Stardate 20030329.1058

(Captain's log): A long time reader who is a retired military officer writes as follows:

The War in Iraq

As the conflict in Iraq enters its second week, powerful coalition forces control the skies and most of the countryside. But despite very light casualties and rapid achievement of military objectives, many in the media are proclaiming the operation a failure. Why? How can any objective analysis conclude that coalition forces are entering a "quagmire"? Part of the answer may lie with the fact that many of the analysts have unreasonable expectations.

The Situation

To get an idea of what is reasonable, let's first consider the strategic situation. If the desired goal is to topple the Saddamite regime, coalition forces must take over the center of government in Baghdad, a city with ~ 5 million inhabitants. Unless we want to fight house-to-house in Baghdad, the only real solution is to lay siege to the city. Due to basing and political constraints, the majority of the forces must come from Kuwait. A glance at the map shows that the only practical approach is along a narrow axis of advance from Kuwait to Baghdad. The terrain is primarily desert, with two major rivers (the Tigris and Euphrates), and the distance is approximately 300 miles. Finally, 3 Iraqi Republican Guard divisions defend the approach to the city.

The Plan

So what's the plan? While claiming no inside knowledge, there are only so many ways of skinning this cat, and strategically it's a fairly simple problem. Any workable plan must have a minimum of 4 elements:

1. Road march: advance on Baghdad and establish attack positions while shoring up supply lines.
2. Whoop ass: destroy the Republican Guard units around Baghdad.
3. Vise Grip: complete the encirclement of Baghdad and cut off all supplies to the city.
4. Mop up: defeat remaining Iraqi forces while awaiting Baghdad's surrender.

Coalition forces are currently somewhere between 1 and 2. A sure sign the road march is complete is that the units stop moving and wait for orders to attack. That appears to have happened. The next step is to attack the Republican Guard forces, which must be destroyed before any credible attack on Baghdad can begin. The aerial softening up phase is in progress, and a ground assault is imminent.

Progress

So, how is it going? Good question. Phase 1 went very quickly, mainly because the Iraqis failed to destroy the bridges across the Euphrates . . . a major error. The common complaint among the uninformed is that the Iraqis are attacking the supply lines because they're long. Like, duh-they stretch from Kuwait to Baghdad-of course they're long. And there is no way to stop an enemy from attacking 300-mile supply lines. The only real military issue is whether supplies are getting through, and the answer appears to be yes. But the best way to tell is to see when the attack on the Republican Guard kicks off. If it goes in the next few days, phase 1 is complete and a success. A significant delay would indicate too few troops or supply problems. The next big test is how well that attack goes.

Upcoming Events

Some things to look for in the next few weeks are:
1. Irregulars. Expect more irregular hit-and-run attacks, especially from forces based in the Southern cities. Primary targets should be supply convoys, and isolated bivouac sites.
2. Desperate attacks. As the Iraqi supply and communication situation worsens, attacks that make little military sense are more likely. Expect uncoordinated attacks by small groups, and occasionally as large as battalions, especially in areas on the periphery of coalition control.
3. Turtle. If the fight with the Republican Guard goes badly for Iraq, Saddam's remaining hard-core loyalists will likely hole up in the middle of Baghdad. As that happens, expect large-scale surrenders of forces outside the city.

Possible Scenarios

Death throes. There is little incentive for Saddamite loyalists to surrender. The best they can hope for is a long stay at Guantanamo, and a likely war crimes tribunal. If things go very badly, they may decide they have nothing to lose. The best opportunity for use of WMDs was on staging areas, supply depots, ports and airfields-and the best time to use them is already past. However, as coalition forces approach Baghdad and concentrate for an attack, they become a somewhat more lucrative target. If such an attack is launched, it will delay the inevitable and cause some casualties, but mostly among Iraqi civilians.

Brain dead politics. There is no military reason to assault Baghdad, except very limited actions to attack Saddamite concentrations. If political leaders overreact to international pressure, they could order a general attack on the city . . . which would likely result in disastrous losses to everyone involved. Hopefully this is the least likely scenario.

Revolution. As the situation deteriorates, Iraqi citizens are likely to conclude there is no percentage in fighting for Saddam. At some point this movement will reach critical mass, and if it happens soon enough, the regime will fall with relatively few casualties and damage. This is the result the coalition is hoping for.

Bottom Line

It's too early to tell, but so far there are no major surprises. It may be too early to claim victory, but it's a long way from a defeat. The Iraqi defense minister recently estimated Baghdad would be surrounded in 5-10 days, probably to raise expectations. Two weeks or so is more likely, and that would still represent a major victory. The Iraqi's only real hope is to seriously disrupt the supply lines from Kuwait. (And despite breathless reports from major media outlets, it's a goal they have so far failed to accomplish.) Within a week the major battle of the war will have been joined. Until then, panic over fedayeen tactics and hand-wringing over casualties is probably premature.

The biggest problem with this will be during the siege. When the people of Baghdad start to starve, it becomes a three-way war of nerves. Who will crack first?

Will Saddam's supporters begin to melt away? Or will the Shiites in Baghdad finally rise in revolution? Or will Bush blink, and either order an attack or pull out?

Bush is saying that the war will take as long as it takes, and isn't even hinting at a timetable. And if Bush has proved anything so far, it's that he is nearly impervious to pressure from a hostile press or "world leaders". So the smart money doesn't bet on Bush cracking.

It's possible that the siege of Baghdad could turn into the mother of all hostage crises. In truly dire straits, Saddam's loyalists might start executing a hundred or a thousand randomly-chosen (or not quite randomly chosen ones) civilians a day with the promise to keep it up until we relax the siege. That would be extremely ugly, but it would also be a risky move by them because it vastly raises the possibility of a revolution.

By the way, my reader left out two other scenarios:

Assassination. We've already made (at least) one attempt on Saddam and it now looks as if he was probably badly injured but hasn't yet died. He may still die from it, or we may again figure out where he is and really get him next time. I think it's a long shot, but it could happen, especially if there's a siege and hostage execution, because someone inside Baghdad may decide to finger him for us. Once he's truly gone, and if Uday and Qusay are also dead, then a rather abrupt end becomes much more likely.

Apocalypse. Convinced that there's no further hope, and defiant to the end, Saddam orders mass release of nerve gas inside Baghdad while committing suicide.

The last is, needless to say, the worst nightmare of all. What we must hope is that if it begins to look likely, that the people of Baghdad will see it coming and rise in revolt to prevent it.