Stardate 20030327.1723

(On Screen): Bruce Rolston is concerned by the failure of operational security, and by the fact that embedded reporters have been leaking the real locations of many of our units, especially the heavy ground forces of 3rd Infantry and 1st MEF and 7th Cav.

He ascribes this to failure of the experiment of embedding reporters, who don't have the sense to shut up.

It may be that some of that is true, but I would like to offer an alternative explanation for consideration: maybe they're doing it deliberately.

The nightmare in this war is for the majority of his forces to retreat into a major city (e.g. Baghdad) and to force us into a major bout of city fighting, right?

What we'd really rather have happen is for him to move out and try to meet us in open country. Then we get maximum usefulness out of our ability to bomb his military formations as they move to attack, and we can fully use artillery, and in any remaining direct combat we don't have to worry about killing civilians. It also means that we get to choose the ground where battle takes place (by choosing the location which gets leaked), and can make sure it's quite open so that our tanks and can take advantage of their better range in gunnery and their superior speed, plus the fact that our superior training means they'll be better able to maneuver and to coordinate attacks.

If they've given up on the idea of mass surrenders, and come to the conclusion that large parts of the Republican Guard will have to be destroyed, then it's better if it be done in the open countryside. So it's a good thing to entice them into making an attack, and the only way they'll do that is if they know where we are.

If there was a risk that our known location could inspire some other kind of attack, e.g. a Scud with a nuke, then obviously this would be bad. Even a mass rocket attack using nerve gas would not be good. But Saddam's air force is a no-show. His rocket batteries apparently are mostly out of action. Only a handful have been fired so far, and there's no particular reason to believe he's holding his fire. Also, the Patriot system seems to be working reasonably well this time.

Our forces are out of artillery range from the main Iraqi dug-in positions, which means that his conventional artillery would have to move in order to fire on us. It may be that they've decided to take the risk that the only way Saddam could attack one of our units if he knew its position would be by ground maneuver. (And indeed Iraq did send a major ground force after 3rd Squadron of 7th Cav rather than attack it in other ways. And that attack column has indeed been subjected to withering air assault.)

Any unit we destroy in open countryside is one we don't have to fight inside of Baghdad. Enticing them away from Baghdad is good for us.

I wouldn't say that it is certain that this is what they're thinking, but I suspect it is. I think there's a good chance they're deliberately baiting Saddam. They want him to come out and fight.