdad and seize the important offices like Radio and TV and timed just right so that army can rush straight in.

Yes a siege is not something the US wants. It doesn't help either side.

Too bad there is no invisible knock out gas that can be dropped to make everyone go to sleep and wake up after 8 hours.

I wonder if tear gas is something that be considered using.

A siege is a risky proposition. First-off the Iraqi could harras the seigers using guerilla tactics from home territory, causing casulties and bad press.

Secondly the humanitarian concerns of starving a city of 5 million is defintly bad press.</font>[/QUOTE]1)It would be less bloody and less risky then an Urban warfare.

2)There aren't 5 million people living Bagdad any more most have already left.

3)Bad press! That's the problem in a nutshell, WAR IS HELL people die by nature WAR IS not a humanitarian action, and it is just a delution to try and make it one. War should be fought so ruthless and with so much brutality that all people think twice about taking actions that lead to WAR.

4)Guerilla tactics sooner or later the besieged will run out of people, meanwhile the coalition can set about rebuilding the rest of the country. And as has been evidenced by the FACT that the Iraqi people once they are sure they are beyond Sodamn Insane's grasp they are welcoming the coalition troops. So there are going to be very few Guerillas coming from behind the siege lines.

[ 03-25-2003, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

A siege is a risky proposition. First-off the Iraqi could harras the seigers using guerilla tactics from home territory, causing casulties and bad press.

Secondly the humanitarian concerns of starving a city of 5 million is defintly bad press.</font>[/QUOTE]1)It would be less bloody and less risky then an Urban warfare.

2)There aren't 5 million people living Bagdad any more most have already left.

3)Bad press! That's the problem in a nutshell, WAR IS HELL people die by nature WAR IS not a humanitarian action, and it is just a delution to try and make it one. War should be fought so ruthless and with so much brutality that all people think twice about taking actions that lead to WAR.

4)Guerilla tactics sooner or later the besieged will run out of people, meanwhile the coalition can set about rebuilding the rest of the country. And as has been evidenced by the FACT that the Iraqi people once they are sure they are beyond Sodamn Insane's grasp they are welcoming the coalition troops. So there are going to be very few Guerillas coming from behind the siege lines.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, I have been keeping up. Although the volume of news to sort through on the war topic to get a lot of relevant information almost makes the task not worth doing when I could be playing a video game. [img]smile.gif[/img]

According to CNN TV, many in Baghdad haven't left, refugee camps and border crossings in Jordan, the only place to go, are sparsley populated and less than one percent of the Iraqi Army have surrendered in the whole country even with all those bombs and leaflets dropped, although the number of plain deserters cant be counted.

All that said, any seige of Baghdad in the near future is a very risky course of action. The last thing we need is 150,000 Iraqi dead-enders on their home turf, hiding in cities across the country led by fanatical republican gaurds, then things will really get bloody.

If 70% of the army had surrendered/deserted and most people have fled baghdad, your scenario makes far better strategic sense IMO.

Best case scenario for Coalition: Major defection in Baghdad by Republican Gaurds and a military coup to take out Saddam and his gang from within. Of course the potential new military goverment would have to acede to the coalitions wishes of surrender and disarmament.

That's people willing to leave the country, not the same as people willing to leave the city. Have you seen the pictures of downtown Bagdad and how little traffic there is? Two days before the war started Iraqi TV did a story on how the citizens of Bagdad were filling sand bags. There was a grand total of 5 men filling sand bags on an empty street.

Lead by the republican guards? What good will the RG stuck inside the city of Bagdad do? When you siege you also cut off their means of comunication, no talk no leading. Besides most of the RG (the 3 remaining divisions)are outside the city getting their rear ends handed to them right now. That leaves about 5,000 special RG and the leaders. Cut the leaders off and they can't lead, mean while we rebiuld the rest of the country.

[ 03-25-2003, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

That's not quite what happened. The Germans did manage to reach the outskirts of Moscow, but were forced to stop due to the onset of winter rather than by the Russian army. The Germans were poorly equipped for the winter, and suffered for it. IIRC the winter of 1941 was one of the coldest, even by Russian standards.
Subsequent battles, of course, are another story...