Why do we need to take Baghdad? *Update: I may have guessed correctly?

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
Couldn't we just surround the city and let it fall on it's own? I doubt it could last very long.

Update:

Official: U.S. May Isolate Baghdad

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - American forces might stop short of storming Baghdad and instead isolate it while the makings of a new national government are put in place, President Bush's top military adviser said Thursday.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated the coming days might bring neither an all-out fight for the city, as many have predicted, nor a conventional siege of the capital.

"When you get to the point where Baghdad is basically isolated, then what is the situation you have in the country?" he said at a Pentagon news conference. "You have a country that Baghdad no longer controls, that whatever's happening inside Baghdad is almost irrelevant compared to what's going on in the rest of the country."
Over time, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his inner circle would lose completely their ability to communicate with Iraq (news - web sites)'s military forces, which already are in a state of disarray, and to control water and electricity, Myers said.

"Whatever remnants are left would not be in charge of anything except their own defense," he said.

In a step toward gaining control of key levers of power, U.S. soldiers launched an attack Thursday on Saddam International Airport on the western edge of the capital. Another important target may be the Rasheed military air base in southeastern Baghdad.

Although he did not rule out any scenario for Baghdad, Myers' comments strongly suggested that the intention is to bleed Saddam's government of its political and military authority without launching an all-out ground assault that would risk high casualties.

He did not suggest that it would be easy, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said, "There likely will be difficult days ahead."
U.S. diplomats were caught off guard by Myers' suggestion that an interim government could begin taking shape while Baghdad is isolated by U.S. troops, perhaps for a lengthy period of time.

One senior official on Bush's foreign policy team, speaking on condition of anonymity, complained the comments could send a signal that U.S. officials are not confident of their ability to overrun Baghdad.

Rumsfeld, appearing with Myers, said U.S. ground forces led by the Army's 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force had arrived "near the regime's doorstep." He did not say what might happen next, but he emphatically ruled out any deal that would save Saddam.
"There's not a chance that there's going to be a deal," he said. "It doesn't matter who proposes it, there will not be one."
He denounced those behind any talk of deal making.

"The inevitable effect of it, let there be no doubt, is to give hope and comfort to the Saddam Hussein regime and give them ammunition that they can then try to use to retain the loyalty of their forces with hope that one more time maybe he'll survive," Rumsfeld said.

Myers' remarks were the most expansive explanation of how the Pentagon hopes to avoid urban warfare.

He cited several factors that U.S. officials believe will work in their favor. Among them:
_ About half of the 5 million people in Baghdad are Shiite Muslims, who have been oppressed by Saddam's regime. "You could assume that they might be helpful" to the U.S. cause, he said.
_ At some point an Iraqi interim administration will take shape, "starting to work the post-conflict governance," Myers said. "It'll take some time. But you'll have that." He gave no details.
_ Even if the government does not collapse or fall victim to a coup, there may be no rush to dispose of it, Myers said. "You'll start working at it as you can. But one of the things you can do is be patient about that."

Also, the allies have control of Iraq's southern oilfields, which account for at least half the country's oil resources, Rumsfeld said.

Asked about oilfields in the north, he said, "We have to assume that they've been wired with explosives, as some were in the south."

However, he added that war commander Gen. Tommy Franks had ways of dealing with that problem "at the right time."

American and British forces say oil facilities secured in southern Iraq include 600 of the 1,000 wells and a crucial export terminal on the Persian Gulf. However, Iraq still controls more than 600 wells in the north, and is reported still pumping crude.

There is a small U.S. force in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq ? about 1,200 paratroopers and other special forces units. Warplanes from the USS Theodore Roosevelt flew about 60 combat missions over the north on Wednesday, striking artillery, air defenses and troop bunkers, said officers on board.

Myers said allied forces now control about 45 percent of Iraq's territory, including all of the remote western portion, and allied warplanes have control of about 98 percent of the country's airspace.

"Some units are laying down their arms and surrendering to coalition forces, wisely choosing not to die fighting for a doomed regime," Rumsfeld said.

He cautioned, however, "The regime has been weakened to be sure, but it is still lethal, and it may prove to be more lethal in the final moments before it ends."
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
It's a huge city.

And that would inflict suffering upon the innocent civilians.

Hasn't even been two weeks and we're literally knocking on Baghdad's front door already.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: datalink7
Couldn't we just surround the city and let it fall on it's own? I doubt it could last very long.

nope, most of the citizens would die quickly, unfortunately the ruling elite are in bunkers with more than enough supplies for themselves....
 

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
Originally posted by: conjur
It's a huge city.

And that would inflict suffering upon the innocent civilians.

Hasn't even been two weeks and we're literally knocking on Baghdad's front door already.

Yes, but taking the city by force would also inflict suffering upon innocent civilians.

I think we have to remember that the objective isn't Baghdad... it is regime change. The media keeps going on and on a bout "100 miles from Baghdad... 80 miles from Baghdad... 50 miles from Baghdad" as if it is the main objective. It isn't.

If you totally neutralize the command structure by surrounding the city, and start working on rebuilding the rest of the country, I din't see how that command structure would be able to last if ignored.

I could be totally wrong though. I'm no military strategist.
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
that's called a seige... the tactics that go along with it are to starve the people into submission. That's not an option.

Hopefully once the people see Saddam is out and we have food to offer, they will give up any fight. Saddam has trained his people to submit to the military. We'll see if it matters what uniform that military is.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Stark
that's called a seige... the tactics that go along with it are to starve the people into submission. That's not an option.

Hopefully once the people see Saddam is out and we have food to offer, they will give up any fight. Saddam has trained his people to submit to the military. We'll see if it matters what uniform that military is.

the ones with the food, hell, his own troops have given up because they know they get better treatment as POW's than in their own military....
rolleye.gif
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
datalink,

I'm not an expert either and I agree with your motivation to avoid damage and casualties. I think the coalition leaders do too which I think is why they have tried to engage as many forces as possible outside the city.

I've been impressed so far with our military planners so I'm hopeful they can successfully finish this in a humane way.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
the Iraqi's have resorted to using asymmetrical warfare, which is a real challenge, even for the US.
 

Mrburns2007

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2001
2,595
0
0
I have no clue how there going to get the radicals in the city, street fighting is tough.
 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
From what I've heard a lot of the interviewees on CNN, Foxnews, etc. say is that Baghdad is the tipping point. If Baghdad falls the rest of the country will fall as well. If Baghdad goes down it means most of Saddam's best troops have gone down. People will see that Saddam no longer holds any power over his most prized city and people will realize that they can in fact rise up agaisnt the government without fear of being killed or hung in the village square. I'm not saying if this will in fact happen but that is why the experts think Baghdad is so important.
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0

Siege doesn't work, because 12 years of embargo only hurts the civilians. And, civilians will also hurts if the city/country is taken by force.

Only moron supports war of any kind because the innocent civilians will always get the shot end of the stick.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: lowtech
Siege doesn't work, because 12 years of embargo only hurts the civilians. And, civilians will also hurts if the city/country is taken by force.

Only moron supports war of any kind because the innocent civilians will always get the shot end of the stick.

uuhh....then what is your solution?
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: lowtech


Only moron supports war of any kind because the innocent civilians will always get the shot end of the stick.

Only morons think that war is NEVER an option. Countries would not have militaries if they thought that war could always be avoided. Having a strong military also enhances your bargaining position, since the threat of war is encouragement to comply.
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lowtech
Siege doesn't work, because 12 years of embargo only hurts the civilians. And, civilians will also hurts if the city/country is taken by force.

Only moron supports war of any kind because the innocent civilians will always get the shot end of the stick.

uuhh....then what is your solution?
As if the US hasn't found other methods to throw non-pro American government out of power.

For serveral billions of dollars I'm sure your CIA people can find a few hitmen/mercenaries to take out Saddam. And, the money that the US is puting into this war is more than enought to buy Saddam generals for a coup.

With enought money you can buy anything....isn't that is the America way?

rolleye.gif
 

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
Originally posted by: lowtech
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lowtech
Siege doesn't work, because 12 years of embargo only hurts the civilians. And, civilians will also hurts if the city/country is taken by force.

Only moron supports war of any kind because the innocent civilians will always get the shot end of the stick.

uuhh....then what is your solution?
As if the US hasn't found other methods to throw non-pro American government out of power.

For serveral billions of dollars I'm sure your CIA people can find a few hitmen/mercenaries to take out Saddam. And, the money that the US is puting into this war is more than enought to buy Saddam generals for a coup.

With enought money you can buy anything....isn't that is the America way?

rolleye.gif

Ummmmmmmmmm... ok???
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: lowtech
Siege doesn't work, because 12 years of embargo only hurts the civilians. And, civilians will also hurts if the city/country is taken by force.

Only moron supports war of any kind because the innocent civilians will always get the shot end of the stick.

So the world should not have stood up to Hitler. Gotcha.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: lowtech

As if the US hasn't found other methods to throw non-pro American government out of power.

For serveral billions of dollars I'm sure your CIA people can find a few hitmen/mercenaries to take out Saddam. And, the money that the US is puting into this war is more than enought to buy Saddam generals for a coup.

With enought money you can buy anything....isn't that is the America way?

rolleye.gif
Yeah...right...condone outright assassination...sure.

BTW, it appears Canada should throw a few more dollars into its education system.
rolleye.gif
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lowtech

As if the US hasn't found other methods to throw non-pro American government out of power.

For serveral billions of dollars I'm sure your CIA people can find a few hitmen/mercenaries to take out Saddam. And, the money that the US is puting into this war is more than enought to buy Saddam generals for a coup.

With enought money you can buy anything....isn't that is the America way?

rolleye.gif
Yeah...right...condone outright assassination...sure.

BTW, it appears Canada should throw a few more dollars into its education system.
rolleye.gif
Sure why not?
Hasn't the US have done that serveral times in the past already?

It would be nice if the government put more money into the Canadian educational system so more Canadian & dual CA/US citizens can have cheap schooling.

rolleye.gif
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: lowtech

Sure why not?
Hasn't the US have done that serveral times in the past already?
No.

It would be nice if the government put more money into the Canadian educational system so more Canadian & dual CA/US citizens can have cheap schooling.

rolleye.gif

I meant so that its citizens would learn how to spell properly ;)
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lowtech

Sure why not?
Hasn't the US have done that serveral times in the past already?
No.

It would be nice if the government put more money into the Canadian educational system so more Canadian & dual CA/US citizens can have cheap schooling.

rolleye.gif

I meant so that its citizens would learn how to spell properly ;)
That would be nice since the English language isn?t the most logical language in the world. My prefer language is Vietnamese & French that learned when I grew up in Vietnam, and am still struggling with English since I only started to learn it much latter in my adult life.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: lowtech

That would be nice since the English language isn?t the most logical language in the world. My prefer language is Vietnamese & French that learned when I grew up in Vietnam, and am still struggling with English since I only started to learn it much latter in my adult life.
Ok...I stand humbled...I retract my jab. :)
 

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lowtech

As if the US hasn't found other methods to throw non-pro American government out of power.

For serveral billions of dollars I'm sure your CIA people can find a few hitmen/mercenaries to take out Saddam. And, the money that the US is puting into this war is more than enought to buy Saddam generals for a coup.

With enought money you can buy anything....isn't that is the America way?

rolleye.gif
Yeah...right...condone outright assassination...sure.

BTW, it appears Canada should throw a few more dollars into its education system.
rolleye.gif

How did you know? Government funding for education is pretty sh*tty these days.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lowtech

Sure why not?
Hasn't the US have done that serveral times in the past already?
No.

It would be nice if the government put more money into the Canadian educational system so more Canadian & dual CA/US citizens can have cheap schooling.

rolleye.gif

I meant so that its citizens would learn how to spell properly ;)

Please do some research and don't take Conjur's word for it. Lowtech had a valid question.

Actually, the US did condone and attempt assasination several times in the past. Gadafi, Noriega, and Castro to name a few.

When we attempted a decapitation strike on Saddam to start off this war, we were attempting to assassinate him. If it's okay to drop a bomb on his bunker in order to kill him, it's okay to pay a sniper or underling to have a shot at him.

There was a presidential order that outlawed the US from attempting to assassinate the leaders of any more countries. Bush was thinking of revoking it when he started after Osama Bin Laden. Government lawyers said he didn't have to, however, since Osama is not the head of any state. Lawyers also say that we would be okay in killing Saddam, since as the head of his countries military, he is an enemy combatant and can be shot as one.

One link

It was President Ford's who signed an Executive Order that outlawed assassination. If we didn't previously do it and attempt to do it, this would have been unnecessary.

Murderous rogues and individual terrorist acts have again raised the question of using political assassination as a tool to deal with the menace of terrorism. Ever since President Ford's 1976 Executive Order No. 12333 prohibiting the government from abetting in the assassination of political or terrorist leaders, there have been calls to repeal it. Both Presidents Reagan and Clinton, however, reissued the executive order banning murder, yet both administrations have ordered deadly counteractions against the headquarters of terrorist figures. Reagan struck at Qaddafi, and Clinton fired cruise missiles at bin Laden. Despite such concrete steps against terrorism, however, critics still seek to revoke our self-declared restraint on political murder. But although there are some instances where the prohibition could be judged a hindrance to eliminating terrorists, in less hypothetical cases, it presents little practical problem. After all, nation-states retain the lawful right to self-defense under international conventions.

From here.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
article on Noriega

Discusses a weakening of the executive order preventing assassinations.

The stated goals of removing Qaddafi, Noriega, etc. were attacks on gov't and military installations. If the leaders were killed then so be it. But, the primary goals were not assassination. Just like in today's current attempts to remove Saddam from power.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
I edited my first post with some links. We have definitely attempted assassination.

The CIA tried to kill Castro 8 times. As for Noriega, we tried to assassinate him. Just because we call it something else doesn't hide that fact. That's similar to the old trick of smacking somebody on the back of their head and saying you were aiming for the fly.

Link for Castro

Operation Mongoose it was called


Edit: And the whole point of all of this is that there is nothing to stop us from doing what lowtech suggested and using the billions we're spending on an assassination attempt on Saddam. We have tried similar things many times in the past and it's not a break from tradition.

While we could, it would probably be a waste to attempt assassination, since apparently we're just really bad at it. Everyone from Castro to Osama to Noriega to Qadafi seem to be in remarkably good health considering they're supposed to be dead.