Capture of Baghdad Sweepstakes

[MOBIUS]

I would have posted this thread earlier but 'circumstances outside of my control' prevented me from doing so...

How long do you think it will take to capture Baghdad, and hopefully end Iraq's organised resistance...?

Please explain the reasoning behind your choice...

[MichaeltheGreat]

I put 3-4 weeks, but not for "ending all resistance" - there's no future in surrender for a lot of these people, but in the 3-4 week time frame, we should have Baghdad isolated, with no hope of reinforcement or no forces existing to reinforce, and we will be operating in parts of Baghdad, isolating enemy forces and dealing with them on our terms within the city. That to me, is the point at which it should be clear to everyone the regime is doomed, but the actual drawing of the last breath may take a few more weeks.

[Chilean President™]

you forgot two options:

- Baghdad will never fall.
- Bananaland.

[spiritof1202]

3 to 4 weeks, with the same proviso as MtG

Incidentally, the ordinary Republican Guard aren't allowed in Baghdad by the way... only the Special Republican guard and some irregulars like the Fedayeen.

[Bosh]

oh anyone know the name of the third RG division? I've only ever heard of Medina and Hammurabi...

[Chilean President™]

I believe is Nabucodonosor... but I'm not sure.

[MichaeltheGreat]

IIRC, there's six now, instead of 8 at the time of GW I, and five immediately after we creamed three.

IRG Adnan is in the north, and IRG Baghdad and IRG Al Nida have been combined AFAIK into one fat division.

Nebuchadnazzar is the remaining one, since you've mentioned Hammurabi and Medina.

Al Nida is armored, with three armored brigades, so it has been integrated with the mechanized Baghdad division to make up for it's lack of armor.

Medina, Hammurabi and Adnan are mixed motorized/mechanized, with one armor and two mech brigades that have some motorized elements.

Baghdad and Nebuchadnazzer are considered motorized, not mechanized, although they have some armor and IFVs.

[MOBIUS]

Dammit! I should have posted 'except MtG', now everyone is just going to agree with him...

So are you saying 3-4 weeks for all effective resistance to end outside of Baghdad, but a few more weeks for the regime to actually fall?

I am thinking that Baghdad will only fall when the US has begun to be reinforced by elements of the 120,000 new troops ordered in as the coalition will have to extend its supply lines still further as it encircles Baghdad and the supply lines IMO are the achilles heel of the coalition. They are already talking of taking a haitus for 4-6 days to resupply as the front line troops have run out of Hershey bars...

How long will it take for those forces to start reaching Iraq in solid numbers? Then is when Baghdad be taken IMO.

I don't doubt that the US could punch its way through to the centre of Baghdad rapidly if it wanted to, but at what cost to civilians - and US lives? The worst thing about the siege of Baghdad is that the US cannot afford to cut supplies of food, water and electricity in a conventional siege because of the political fallout. It is eerie to watch a city at war go about its daily life as if the bombs raining down on it from above didn't exist - they're still playing their league football matches as if nothing was wrong. Also Saddam has had months and years to plan for this - I'm sure he has all the food, ammunition and fuel he needs for the 'final reckoning'...

This will be long, slow and protracted. It didn't have to be but US alienation of world opinion seems to have rallied the Iraqi population into a common cause...

you forgot two options:

- Baghdad will never fall.
- Bananaland.

No I didn't, Baghdad will fall - it is only a matter of time...

[Chemical Ollie]

I see three ultimate options, comparable to WW2:

1) Leningrad
2) Stalingrad
3) Paris

1-2 would be a catastrophy, both politically and humanitarally.
3 is preferrable, but not very likely, given the events we have seen in the last week.

I opposed this war from the beginning, and I still do.

[DanS]

I said 1-2 months for the whole thing to unfold. This includes 2 weeks to encircle the city and destroy the Republican Guard and 4 weeks to take the city.

There's still a small possibility that the besieged will decide to take matters into their own hands and get rid of Saddam, but that seems to be less likely as we go on. I sure hope they've done their homework on Baghdad better than they have on Basra.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Dammit! I should have posted 'except MtG', now everyone is just going to agree with him...

So are you saying 3-4 weeks for all effective resistance to end outside of Baghdad, but a few more weeks for the regime to actually fall?

Except for short periods of time, and relatively low casualties, the Iraqis aren't putting up effective resistance now. They can kill a few of us, they can take out the odd IFV or get real lucky and get a mobility kill on an Abrams, but they can't prevent us from moving men and supplies where we will, and they can't conceivably drive us from any position we deem worth holding.

What I mean is that in 3-4 weeks, we'll be wrapped around the throat of Baghdad, with nothing going in or coming out, with us controlling the roads, bridges and rivers, and with the defenses outside the city principly destroyed, except for the occasional fedayin or militia action - just nuisances, on the overall scale. We can do a lot of active jamming of communications, and keep the Baath and military folks inside from talking to those outside, although people will ***** about that.

I am thinking that Baghdad will only fall when the US has begun to be reinforced by elements of the 120,000 new troops ordered in as the coalition will have to extend its supply lines still further as it encircles Baghdad and the supply lines IMO are the achilles heel of the coalition.

In large scale operations, supply lines are always an achilles heel, but as we move more forces in, I expect our supply lines to shorten, not lengthen, as we can take more and more airfields within Iraq, and deliver key supplies that way. Already 101 ABD and 82 ABD, as well as 173 ABB and 1 ID are working from air-delivered supply which is already on the ground. As we get more units in, our security zones start overlapping, and it becomes that much harder for the Iraqis to effectively disrupt our supply.

They are already talking of taking a haitus for 4-6 days to resupply as the front line troops have run out of Hershey bars...

That's BS on an overall scale. You never give the enemy slack, so what will happen is we'll use some units and assets while others draw supply and do equipment maintenance. While we're getting the ground forces in gear, we'll still be all over the air, tank plinking and attacking targets of opportunity, and degrading the capabilities of the units in front of us, while keeping them pinned down enough to be unable to get into Iraq.

How long will it take for those forces to start reaching Iraq in solid numbers? Then is when Baghdad be taken IMO.

They'll be going in steadily every day - I expect within 10 days to 2 weeks, you'll have virtually all of 4 ID, 1 CD and 1 AD in forward positions.

I don't doubt that the US could punch its way through to the centre of Baghdad rapidly if it wanted to, but at what cost to civilians - and US lives? The worst thing about the siege of Baghdad is that the US cannot afford to cut supplies of food, water and electricity in a conventional siege because of the political fallout. It is eerie to watch a city at war go about its daily life as if the bombs raining down on it from above didn't exist - they're still playing their league football matches as if nothing was wrong. Also Saddam has had months and years to plan for this - I'm sure he has all the food, ammunition and fuel he needs for the 'final reckoning'...

We won't need to cut off food - we just need to search the vehicles entering to make sure what they're carrying has no military value, and we need to isolate and search vehicles leaving.

This will be long, slow and protracted. It didn't have to be but US alienation of world opinion seems to have rallied the Iraqi population into a common cause...

Not so. The Iraqi population has the problem that hidden among it's number are agents of the regime. Right now, for most Iraqis, welcoming the coalition forces means summary execution. There's a balance of power there, and even though the Iraqis don't necessarily like us, they're a lot more inclined to accept that we'll leave fairly soon, and leave them alone. Meanwhile, we don't have to necessarily get Saddam immediately, or the main *******s like Sabri, Aziz and Ramadan - we just need to increasingly isolate them. Use of snipers and rapid assaults and strikes on militia and Baath party facilities, etc., will tilt the local balances of power in each city, so that the local Iraqis, particularly the conscript army, can take out the *******s that are their enemies, too. In the mid-90's, Saddam had some severe trouble with the Republican Guard, so even some of the IRG elements are likely to move over and deal with the fedayin, SRG, ISSS and Baath elements.

[DanS]

Here's an article that puts some timelines "well into the Summer".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49102-2003Mar29.html

That would be no fun.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think that assessment is unduly pessimistic (especially the BS about having "a little more than two divisions"), but what we are seeing right now is the triumph of professionals and common sense over chickenhawks and ideology.

Remember when we had that conversation where I thought this "new way" of fighting was a bunch of hooey?

[lightblue]

Depends how willing the US is to take casualties, and inflict them on the civilian population. I can see them sitting outside Baghdad for weeks if not months, targetting RG positions and using spec ops to paint targets or take out targets, like they're doing in Basra atm. It will basically be a 21st century version of placing a city under siege.

[Sikander]

U.S. forces may indeed use a more modern seige to take Baghdad and perhaps other cities. One aspect of this would be to open up a cordon through which we could extract civilians as we move along. They could be temporarily relocated to areas of the city firmly under our control, and we would of course cull as many members of the regime as we can find from the refugee herd. It's going to be segment the enemy and reduce the pockets any way you look at it, whether that means blasting them out of every block or a more rapid scenario as the regime collapses. I do tend to think that much of the concern over this campaign is overwrought. I have yet to see evidence that people who aren't part and parcel of the regime taking up arms of their own volition, which would be the real sign that this operation is in danger of not being able to achieve its mission.