Fighting Street to Street

The New York Times ^ | 09/27/2002 | NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

[Pokey78]

BASRA, Iraq — To understand why an invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk that the White House expects, pay $20 (round trip) and board an Iraqi Airways flight that soars from Baghdad straight through the American-enforced "no-flight zone" to Basra on the southern tip of Iraq.

American war planes are authorized to shoot down any aircraft that venture into it, but the Iraqis around me were cool as ice. They knew that U.S. fighters would never attack a civilian aircraft, insha'allah, and that the U.S. military could only bluster.

"Sometimes the American Awacs planes warn us on the radio," explained an Iraqi pilot who was amused at my anxiety. "They say, `You are entering a no-fly zone and must turn around.' We reply, `This is Iraqi air space and we're going to fly through it.' "

That American restraint is Iraq's ace going into war. Iraq knows that the United States cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of places to hide its army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy an enemy that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent on a different approach.

From Basra I drove to the Kuwait border on the "highway of death," to see how Iraq will guard what may be a principal invasion route for American troops. The only military presence was a few guards on the edge of Basra, amounting to what you'd expect at the entrance to an urban U.S. high school.

So does this mean that Iraq is poorly prepared for an invasion? I don't think so.

Instead of protecting its borders, Iraq will hide its army within its cities, where air strikes are effective only at an unacceptable (for America) cost in civilian deaths. Saddam has a hiding place for himself that is better than Osama bin Laden's caves at Tora Bora: the teeming city of Baghdad, with five million inhabitants, where he already never spends two consecutive nights in the same place.

"The Americans are good at bombing," one Iraqi official mused. "But some day, they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting. Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets."

That could be a nightmare. As the last gulf war showed, a bombing campaign can knock out bridges and barracks, but unless we're incredibly lucky, we won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces. We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground — which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier.

Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly seven million more in Al Quds militia.

Karar Hassan, a 22-year-old member of the militia in the city of Najaf, said he had just completed a training session in street fighting, including fighting house to house and even from trees. "I'll fight them till my last drop of blood," he added, in the kind of boast that is heard everywhere in Iraq.

"If someone tries to threaten us, we know how to respond," said a farmer named Hakim al-Khal in the bazaar of Karbala, and then he reached under his shirt and brandished a handgun.

Most Iraqis seem to have no love for Saddam, and the great majority will probably spend the war hiding under their beds. But if even a tiny proportion of the braggarts are serious, then look out. Moreover, some tribes are armed with mortars and large-caliber machine guns, so that even if they could not stop tanks rolling through to Baghdad, they could seriously hurt an American army of occupation.

Perhaps the American invasion will be a breeze after all. The Iraqi army is less than half the strength it was when it crumpled in a 100-hour ground war a decade ago, and U.S. forces are much stronger now. But if we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting, with farmers like Mr. Khal taking potshots at our troops.

Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years?

[au eagle]

Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia.

The grown-ups are in charge now.

[SEGUET]

"The grown-ups are in charge now."

A body bag is a body bag is a body bag - regardless of who is in charge.

[mark the shark]

Maybe we should re-educate the world, and the NYT about Dresden, and Tokyo. I don't remember anything in the history books about door-to-door fighting in those cities. It probably is going to be messy and uncouth, but it won't take forever to break these guys' b@lls.

[ikka]

The last time we went to war against Iraq they were suggesting there would be 50,000 dead coming home in body bags once we came up against the dreaded "republican guard".

Basically, Teddy Kennedy turned out to be more dangerous to American citizens than the Iraqis.

[Reagan is King]

More NYT handwringing. Here's the typical Iraqi battle technique:

This article assumes the soldiers actually WANT to fight for Saddam. Most do not and those that do will meet a quick demise.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets.

Geeez. They make this too easy.

If every Iraqi has a gun and experience fighting, and is going to fight, then there are no civilians, only combatants.

Blast away.

[au eagle]

A body bag is a body bag is a body bag - regardless of who is in charge.

Yes, it is. A dead body, a falling body, a vaporized body are all those things, too. Terror is terror is terror. War is war is war. Gore is a loser is a loser is a loser. I don't mean to be facetious, but I like our chances with our present leaders. Camels in tents are not the only ones in danger as in years past.

[I still care]

You know, maybe they are right. Maybe we should put this off for a while, until Saddam has nuclear capabilities. Of course, then the American casualties might be unbearable, but what the heck? America has taken care of everyone until now, it will keep on doing it, won't it?

[SEGUET]

"Camels in tents are not the only ones in danger as in years past."

Your right - Canadians and people at wedding parties don't seem to be out of harm's way either.

[SEGUET]

"Basically, Teddy Kennedy turned out to be more dangerous to American citizens than the Iraqis."

Yeah numbers weren't even close - of course 46% of those killed were killed by "friendly fire" -

good thing it wasn't 50,000 - Huh

[Timesink]

Ah yes, the Times is right on schedule. Quagmire. Brutal Afghan Winter. Vicious Republican Guards. Blah blah blah.

[Rokke]

I think you are confusing the geography of Iraq with that of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Iraq has plenty of water. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers split the country almost in half. There are even large lakes within 100 miles of Baghdad. Water, isn't going to be a problem.

[SEGUET]

"Maybe we should re-educate the world, and the NYT about Dresden, and Tokyo."

They were both "BT" (BEFORE TV) - collateral damage doesn't play well on a 24 hour news cycle - door to door it will be - just like the AVON lady -

That probably will increase the "KBFF" (Killed by Friendly Fire) statistics.

[au eagle]

Your right Is opposite my left. We already know Saddam cares not about the Iraquis.

[SEGUET]

"Water, isn't going to be a problem."

If it's poisoned it will.

[Rokke]

If all the water is poisoned, than decontaminating our equipment will be the least of our problems, and probably a little silly since we'd be decontaminating equipment in a contaminated environment.
Like the NYT's has done here, a person could come up with a million hypothetical horror scenerio's to argue against attacking Iraq. But when taken in the context of a madman who has a long record of attacking his neighbors with every weapon at his disposal, the hypothetical horror scenerio's of not taking action are just as bad and even worse.

[mark the shark]

Man I have to tell you that if your thinking dominated the invasion of Italy when we lost thousands of Airborn and Transport pilots to friendly fire we would still be sitting in No. Africa wondering if it was safe to cross over.( The Navy mistook them for German aircraft and shot them to pieces.)
As an ex-cold war aviation type I wouldn't know about ground combat, but I did not and would not hesitate to place myself back at risk doing the work necessary to burn these bad guys to the ground. It was my job then and I would do again now, TV or no TV.
I hope that being afraid of bad Nielsen ratings isn't how the White House is gaging our response to killing bad guys!

[fr_freak]

Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years?

This is the kind of question that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to the true nature of the situation the US is in. It reveals the questioner's belief that the Sep. 11 attacks changed nothing in the world, and are no more of an issue than any natural disaster. The author asks if America is ready to lose hundreds? We have already lost thousands, all in one day! We are in dire circumstances already, and if hundreds were all we lost in this campaign to rid the US of its enemies, then we would be lucky beyond description.

To this foolish, short-sighted author I say, here is the reality: Iraq is only the first country that we will have to destroy and rebuild in the Middle East. Others must and will follow, until we are certain that the Muslims who have declared war on us and are supported by such countries no longer have the power to invade our country and kill our citizens. No practical person would expect less than thousands of US soldiers (and, God forbid, civilians) to die in the pursuit of this cause over the coming years. But it still must be done.

Sep. 11 was a wake up alarm to most of the country and the world, but apparently a few people are still hitting the snooze button.

[SEGUET]

"I hope that being afraid of bad Nielsen ratings isn't how the White House is gaging our response to killing bad guys!"

Given that television and the internet have had a greater impact on mankind than the all the major religions of the world combined - You can be your "Blood Chit" that TV coverage of collateral damage is included in the war plan - and friendly fire casualties are not the things that assure the political welfare of an administration -

[The Great Satan]

Oh, missed that. Kristof. Of "Mr. Z" fame. Maybe Barbara Rosenberg gave him advice on Iraq too. I heard she calls hereself an "expert."

This ludicrous propaganda piece should clue you in as to why Kristof was such a sucker for Rosenberg's conspiracy theory. Imagine: in the pages of the soi-disant "newspaper of record," Kristof proposed that Dr. Steven Hatfill attended Cipro parties at a secret CIA safe house in Virginia, where his handlers passed him vials of anthrax to test out on the US population after 9/11. Seriously.

Kristof understands where the anthrax comes from, but his tongue is so far up Hussein's butt, he'll willingly trash his credibility as a journalist to cover up for dear old Uncle Saddam. Walter Duranty was a piker compared to this guy.