Urban Warfare for Dummies

[Doubt]

Actually, it is a page of links about urban warfare at a US Army site. I have only gone over a couple of the documents here, but they are mostly balanced and quite sobering.

http://call.army.mil/homepage/mout.htm


One of the better documents is specifically about the Iraqi population and their possible response to the US forces. It was written in December '02

http://call.army.mil/products/mout/docs/iraqimout.doc

From the end of the article:


Is successful MOUT in Iraq possible? It is, but this depends on the way the population responds to the presence of US or coalition troops. If the population turns against Hussein, anything is possible and MOUT becomes feasible. If they do not, US or coalition forces will be confronted with the worst kind of city fighting, that of not only the armed forces but also the people of Iraq. In a city such as Baghdad, where the population density is in the range of 17,000 people per square mile, it will not be possible to separate the good guys from the bad guys, and any invasion will most likely meet with little success. A recent (17 December) report from the London Times indicates that things might not be all that bad for US forces in Iraq. In a survey conducted by the International Crisis Group (ICG), it was reported that Iraqis would largely welcome a US-led attack and want stability, and political change.



All in all a good site. The comments on how civilians will determine the outcome of an urban battle in Baghdad are of great importance right now.

My own thinking is that we should lay siege in Baghdad and fight the smaller urban battles only. The cost and risk of a battle in Baghdad is to high. It is foolish to let our chances hang on the fickle notions of the Iraqi civilian population.

[subgenius]

Awesome link. Think Dubya's read it? LOL.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by subgenius
Awesome link. Think Dubya's read it? LOL.

Nope. The people who should be reading this are named Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

(edited for speeling.)

[subgenius]

Gonna save it, well written/researched.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why hasn't this thread gotten more replies?

I did MOUT at Ft. Hood in 1989. Scary stuff when you can't just fire cannon into buildings to clear snipers.

[a_unique_person]

who knows how it will turn. there is just as much anecdotal evidence of the iraqis backing saddam as backing the US. The problem is that both sides have let the people of iraq down before.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Why hasn't this thread gotten more replies?

I did MOUT at Ft. Hood in 1989. Scary stuff when you can't just fire cannon into buildings to clear snipers.
People don't want to be confused with the facts, even on this "skeptics" board, that is dominated by someone that believes in matriarchal totalitarianism and that we're from Mars.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by subgenius

People don't want to be confused with the facts, even on this "skeptics" board, that is dominated by someone that believes in matriarchal totalitarianism and that we're from Mars.

Yes, but that's a "real skeptic" not a fake pseudo-skeptic or "skeptic" like the rest of us. They're really in the know.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Doubt
My own thinking is that we should lay siege in Baghdad and fight the smaller urban battles only. The cost and risk of a battle in Baghdad is to high. It is foolish to let our chances hang on the fickle notions of the Iraqi civilian population. [/B]

Whereas urban warfare in Baghdad is high on the list of "Things we really, really don't want to see happen in this war", a siege of Baghdad is pretty high up on that list too. When laying siege to a city, the civilian population is going to suffer more than the military forces in the city - the military is better prepared, and will take the main share of what resources they're low on. In addition, it is the children, the old and the sick which will suffer the most from lack of heating, medicines, food and water.

Unless the Iraq regime can be made to fall from its own instability (and as the days pass, that seems more and more unlikely), or large portions of the Iraq army and irregular forces in and around Baghdad can be made to surrender without battle, I can not see any way now that the civil population in Baghdad will not suffer badly.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Why hasn't this thread gotten more replies?

I did MOUT at Ft. Hood in 1989. Scary stuff when you can't just fire cannon into buildings to clear snipers.

I did MOUT at FT Ord in 1988. One platoon of Marines used small arms, and 2 50 cals to take over a town that had 25 other Marines playing terrorist and holding civilian hostages. that was done in their second atrempt. In the first attempt we gave them 85% casualties. But this was training, so we told them what made it easier for us. It was pretty scary, even just using MILES gear when they learned from us and came at us the second time.


And it's the second time, not the first, for many as we do dry run after dry run until we see al the possibilities and prepare for them, then forget them fir a little while and allow us to go :o the fly"

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

People don't want to be confused with the facts, even on this "skeptics" board, that is dominated by someone that believes in matriarchal totalitarianism and that we're from Mars.
That or some of us work from 4pm EST until 3am EST and haven't had a freaking chance until now. Well that or the fact that Subbie here tends to just tossout crap to see if anyone bites

[subgenius]

What was I thinking. Meant no offence.