Dear Somynona,
Thank you for a very interesting question. As you could imagine, none
could predict the future, and many intelligence reports deal with the
assumptions, not always with the same level of accuracy in the result
level. I should here disclaim, that I have no access to secret
strategic discussions in the Pentagon or NATO, nor would I have
published such an information on an open source such as Google
Answers, had I had access to such an information.
The US strategy depends upon basic doctrinal fundamentals, on the
perceived knowledge on the enemy and his capabilities and on the
objectives that are sought to be achieved.
In this context, the objectives, as stated clear by US officials in
more than one occasion, is to eliminate Hussein's regime, or to
pressure Iraq into replacing its leader. However, the officials
sometimes deny this is the goal, and state other goals or do not state
any at all (not even tactical ones). In other words, without knowing
the target of the operation, it is very difficult to estimate the
course of the battle.
It is also important to state, that in this case, unlike the case of
the Second Gulf War (the first was between Iran and Iraq), it is very
likely that the US would attack, after a suitable Casus beli would be
found, and not vice versa, thus the US might have the advantage of
setting the course of the battle.
US military history, and its current strategy, are well adjusted into
its military doctrine. The Operational Art (OA) is the adopted, and
continuously adapted, US doctrine. It was first shaped by the Soviets
after the Revolution (1917), and is basically part of System Analysis
- taking together all elements and considerations, stating the
objective, and building the tactic based on the target. The Americans
took this Soviet Theory and applied it to the modern, multidimensional
battlefield, applying all forces to reach one objective. You could
read more about Operational Art in Bruce W. Menning's article on the
subject, "Operational Art's Origins"
<http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/SepOct97/Menning.htm>.
The first stage would be paralysing the communication, control and
command centres (3CI, "I" is for intelligence), mainly through aerial
strikes, special forces activity and cruise missiles. One of the
central point, that most experts agree on, is the usage of "smart
bombs", and precise attacks. (See Will Dunham, "Swifter, 'smarter' US
air assault seen in Iraq war" , Reuters, 01 Jan 2003 13:49,
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N31172255).
The second stage depends on the target of the operation and on the
reaction of the Iraqis. That could be a stage where the battle change
would take place. If the Americans would have enough aerial power to
bypass the Iraqis, this stage would also be done.
Saddam, probably, would do two things: reacting to the American
operations (which puts him in a disadvantage in the first place), and,
maybe, if the Americans would not be able to prevent it in the first
and the second stages, attacking with ballistic missiles (Scud, maybe
armed with non-conventional warheads).
That means, that the US would take advantage of its supreme aerial
power, as a first blow and before applying any massive ground troops,
if any. That doesn't apply to the usage of commando forces, vital to
the success of aerial operations, as viewed in Kosovo and in other
recent battles. In other words, "invasion" in the way we imagine it
since the Second World War, might not occur at all, if the US would
reach its objectives through aerial strikes.
I hope that answered your question. Please contact me if you need any
further help. To answer your question, I used my own knowledge and
experience, searched for terms such as "operational art", and also
discussed the issue with an expert on the subject.
Further Reading
===============
Uri Avneri is critical of Bush's objectives in Iraq and exposes Bush's
"real' objectives http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/uavnery16.htm
Michael Donovan on Bush unclarity on his objectives
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/gulf-war-ii-pr.cfm |
Clarification of Answer by
politicalguru-ga
on
06 Jan 2003 04:13 PST
Dear Somynona,
Thank you for your insights. I am not sure at all that the US military
would "drag" itself to urban combat, since this is one of the realms,
where it would have many disadvantages, and almost no advatages. This
is also a situation, in which bad media image is very likely to
occour, if you remember pictures of Israelis fighting Palestinians in
the Gaza/West Bank cities, or if you remember similar picture from
"The Battle of Algiers" and Northern Ireland. However, I have found
several gerat sources on urban warfare for you:
Patrick Martin, 2002. "Report on urban warfare points to US plans to
destroy Iraqi cities" World Socialist Web Site 30 October 2002
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/urb-o30.shtml
Brian Whitaker, 2002. "Iraq plans urban warfare to thwart US" Guardian
Unlimited Friday August 9, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,771600,00.html
Daryl G. Press, 1999. "Urban Warfare: Conference Summary. URBAN
WARFARE: OPTIONS, PROBLEMS AND THE FUTURE"
http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/confseries/
urbanwarfare/urbanwarfare.html
In this aspect, it seems that civilian presence of many Westerners
could assist. However, this could be also abused by the Saddam regime
for propaganda, as it had been in other cases, in which peace
activists demonstrated their presence in disputed zones.
Good luck, anyway :-)
Please contact me for any further clarifications on you original
question and my answers.
|
