On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Chuck Grimes wrote:
> That's the dilemma isn't? Either the US scores a clean conquest and
> there are fewer Iraqi casualties, or with they mount a resistance to the
> invasion seeking a potential quagmire. They take greater casualties,
> national and international protest rises to a roar.
BTW, although I fervently hope that shock and awe works and this turns out to be an unprecedently casualty-low war, I should point that there isn't any evidence yet that it is. All signs are that the Iraqis are following exactly the strategy that everyone expected, the one that would maximize their relatively tiny resources to the greatest effect: gathering all their crack forces into Baghdad for house to house fighting and giving the rest of the country up for lost. This means that the early going could look terribly impressive and have no relation at all to the end game, which wouldn't begin until the US and British forces reach Baghdad.
And in Baghdad, despite our attempts at to float psychological warfare balloons about regime disintegration (which seem be swallowed whole by our state broadcasting system), the signs as I read them seem to be of complete confidence and remarkable preparation.
The confidence is to be read in the casualty reports. After two nights of shock and awe, the Iraqis reported 3 dead and 240 injured. That is a testament to the accuracy of US weapons. But I also think it's unprecedented in Arab history for a government not to exaggerate wildly in circumstances like this. It gives them an unwonted credibility. And it doesn't sound like panicking to me.
The preparation is evidenced in the fact that if 100,000 Republican Guards are in the capital, they are almost invisible. That's a little spooky. Of course they could have no soldiers and all and all be under a mass delusion. That would be tremendous, but it seems unlikely. More likely seems to be that they are all in bunkers or secreted in houses. In which case all the shock and awe was for nothing.
So if you put your hopes in horrible slaughter -- and I strongly advise you not to -- there is no sign yet that's not going to happen. Even though I hope it doesn't.
There are two writers on this subject I think might interest you.
One is our old friend Stephen Biddle at the US Army War College. He has an article online on "What Really Happened in Afghanistan"
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2002/afghan/afghan.pdf
To make a long story short: judging by the experience in Afghanistan, even the most modern surveillance weapons fall woefully short when there is overhead cover, like in a city. Everything they tell you might be wrong.
The second thing he says is that the image people have, that smart bombs kill people at a distance at a drop of a button is wrong. No matter how many bombs you drop on people, and no matter how big they are, if they are dug in and willing, they will still be alive and ready to hurt you when you approach, and you will still have to winkle them out by hand. And that was the real story in Afghanistan.
If you are hanging on in a bookstore, Biddle has a nicely condensed version of this article in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine. (Not available online, unfortunately, but just the right size for reading with a capaccino.)
Another guy who seems to have written extensively on this question is Michael O'Hanlon of the Brooking Institute. I haven't been able to read his longer articles on the subject because the Brookings site has been down this weekend. But he has been cited numerous times in the last week saying that the best parallel for taking Baghdad was taking Panama City. And based on on his analysis of that parallel, he is expecting 20,000 to 30,000 civilians dead.
I haven't been able to see what he bases that on beside multiplication by scale. But he is a reputable guy at a reputable institute. So if one were feeling ghoulish, his work seems like the place to go.
Michael