US destory the elite guard - Baghdad next - Opinions ?

daveg

Well it seems the raid on Baghdad is nigh. According to the bbc US forces have "destroyed the Baghdad division of Saddam Hussein's elite Republican Guard" and Baghdad is next.

My question is what do you think will happen in Baghdad ?

My own thoughts are civilian casualties will be huge. Coalition forces casualties won't be far behind with the fall of Baghdad in a few days. I believe it will take weeks/months to secure all the other cities within Iraq. I also think Saddam will flee and will not be found (egg on the US again same as Bin Ladin and Afghanistan). Also I wonder will Saddam use chemical weapons? What will the reaction be if he does ?

gandalf

Firstly dave this is the US "saying" they have destroyed a Republican Guard division. Remember when they "said" they secured Umm Kaser....

On the casualties I agree. The Anglo-American forces have depleted their stocks of "smart" weapons so I reckon we will see standard bombs being used and the civilian casualties could be quite horrendous.

I don't see Baghdad falling that quickly and I see the UK/US forces taking higher casualties than they have so far.

Saddam who knows, if the US don't get their man it will raise even more questions on the waging of this war.

Gandalf.

Praetorian

I agree with Gandalf. War progress reports have to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially from Sky & Cnn.

The casualties will be horrendous. Using artillery on Baghdad (not very accurate I might add) will and has killed many innocents. Then you have the overly enthusiastic American pilots who rarely return with bullets and bombs to spare.

I don’t think they will be able to find Saddam to kill or capture him. There are too many places he can hide in Iraq, not to mention other neighbouring countries. There is a chance, but it would take someone close to him to betray him.

Baghdad is where the real war is going to be fought. It has relatively been a one sided contest so far, due to far superior technology. It will be different in the City.

The big question for me is will they ever find chemical or biological weapons? I thought they would have found something by now!

I tend to agree with Gandalf & Praetorian.

We don't know all the lengths that Saddam, has prepared Baghdad, for this invasion. Its quite possible he has applied the Tunnel network, than the VC, and the Chinese loved to use. In which case, he would have a decided advantage in city combat.


Civilian casualties will be huge. Even more so, Civilian Injuries will be larger than those dead. Allied troops will loose alot also, especially since the Iraqi people/army are used to this kind of warfare, and the US aren't. Only the UK troops have any experience of city warfare.

Éomer of Rohan

When the US actually decide to attack baghdad or take baghdad or whatever euphemism you wish to use, things are going to swing massively against them.

1) They have three choices; Bomb Baghdad into the ground
Storm the city.
Seige the city.

2) All of these will result in massive numbers of civilian casualties because even at such a level of technological accomplishment in war the US tactics are the same, move armoured columns forward and when resisted call in fighter / attack helicopter support and bombard positions with mortars - those of you who ever took an interest will know that these are the same tactics they had laid out for a soviet invasion across Europe. The results of such civilian casualties will be that the anti war groups and anti US groups will have much credence lent to their cause - rightly so and will use this to attack their politicians; depending on how things go, it is not unlikely that Tony Blair will be ousted as PM of the UK.

3) The US may not even be succesful in such an attack - it is not inconcievable that, since the Republican guard know their 'home turf' and despite what the pro - war camp say will have the support of at least parts of the population, the US might not be able to make inroads for a long time and with mounting casualties for the 'coalition' forces, this will become politically untenable.

mike65

I dont think "destroyed" means everythings on fire, just that the units are no longer effective. As for Baghdad
I think nothing will happen very quickly ie the next 4/5 days, The rest of the Republican guard will be dealt with
and more bombing on "strategic" targets within the city
will continue. Then they may be willing to simply wait for a while and see what, if anything happens...

Mike.

TomF

If some news reports are correct, much of the [required modifier follows immediately] Elite Republican Guard may now be isolated outside Baghdad and may leave the city with nothing but the Ministers of Defence and Information and their bodyguard to defend against the Infidel.

Maybe the Coalition will simply sit it out on Baghdad's outskirts and wait to see who comes out for a fight and give it to them in the countryside.

Meanwhile the rest of Iraq can be provided with needed water, food and medicine supplies and the rebuilding into a free country can begin. If the Coalition is able to get a good radio station and a television station broadcasting so that their signals reach throughout Iraq and especially into its big cities, the message that most of the country is free of Saddam and Co. wll eventually reach enough Iraqis, and after that it is up to them to make a move.

Éomer of Rohan

Maybe the Coalition will simply sit it out on Baghdad's outskirts and wait to see who comes out for a fight and give it to them in the countryside

This is not unlikely. They have the oilfields. That is all they are really after. Baghdad is a political objective, not the point of the campaign.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
Meanwhile the rest of Iraq can be provided with needed water, food and medicine supplies and the rebuilding into a free country can begin.

You mean "the rest of Iraq except for most of the cities" - which would be where most of the people are.

Remember - in their rush to get to Baghdad, the US "contained" the threat from the forces in other cities by putting a holding force there and then carrying on with their main forces. Umm Qasr may be about the only significant city that is reasonably under control at this stage.

Unless and until those forces are ousted or surrender, the vast majority of the Iraqi population is still far beyond the coalition's ability to help.

jc

the rebuilding into a free country can begin.

Until the Iraqi people decide that they like the US occupation better than Saddams regime, i don't think they'll consider themselves too free.

They might be there preaching freedom, and destroying saddams regime, but they are still a foreign army, and an occupying force.

blackadder

"I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the ****ing arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the **** out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."

"Pick up the gun."

(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)

"You all saw him - he had a gun."

PH01

It's almost certain that the elite troops, as an effective fighting unit, under Saddam control have been distroyed. If not they will be soon.
Without doubt their heavy armour is no match against the US. In pitch battles, they will lose 999 times out of a 1000.

These units will break up, leave any heavy stuff behind and then reorganise into smaller units or cells, and then take the fight to the US in the Cities and towns. And this might go on even after the Saddams Regime has been toppled from power and Iraq is under US or UN control.

Kell

Originally posted by daveg
Also I wonder will Saddam use chemical weapons? What will the reaction be if he does ?

I was listening to an analyst person on the news the other night (not Sky) who did not discount that Saddam, if he has chemical or biological weapons, will use them in the event that the end has come for him. A sort of "If I am going down I'll take as many with me as possible" scenario.

If he does have them and use them, I would imagine that this would go down as possibly the worst war of our time.

K-

PH01

Originally posted by Kell
I was listening to an analyst person on the news the other night (not Sky) who did not discount that Saddam, if he has chemical or biological weapons, will use them in the event that the end has come for him. A sort of "If I am going down I'll take as many with me as possible" scenario.

If he does have them and use them, I would imagine that this would go down as possibly the worst war of our time.

K-

Don't know about that. I'd say that if Saddam has WMDs he won't use them at this stage. Bad propaganda for him if he does.
If he doesn't use them he'll die a martyr. If he does he'll die a villian.
Simple really.

Éomer of Rohan

And if he doesn't have them, I am sure they can be planted out of the eyes of the 'watchful' *choke* media. Obviously people will scorn this idea, but is it that unlikely? Can anyone present reasons why not as opposed to taking Mike's cop out 'come back' ? There are plenty of motives and opportunities to plant the weapons and none against. Really I suppose it boils down to whether or not you think that Saddam has enough WMD to make the media portray the conflict as just and a victory for the 'good' forces of the West which it clearly will never be.

mike65

Of course Eomer, of course....

Mike.

Personally i don't think he has em, however, i'm trying to keep an open mind abt it. If the US were to "plant" the WMD's, knowing the US, it would come out eventually. I doubt they'd want to go thru the kind of political fallout, if they "planted" it, and were found out.

No, i'll wait and see.

pork99

Baghdad is where the real war is going to be fought. It has relatively been a one sided contest so far, due to far superior technology. It will be different in the City.

I would not be so sure of that

Just make sure you go in at night;

http://www.military.com/Resources/EQG/EQGmain?file=EG_Night_Vision&cat=i&lev=2

I was also reading about portable radar equipment that allows you to "see through walls", count bodies in a building etc

If he does have them and use them, I would imagine that this would go down as possibly the worst war of our time.

The main threat there is to Iraqi civilians. The threat to troops, especially armoured troops, with protective equipment, is limited

In the chaos after Saddam's overthrow where will these bio and chemical weapons end up? Who will be watching Iraq's borders? I find that scenario a lot scarier

Sparks

No offence pork, but we've seen what Baghdad will look like up and down the West Bank. And so have the Iraqis. I don't think Baghdad is going to be anything but messy and bloody

I think they'll sit back for a day or so, softening up the outer rings of baghdad, then use special forces to infiltrate the lines. THe Spec ops will create mayheam with the defenders, and the regular troops will come in as mop-up forces, and just hold areas taken.

This is perfect operations for spec ops to do max damage, especially to so many irregulars.

bonkey

Originally posted by pork99
Just make sure you go in at night;

http://www.military.com/Resources/EQG/EQGmain?file=EG_Night_Vision&cat=i&lev=2

I was also reading about portable radar equipment that allows you to "see through walls", count bodies in a building etc

Yup. Just like they did in all the other smaller cities, which is why they took each of them by daybreak the next day...

Oh - hang on - they didnt do that.

Baghdad is a city of 5,000,000 people. Thats big. You aint gonna take the city by "going in at night", and if you were to rely on tactical "building analysis" equipment, it would probably take several years to get from one end of the city to the next.

jc

Kell

Republican guard overthrown? The US military representative that was on BBC2 news last night kinda hinted that they dont know where the republican guard are. I personally think it was a little over optimistic of him to suggest that they had legged it into safer pastures as they did not want to fight anymore.

To me, it all smells of rotten fish. I find it dubious at least to hope that they have legged it and I think it's extraordinary that the coalition "dont know where they are". Are they leaving the backdoor open to take it up the jaxxy?

K-

pork99

Originally posted by bonkey
Yup. Just like they did in all the other smaller cities, which is why they took each of them by daybreak the next day...

Oh - hang on - they didnt do that.

Baghdad is a city of 5,000,000 people. Thats big. You aint gonna take the city by "going in at night", and if you were to rely on tactical "building analysis" equipment, it would probably take several years to get from one end of the city to the next.

jc

I'm not saying it will be a walk-over - it could be a bloody slogging match. I'm just saying the yanks also have some tactical advantages. Of course if they copied the Russian "shoot them all and let God sort them out" tactics we saw in Grozney it would all be over very quickly. They would be smoking depopulated ruins but they would be occupied.

Its a matter of time - this war has been going 2 weeks - not very long. Lets see how things stand in 4 weeks time.

I think whats happening in Basra is a rehearsal for Bagdad - no head on assault but a slow steady grinding down of the Ba'ath party militia and Fedayeen which seems to be working.

Sparks

pork,
Two weeks in :

Geneva, Hague Conventions, UN Charter, centuries of international agreements : pissed away.

760 Civilians dead. Injured count unknown.

91 coalition forces dead.

23485 bombs dropped including cluster munitions.

8100 Iraqis taken prisoner.

No Weapons of Mass Destruction found.

NATO split.

EU split.

Cost of war : $80 billion.


How about we don't wait till 4 weeks in?

Éomer of Rohan

All that and they have barely started yet I think.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
All that and they have barely started yet I think.

I've been trying to figure this one out...people keep saying that Saddam must have an ace up his sleeve - that things have gone far too easily for the allies....and initially I was inclined to agree.

Now, I'm not so sure.

The US and UK armies, if nothing else, appear to have training far superior to that of anything the Iraqi's will throw at them. Unless the media have been lying to us since day 1, this has been clear in all engagements. The Iraqi's have T-72s. OK - not enough to kill an M1 Abrams, but definitely a dangerous piece of kit. Laser-guidance, night-vision capable, etc. etc. and yet all we hear about are smoking T-72 wrecks, and SFA coalition injuries.

Now, if you had a decent tank crew, they should be able to at least get off a shot or two before being taken out (except from airstrikes), especially considering that these things were usually very well dug-in - sacrificing mobility for some additional protection.

And they've killed pretty much nothing.

The same goes for the foot-soldiers. We see night encounters, with tracers flying left right and centre, and a great allied victory with no casualties - time after time. In some of these, it is apparent that the invaders are not using night-vision once the firing starts. And lets face it - tracers make it kinda hard to mask where you're shooting from, or to.

And yet, the Iraqi's consistently kill pretty much nothing.

So I'm beginning to get the impression that this is being sold as a "Permiership Team vs First Division Team", it is really more of a case of "Leading Premiership Team vs thuggish amateur Sunday League Team".

jc

mike65

Just been watching footage of the US army having a joyride on the main highways south of Baghdad centre,
there's nothing meeting them bar the odd pick-up....meanwhile the Iraqi police are driving round in circles in the centre with sirens wailing in an effort to excit the locals. It looks farcical.

Also has anyone else noticed that reporters in the Capital now seem to be more talkative about what the regime is or is'nt doing...

Mike.

Sparks

bonkey,
Firstly, you're not going to hear of coalition defeats on coalition news sources. (You will hear of a town being under coalition control 8 seperate times of course)

Secondly, I don't care how good and dedicated your tank crew is - a TOW or Hellfire will kill them from the edge of visual range and they'll never have a chance.

Thirdly, what we're actually watching is the most technologically advanced military force in human history attacking a third-world military with 30-year-old equipment at best and which has been under 12 years of UN sanctions, with 95% of it's weapons removed by UNSCOM teams and the remainder of it's weapons tagged by UNMOVIC.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that the coalition has lost more troops to the coalition than to the Iraqis.

Mike,
Watching the same footage, I have to point out that what I'm seeing is the lack of discipline on the US troops' part - shooting up road signs like some stereotypical character from Deliverance, shooting cars and trucks with 50-calibre machine guns without trying to determine whether they were military or civilian, and frankly the reports from the last few days have been showing this to be an endemic problem for the US.

The British, on the other hand, seem to be doing things a lot more professionally at least.

mike65

Originally posted by Sparks
Mike,
Watching the same footage, I have to point out that what I'm seeing is the lack of discipline on the US troops' part - shooting up road signs like some stereotypical character from Deliverance, shooting cars and trucks with 50-calibre machine guns without trying to determine whether they were military or civilian, and frankly the reports from the last few days have been showing this to be an endemic problem for the US.

The British, on the other hand, seem to be doing things a lot more professionally at least.

The Yanks are being well, very American its true. The Brits dispite what provos would have us belive plainly learned alot from thier collective experince in Norn Iron.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Secondly, I don't care how good and dedicated your tank crew is - a TOW or Hellfire will kill them from the edge of visual range and they'll never have a chance.

Yup - and the Iraqi's have TOW missiles too, so why arent they bagging Bradley's left, right and centre?

As for coalition not reporting coalition defeats....do you think they're lying about deaths as well? That they're gonna somehow manage to hide all these other deaths after the war?

jc

Sparks

bonkey,
They're not using them because TOW stands for Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided. They have a 20-21 second time of flight to maximum effective range.
Therefore to use them without getting right up close to the tanks and bradleys, you have to stand up, fire them and remain standing to aim the missile for 20 seconds.
Now the US troops may not be great at civil duties, but most can hit a target in open terrain within 20 seconds.
In a city, however, it's a different story. As the Israelis have alrealy said...

Second, I didn't say they were lying about deaths - just that they're presenting the best possible face to their efforts - eg. "HOORAY, WE'VE TAKEN UMM QASR!" ... <silence> ... "HOORAY, WE'VE TAKEN UMM QASR!"... etc, etc, etc...

SkepticOne

I think the main thing they will need to take out in Baghdad will be the TV and radio stations. Once this happens, the US will declare the town 'taken'. There may still be snipers in buildings and various fanatic types roaming around, but the authority of the regime will be gone.

Sparks

Yeeeessss....
And Northern Ireland has seen the same tactics remove the power held (illegally, immorally and unethically) by the paralilitaries...
:rolleyes:

Fact is, Baghdad isn't going to be Stalingrad - at least not for more than a few hours or days. It's going to be Beirut, Jeni and Belfast all rolled into one.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Fact is, Baghdad isn't going to be Stalingrad - at least not for more than a few hours or days. It's going to be Beirut, Jeni and Belfast all rolled into one.

Yes. It is will be very easy to 'take' Baghdad. The question is the extent to which an underground resistance will operate and for how long. There will need to be an intensive mopping up operation.

Sparks

Yes, I can see the logic in it though.
"Well, we can't oppose them in open desert, they can out-range us with their aircraft. We can't oppose them in surburbia because we don't have enough cover for our TOWs to use them safely. So we let them get into the built-up areas where we can use snipers, tows, booby traps, and other palestinian measures to fight them."

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Yes, I can see the logic in it though.
"Well, we can't oppose them in open desert, they can out-range us with their aircraft. We can't oppose them in surburbia because we don't have enough cover for our TOWs to use them safely. So we let them get into the built-up areas where we can use snipers, tows, booby traps, and other palestinian measures to fight them."

There has been speculation that this was the Iraqi tactic from the beginning - engage the coalition forces and then draw back into the cities. However, if coalition media is to be believed, it appears that they got a far greater pounding during these engagements than they bargained for. During the battles outside Baghdad, one US commander estimated a 50% reduction in strength of two Republican Guard divisions.