The battle for Baghdad
As US troops advanced, paused, then resumed their advance, analysts have been reassessing their expectations. Galal Nassar reviews the war's ever-changing course
Click to view caption |
A British soldier takes position behind a lamp post as his unit moves in to secure the Ba'ath party office in Basra
|
As the Anglo-American campaign against Iraq enters its fourth week, there have been conflicting reports about the fighting in Baghdad and its suburbs. The US announced that troops of the Third Infantry Division have taken the international airport. The Iraqis contested the news, and the Iraqi defence minister said that the airport was recaptured and US troops there were killed. Reports spoke of repeated forays by some US armoured units into Baghdad and of bloody clashes between Iraqi and US troops in the centre and outskirts of Baghdad. In the north, intensive fighting took place between Iraqi troops and Kurdish fighters, with US paratroopers backing the latter, around Kirkuk and Mosul. Fighting also continued in the main cities of Basra, Najaf, and Karbala. Clouding the picture further, "friendly fire" continued to inflict casualties on US and British troops.
Pentagon sources announced at the beginning of the third week of the campaign that the plan was to isolate, not besiege, Baghdad. This could be accomplished by creating a security strip, with outlets for passage, around Baghdad. The Pentagon also planned to drop leaflets and broadcast radio and television messages aiming to persuade Baghdad's five million inhabitants that Saddam's days are numbered. US commanders began preparations to use Baghdad's main arteries to dissect the town into sectors. Then, it would be the mission of special forces and armoured units to take control of each sector and clear it of pro-government troops and irregulars.
The idea of a security strip differs from that of a siege, experts say, in that it would allow those who want to leave Baghdad to do so. It would also allow a flow of humanitarian assistance into the capital. The civilian population would be encouraged to stay in Baghdad while attempts would be made to isolate Iraqi troops hiding in residential areas. The Americans, apparently, want to avoid scenes of refugees pouring out of town, because of their negative impact on public opinion. The plan was envisioned to avoid turning the battle for Baghdad into something akin to Stalingrad in 1942. The Americans will have to persuade Baghdad's inhabitants that they should help, or at the very least, not obstruct the advance of their troops into the capital. These troops would continue to wage special operations against pro-Saddam forces, with aerial support used against specific targets.
BAGHDAD BATTLE SCENARIOS: US commanders have three main scenarios for seizing Baghdad. They may follow one or a mixture of these scenarios, according to how things develop on the ground and the speed with which reinforcements arrive from the north and south. The first scenario would be similar to the strategy of British troops in Basra, where house- to-house searches were conducted while the town was kept encircled and civilians were allowed to move freely. Military targets in Basra were sought out and attacked, while the British hoped for a mass uprising to help deliver the city into their hands.
The second scenario would involve keeping Baghdad encircled, but instead of conducting large-scale military operations within the capital, specific targets such as the airport -- headquarters of the interim government -- would be brought under control. This would be followed by the seizure of electricity, water, and communications installations.
The third scenario, as outlined by General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would be to isolate, not seize Baghdad, while a new national government is formed. The US news network CBS quoted Myers as saying that the next few days may not lead to a full scale offensive against Baghdad with the aim of controlling it, as some had predicted, nor in any conventional siege of the town. Instead of fighting from street to street, the capital could be dissected into sectors to be controlled through a seizure of the major bridges on the Tigris, the sports stadiums, and the parks, where helicopters could land troops at will. Myers says that the aim would be to sap the remaining force of the Iraqi leadership, instead of besieging the city. Saddam and his entourage would thus completely lose the ability to contact Iraq's armed forces or control energy and water supplies.
Saddam and his entourage, meanwhile, are determined to confront these US scenarios using unconventional tactics. Saddam is a great admirer of Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese general, and he has studied in detail the US's military setbacks in Lebanon and Somalia. Saddam and his commanders had 12 years to prepare themselves for confrontation with the Americans. They also have hundreds of fedayeen ready to carry out martyrdom operations. Last week, two women, one of whom was pregnant, blew themselves up at a US roadblock, killing three marines.
According to US analysts, Saddam sees the battle for Baghdad as a chance not only to defeat the Americans and British, but also to steal the spotlight from pro-Western Arab and Islamic regimes and from Muslim militants such as Osama Bin Laden. Western political and military analysts believe that Saddam has three options. The first is one in which Saddam expects defeat but would still put up enough resistance to make the defeat look heroic, a matter which would restore Saddam's discredited image in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims, and perhaps even further afield. Saddam's second option would be to drag the invading troops into a bloody and prolonged guerrilla war that would involve high casualties. The third option would be for Saddam to turn Baghdad into a symbol of heroism, then disappear, in one or more of his hideouts, while pledging to continue the fight against imperialism, and urging the nation to keep on fighting.
THE AIRPORT BATTLE AND LOGISTICS: The most important event of last week was the battle to seize Saddam International Airport. The battle was not just military, but was also fought ferociously throughout the media. On Friday, the Americans said they were in control of most of the airport, its installations and runways, and would soon secure complete control of the rest of the airport's sprawling facilities. Iraq's Information Minister Mohamed Said Al-Sahhaf denied this emphatically, claiming that the invading troops that have entered the airport were under an Iraqi siege and would be eliminated by unconventional means, but not chemical weapons. Al-Sahhaf promised to keep journalists abreast of events. On the next day, Saturday, he claimed that the invading troops had been crushed and driven out of the airport.
The US command treated the seizure of the airport, the name of which it immediately changed from Saddam International Airport to Baghdad International Airport, as a blow to the morale of the Iraqi regime, one that may accelerate the collapse of that regime and bring an end to the resistance put up by pro-regime fighters.
As for the invading troops stationed on the outskirts of Baghdad, Saddam International Airport is an extraordinary military bonus, for it would facilitate the transport of reinforcements and supplies, including relief aid to the Iraqis. It is known that Saddam Hussein is particularly proud of this airport and sees it as a symbol of his power.
US commanders expressed, on more than one occasion, their desire to seize the airport because its main runway (3,900 metres long) could accommodate the very largest of military transport planes. The airport has another runway (2,400 metres long) that would also be a valuable asset to the Americans. The airport is only 16 kilometres away from Baghdad's centre, is particularly close to Saddam's palace in Al-Diwaniyah, and would save the Americans considerable time in terms of logistics.
US forces are currently trying to secure their lines of supply and communications. Their strategy focusses on seizing airports that are close to areas of operations and safeguarding them against possible anti-aircraft fire from the Iraqis. Last Thursday, this new strategy paid off when the Americans airlifted logistical supplies to Nasseriya Airport, where the Marines were locked in battle with Iraqi resistance.
Saddam International Airport is particularly valuable to the Americans if they opt to besiege Baghdad instead of entering it. The airport provides a convenient assembly point for troops and the open space separating it from the city could serve as a defensive zone, where Iraqi counterattacks could be spotted and aerially eliminated with relative ease.
The battle for the airport, as it developed on Saturday and Sunday, highlighted the significance of warnings issued by US military analysts to the effect that the battle for Baghdad may be more difficult than expected and that the swift advance of US troops over the previous period may not be a sustainable pattern. Apparently, US military commanders could not build up enough troops to secure lines of supply, gauge the scope of Baghdad's defences, or establish a cordon around the sprawling capital.
US military commanders familiar with urban warfare would have reason to be concerned over the pattern of US troop movements in Baghdad. Consider what happened in Stalingrad, when six months of Nazi siege of the city ended in failure, despite the death of thousands of Russians. The Germans had no trouble advancing on Stalingrad's suburbs, but once there, they encountered a semi-deserted town that had been reduced to ruins.
KARBALA AND MOSUL: Situated to the southwest of Baghdad, Karbala was the scene of fierce fighting, as US troops engaged irregular Iraqi troops in street battles in the centre of town. The operations were said to be necessary for protecting the rear of US troops advancing toward Baghdad. Military sources say that Black Hawk, Apache, and Chinook helicopters transported hundreds of troops to Karbala's outskirts. The troops were detailed to secure supply lines and eliminate the threat of irregular Iraqi troops in the town.
Iraqi fighters in Karbala occupied rooftops in the city's narrow streets and fired at US troops, prompting the Americans to respond with laser-guided bombs, artillery, and heavy-weapon fire. The fighting, which erupted on Saturday and lasted several days, presages the kind of urban warfare likely to spread to Baghdad. "Bullets were flying everywhere. It was very scary," a US soldier injured by shrapnel remarked.
The attack on Karbala follows battles in Najaf, a Shi'ite holy town in central Iraq, between US troops and pro-Saddam irregulars. These irregulars could pose a substantial threat to US supply lines, stretching over a 500-kilometre path between the Kuwait border and Baghdad. US sources believe that hundreds of fedayeen are stationed in Karbala and Najaf, and admit that US forces may not be able to stay long in Baghdad unless they manage to secure the towns along the southern supply road.
The 101st Airborne Division is in charge of securing southern supply lines to Baghdad. Its helicopters can reach major towns in the region and would be used to control airports and airstrips to facilitate the flow of men and materiel. So far, the 101st Airborne Division has been using its helicopters to gain control of the outskirts of Najaf and Karbala. The Marines, meanwhile, moved from Nasseriya to Al-Diwaniyah and Najaf, on their way to Al-Kut. The Third Mechanised Infantry Division advanced from Safwan and the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border to Najaf and Karbala, eschewing urban battles and focussing solely on eliminating Iraqi regular troops and preventing the Republican Guards from linking up with the regular army.
In the north, fighting between Iraqi troops and the US-backed Kurdish militia under Massoud Barzani escalated. US troops were airlifted into the region 10 days ago, after Turkey refused to open its territories to US ground troops. Kurdish and US fighters have advanced, with aerial support, toward Kirkuk and Mosul after days of standstill that followed their crossing of the demarcation line separating the Kurdish-controlled areas from the rest of Iraq. Kurdish fighters advanced on six different roads leading to Mosul and the oil-rich Kirkuk following intensive aerial bombardment of Iraqi positions.
This progress on the northern front, toward Tikrit and Baghdad, suffered a psychological setback on Sunday, when a US F-15 mistakenly fired at and killed 18 Kurdish fighters and four Americans. The dead included Wajih Barzani, the younger brother of Massoud, and head of the Kurdish special forces in the Kurdish Democratic Party. Wajih was accompanied by Mansour, who is Massoud's son, and Kaka Amin Mostafa, commander of the Kurdish troops in Arbil. They were all in a convoy proceeding to inspect the site of an Iraqi division that was said to have surrendered.
DEFENCES AROUND BAGHDAD: Following news of the invading forces entering the centre of Baghdad, the Iraqi leadership took a number of measures to strengthen the capital's defences by closing all entrances to the city between 6pm and 6am and tightening security around Baghdad. Al- Ahram Weekly sources say that, prior to the start of operations in Baghdad, the Iraqi command set up two defence lines around Baghdad. The first line is made of advance troops stationed at a distance of 40 kilometres from Baghdad. These troops consist of regular infantry division backed by a reserve of armoured units. Their mission is to stop any advance of US troops and prevent any breach of defences. Five kilometres behind this line, a combination of minefields (anti-tank and anti-personnel), barbed wire, anti-tank ditches, sandbanks, and oil- filled ditches, safeguard the main access roads.
The second line of defence is situated 30 kilometres behind the first line. There, units of the regular army are deployed with instructions to contain any breaches and wage counterattacks, together with the main force of the Republican Guards. In front of this line, minefields and other barriers have been placed, similar to those protecting the rear of the first line. Brigade-size concentrations are stationed there, maintaining a defensive firepower of artillery, armoured vehicles, and automatic weapons. Ditches, from which anti-tank fire can be directed against the enemy, protect contingents positioned in triangular defensive positions 200 metres in length.
According to the same sources, nine armoured divisions of the Republican Guards and infantry divisions of the regular army are deployed along Baghdad's defence lines. Their aim is to keep the invading forces outside the first defence line, or trapping and eliminating them in the zone separating the two lines of defence.
THE FAILURE OF US INTELLIGENCE: Many experts blame the problems facing the Anglo-American invading forces on the failure of intelligence gathering agencies in the US and Britain to give accurate assessment concerning the situation in Iraq, both regarding the army and the civilian population. US military doctrine is based on the assumption that technological superiority can surmount all problems. The Americans have also had excessive confidence in their oft-faulty intelligence reports. US military commanders in Qatar have spoken repeatedly of the destruction of most Republican Guard divisions. Yet, Al-Ahram Weekly sources believe that the scope of the damage to the Republican Guards is as yet unclear. There is no indication that Saddam's 15,000- strong Republican Guards, all known for their fierce loyalty to the Iraqi president, would surrender before putting up stiff resistance. Baghdad is the stronghold of the Republican Guards, who have been anticipating this battle for years. The infantry units of the Republican Guards are known to be equipped with mobile anti-tank batteries, which could be effective in repelling US armour.
THE FOURTH DIVISION: Considering the paucity of information and the strength of Iraqi defence lines, experts believe that Iraqi forces are likely to engage the invading troops once they come within the 300- 1500 metre range of tank and anti-tank fire. Such an eventuality could diminish the efficacy of aerial bombardment, as the risk of "friendly fire" would increase at such close quarters.
According to current assessments of the situation in the battlefield, the invading troops will have to wait for the arrival of the Fourth Armoured Infantry Division to ensure the success of the encirclement of Baghdad and to be able to engage the Republican Guards in battle while maintaining a reasonable superiority in numbers. A simple condition for besieging or attacking a city stipulates that the attackers should have a numerical superiority of 3:1, or at least 2:1. This condition is not yet met, as there are still four Iraqi divisions facing the lone Third Armoured Infantry Division. In addition, the Iraqis have not yet sent their main force into battle outside their lines of defence, which leaves these lines intact.
The Fourth Armoured Infantry Division has 17,000 troops who have already arrived in Kuwait and have been positioned near the border with Iraq. The hardware of this division is still arriving at Kuwait's ports. This division has a distinguished combat record. It took part in the Normandy landing during World War II, as well as in the Vietnam War. It is also one of the strongest US infantry divisions, being equipped with 290 M1A2 Abrams tanks, 230 Bradley armoured vehicles, 50 mobile cannons, 18 missile launchers, 26 Apache and 40 Black Hawk helicopters. It can participate effectively in the siege of Baghdad, for it can operate together with the Marines in southeast Baghdad, while the Third Division and the 101st Division go to action in the southwest of Baghdad.
The Americans believe that, once this is done, they will be able to encircle Baghdad with ease. But the stiff resistance put up by Iraqi troops and irregulars in Nasseriya, Karbala, Basra, and Umm Qasr may be a sign that things will not be that easy. This is why US military field planners have ordered two further armoured divisions to standby for possible participation in battle. If these divisions were called into action, the total number of US troops in Iraq would rise to eight armoured divisions. Were the Iraqis to succeed in stopping such a force, the Americans would find themselves in a quagmire on a par with Stalingrad and Vietnam.
EL-SHAZLI'S VIEW: General Saadeddin El- Shazli, former Egyptian chief of staff, believes that the fall of Saddam International Airport, or part thereof, is a loss, but not a catastrophe for the Iraqis. The airport is 20-30 kilometres away from the capital. It is outside the perimetre of what has been dubbed the battle for Baghdad. "I hope that the Iraqis will not make the mistake of sending a division of the Republican Guards to take back the airport, for any division that leaves its entrenched position to advance toward the airport would come under aerial bombardment and suffer extensive losses. This is why I expect the Iraqis to deal calmly with these pockets that aim mainly to score a psychological point," says El-Shazli.
The airport, El-Shazli points out, is 20 square kilometres, with a runway of four kilometres. This means that, when two fighting forces are engaged within its perimetre, none of them would be able to use it. To be able to operate the airport, areas surrounding it should be secured to a depth of 50 kilometres. The airport is well within the range of Iraqi forces in Baghdad, 20 to 30 kilometres away.
El-Shazli says that Iraqi troops should remain in their defensive positions until enemy troops start attacking Baghdad. Baghdad should remain encircled by defence lines, along a perimetre of 100-120 kilometres. Were I responsible for Iraqi defence plans, he said, I would have placed 12 divisions of Iraqi armed forces within Baghdad, because it is the main battlefield, and waited for the enemy to attack. The battle would thus be fought in streets that are familiar to me but not to my enemy, and the latter would have to move about with trepidation and fear.
Baghdad is a city of five million people. It can absorb 12 divisions within its perimetre of 120 kilometres and diameter of 60 kilometres. These areas can provide ample room for 12 divisions, El-Shazli says, although he admits that he does not know exactly how many combat-ready divisions the Iraqis have.
As for the siege, he says that one has to think of all the possibilities. One is that the enemy may try to isolate Baghdad from the rest of the country, in which case Baghdad's defences would run the entire 120 kilometre perimeter, and the enemy would not be able to encircle the entire area, not with the three divisions it has, not even with six divisions. The siege, if it happens, would need massive logistical supplies, about 3,000 tonnes per division per day. This means that the three divisions surrounding Baghdad would need 9,000 tonnes of supplies per day. And if more divisions arrive, the figure would be higher still. El-Shazli asks: how could these supplies be secured if the invading troops are coming under hit-and-run attacks?
RUMSFELD'S WAR: As the Anglo-American war against Iraq enters its fourth week, and with battles raging on various fronts, one is tempted to christen this campaign as Rumsfeld's war. The war is being conducted along the lines of the future shape of the US army; namely with intense reliance on intelligence data, air power, special forces operations, and vast ground force mobilisation -- a combination that is supposed to ensure quick results. Despite the fierce battles fought so far, it seems that in the days to come the war will get slower and more methodical, turning into a conventional campaign that relies increasingly on overwhelming power and decisive military superiority.
It is quite likely that the next part of the campaign will resemble the Gulf War of 1990-91. As US troops pause to take stock of the situation, US and British commanders in Iraq seem to favour a return to the conventional tactics of war, the ones US forces pursued 12 years ago.
US commanders are still far from turning the tables on Saddam Hussein, despite their use of cruise missiles against presidential palaces since the outbreak of war. They are now likely to use more missile and aerial attacks while more troops assemble to wage a ground offensive on Baghdad. US forces are expected to focus their efforts on attacking the Republican Guards dug in near Baghdad, a task that may not prove easy. Most analysts now expect the war to be long. Rumsfeld recently admitted to the Fox News network that Baghdad is not going to be easy. The question is: how hard will the campaign against Iraq be and, how many Iraqi lives will be lost in the coming days?
