We keep hearing about the heavy fighting around An Nasiriyah, Al Basrah, and along the supply lines. Certainly there’s some shooting and killing going on, but none of it should really be called “heavy.” The attacks by irregulars and raids by SUV-equipped militia-types are nothing more than harrassment. Potentially deadly, to be sure, but certainly not a battle in the military sense of the term. If the media goes berserk over the losses we’ve suffered so far (and they are), what are they going to do when the fighting actually starts for real? When the US forces converging on Baghdad begin fighting in earnest against the Republican Guards defending their capital we will see fierce resistance. And if/when we enter Baghdad, we will see heavy casualties.

On 3/20 I had a post about a Swedish report on arms sales to Iraq. Here’s a graph, apparently based on the same report. Look at the top three and think “veto power.”

Enough said.

During late February and early March, I ranted on and on about why I thought the war would/should start around March 28th due to moon conditions which bring a new moon on April 1. Rumsfeld dismissed my concerns, however, perhaps in hope of huge Iraqi surrenders facilitated by better visibility. Our night-fighting capabilities allow us to attack and kill before they even know we’re there, but that doesn’t really help them surrender. The massed surrenders didn’t happen, and now it appears that we will have to fight the Republican Guards.

Maybe we gambled on surrenders helped by bright moon visibility, and the fall-back plan was combat in new moon conditions if two weeks didn’t bring about a relatively combat-free Iraqi collapse.

Did I mention that the new moon is April 1st? Weird.

Columbia professor Nicholas De Genova has expressed hopes for “a million Mogadishus” when the Allies enter Baghdad. He’s referring, of course, to the 1993 events in Somalia where Rangers and Delta Force operatives were cut off and mass attacked by local militia. I imagine that everyone is familiar with the incident due to the book and film BLACK HAWK DOWN.

Mogadishu has come up quite often when discussing urban warfare lately, with good reason. But in that encounter we lost 18 US servicemen and they killed from 500 to 1000 attackers. Other estimates of Somali deaths are even higher. Although every life lost is irreplaceable, war is war, and that is an exchange rate that will win battles. The people of Mogadishu still refer to that fight as “The Day of the Rangers,” and not fondly.

Those US troops were not prepared or equipped for a protracted engagement. When things went bad, no support was available to reinforce them or get them out quickly. They didn’t have enough water or medical gear. Most had left their night-vision equipment behind because they expected to be in and out in less than an hour in broad daylight. In short, they weren’t prepared. At all. And they killed from 27 to 55 for each man they lost. Just think what would have happened if they had actually trained and equipped for the fight. Or if they had 4000+ men and a few tanks for support instead of less than 200 men and nothing heavier than M16 rifles and few machine guns.

There’s no doubt that urban combat in Baghdad will be ugly if and when it happens. But the US troops will be much better prepared, and the support forces will be in place. And the warlord they were after in the Mog was captured. If Mogadishu happens again, it is Baghdad’s Saddam loyalists that had better be prepared.

NBC has axed MSNBC/National Geographic Explorer/Iraqi TV correspondent Peter Arnett after his analysis of the war was televised on Iraqi Satellite TV. Well, there’s probably a position at Al-Jazeera for him if he wants it. And now that his reports will stop, should we expect support for the war to grow? He claimed his reports of civilian casualties were strengthening the anti-war protesters. Well, at least people will be able to drive to work in San Francisco again soon.

Seriously, there’s always the possibility that he was “advised” by his interviewers to answer in certain ways and say certain things. Either way, though, NBC is doing the right thing.

And I’ve got to say that I’m amused when other talking heads express their shock about his comments. They take great pains to point out that he isn’t privy to the Pentagon’s war plans and isn’t in a position to analyze them. Then they turn around and analyze the Pentagon’s war plans. Some have already asked if firing Peter Arnett is a strong enough reaction to these events. I say even stronger action is required. Fire more people. At any of the news stations, really.

Just in case anyone is taking my theories on military strategy seriously, I feel obligated to let you know that my 8 year-old son defeated me last night in a game of STRATEGO.

Somebody set me up the bomb.

Update 08:47 31 Mar 2003

However, after scrambling to reposition forces and redefine tactics, I creamed him in a game of THE HARRY POTTER TRADING CARD GAME last night. Shocked and awed him, really.

This from a Reuters report on 3rd ID fighting in Al Kifl, north of An Najaf on the Baghdad side of the Euphrates:

The officers said the tank unit fired two 120 mm high velocity depleted uranium rounds straight down the main road, creating a powerful vacuum that literally sucked guerrillas out from their hideaways into the street, where they were shot down by small arms fire or run over by the tanks.

Update 21:50 29 Mar 2001

I apologize for the above subject line. []

Update 10:31 31 Mar 2003

A loyal reader, I’ll call him MacUser, has asked for confirmation of this story, questioning the physics blah blah blah. All I can say is: The story ran in Reuters, which means it must be accurate, right? Right? C’mon, folks. Right?

Here’s what to do if your tank is fired on by an optically tracked, wire-guided missile:

On Thursday, American military commanders briefed their troops on the new threat and how it can be countered by quickly maneuvering and firing in the direction of the missile, causing the person guiding the missile to move and change its course.

The Iraqis apparently have acquired some Russian-made Kornet missiles, similar to the US TOW. They maybe got them from Syria. The operator keeps the target lined up in the crosshairs of his sight, and the missile is directed to it via a wire trailed out from the missile to the launcher. I guess that if you’re being shot at by the machine guns on a tank, your concentration may be weakened. That’s true, but the tank gunner has got to to have ice water in his veins to pull it off.

Sgt. Stryker did a little research, and he discovered that the Baghdad market that was hit Friday (maybe by the Allies) was in a Shiite neighborhood. Saddam’s Sunnis were spared.

Down the road, residents gathered at a Shiite Muslim mosque, crowded around seven wooden coffins draped in blankets.

Now, if Saddam was going to blow up some of his own people and then parade the bodies as examples of Allied “collateral damage,” would he choose Sunnis or Shiites? Just a thought.