The Battle Plan for Baghdad? - A secret Pentagon report sketches seven scenarios. By David�Corn�and Mark�Perry The Battle Plan for Baghdad?
A secret Pentagon report sketches seven scenarios.
By David Corn and Mark Perry
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 3:16 PM PT
A view of the city
As three U.S. combat divisions and assorted forces bear down on Baghdad, the big question of the war now is, how will U.S. troops take the Iraqi capital? This is a matter U.S. war planners pondered long before President Bush launched the war. Last summer, a secret team of high-level military officers and senior civilian Pentagon officials designed a tactical playbook for presentation to the Joint Chiefs of Staff "war-fighting group," a Pentagon outfit that oversees war plans. Titled "Joint Urban Operations," the report was developed by the team to study and enhance U.S. combat abilities in an urban environment. But a classified summary PowerPoint presentation of the study�made available to us by a source with access to the document�focused exclusively on one particular urban area: Baghdad. And this summary shows the various ways U.S. military planners considered conquering the city.
The band of military officers and civilian analysts who conducted this study was led by Gen. William F. "Buck" Kernan, a well-known, highly respected, and combat-tested officer. At the time, he headed the U.S. military's Joint Forces Command, which is responsible for developing and testing new combat doctrines and techniques. According to the PowerPoint presentation, these U.S. military planners believed Baghdad could be stormed and pacified by four divisions of U.S. troops�about the size of the all the forces currently present north of Karbala.
In the briefing, Kernan cautioned his fellow commanders that "our opponents are wily and will force us into the urban environment in order to escape our technological edge"�an accurate reflection of the challenges now faced by the 3rd Infantry Division, the 101st Airborne Division, and the Marines as they close in on Baghdad.
The presentation contained detailed population, ethnic, and geographic grids of Baghdad�noting expected weaknesses in the Iraqi defenses and pointing out vulnerabilities in specific ethnic and low-population neighborhoods. (Presumably, U.S. forces could move more quickly through neighborhoods with fewer residents.) It detailed the urban environment of Baghdad and presented maps of high-rise buildings, "sub-surface" assets (tunnels, sewage pipes, and electrical conduits), electrical grids, and railroads. It identified roads that invading U.S. forces could use and infrastructure components that they would need to capture. (For obvious reasons, we won't name these spots.) The presentation also mapped civilian "attitudes," and it laid out the likely defensive perimeters to be established by the Republican Guard. In the version we reviewed, we saw no mention of paramilitary or irregular units such as the now-infamous Fedayeen. The briefing also included a slide titled "Anti-Leadership Operation Model"�but that portion of the presentation was unfinished.
The briefing did not project results, nor did it state any preferences. It offered options, but no best choice. And there were seven.
1) "Isolation Siege." In this scenario, U.S. and coalition forces would cut Baghdad off from the rest of Iraq and slowly degrade .....
>>
2) "Remote Strike (Rubblizing)." This is a violent scenario that relies on overwhelming airpower.......
>>
3) "Ground Assault, Frontal." The briefing was far more specific about this scenario than any other, perhaps because this alternative requires the most logistical coordination.........
>>
4) "Nodal Isolation." Under this option, mainly air forces (and maybe some ground troops) would "isolate" communications and command nodes in the city by destroying them........
>>
5) "Nodal Capture." Instead of blasting apart the communications and command nodes, U.S. forces would try to secure these points. That would leave the government infrastructure intact....
>>
My favorite!
6) "Segment and Capture." In this modified version of an overland, frontal assault, specific neighborhoods and areas of Baghdad would be identified and assaulted by air and ground operations.
>>
7) "Softpoint Capture and Expansion." This would involve seizing "unprotected city segments" where military opposition is thought to be weak. The aim would be to "expand" those bridgeheads into more contested parts of the "urban area." (Like the tunnels they just found that run from the airport into the heart of the city?)
A secret Pentagon report sketches seven scenarios.
By David Corn and Mark Perry
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 3:16 PM PT
A view of the city
As three U.S. combat divisions and assorted forces bear down on Baghdad, the big question of the war now is, how will U.S. troops take the Iraqi capital? This is a matter U.S. war planners pondered long before President Bush launched the war. Last summer, a secret team of high-level military officers and senior civilian Pentagon officials designed a tactical playbook for presentation to the Joint Chiefs of Staff "war-fighting group," a Pentagon outfit that oversees war plans. Titled "Joint Urban Operations," the report was developed by the team to study and enhance U.S. combat abilities in an urban environment. But a classified summary PowerPoint presentation of the study�made available to us by a source with access to the document�focused exclusively on one particular urban area: Baghdad. And this summary shows the various ways U.S. military planners considered conquering the city.
The band of military officers and civilian analysts who conducted this study was led by Gen. William F. "Buck" Kernan, a well-known, highly respected, and combat-tested officer. At the time, he headed the U.S. military's Joint Forces Command, which is responsible for developing and testing new combat doctrines and techniques. According to the PowerPoint presentation, these U.S. military planners believed Baghdad could be stormed and pacified by four divisions of U.S. troops�about the size of the all the forces currently present north of Karbala.
In the briefing, Kernan cautioned his fellow commanders that "our opponents are wily and will force us into the urban environment in order to escape our technological edge"�an accurate reflection of the challenges now faced by the 3rd Infantry Division, the 101st Airborne Division, and the Marines as they close in on Baghdad.
The presentation contained detailed population, ethnic, and geographic grids of Baghdad�noting expected weaknesses in the Iraqi defenses and pointing out vulnerabilities in specific ethnic and low-population neighborhoods. (Presumably, U.S. forces could move more quickly through neighborhoods with fewer residents.) It detailed the urban environment of Baghdad and presented maps of high-rise buildings, "sub-surface" assets (tunnels, sewage pipes, and electrical conduits), electrical grids, and railroads. It identified roads that invading U.S. forces could use and infrastructure components that they would need to capture. (For obvious reasons, we won't name these spots.) The presentation also mapped civilian "attitudes," and it laid out the likely defensive perimeters to be established by the Republican Guard. In the version we reviewed, we saw no mention of paramilitary or irregular units such as the now-infamous Fedayeen. The briefing also included a slide titled "Anti-Leadership Operation Model"�but that portion of the presentation was unfinished.
The briefing did not project results, nor did it state any preferences. It offered options, but no best choice. And there were seven.
1) "Isolation Siege." In this scenario, U.S. and coalition forces would cut Baghdad off from the rest of Iraq and slowly degrade .....
>>
2) "Remote Strike (Rubblizing)." This is a violent scenario that relies on overwhelming airpower.......
>>
3) "Ground Assault, Frontal." The briefing was far more specific about this scenario than any other, perhaps because this alternative requires the most logistical coordination.........
>>
4) "Nodal Isolation." Under this option, mainly air forces (and maybe some ground troops) would "isolate" communications and command nodes in the city by destroying them........
>>
5) "Nodal Capture." Instead of blasting apart the communications and command nodes, U.S. forces would try to secure these points. That would leave the government infrastructure intact....
>>
My favorite!
6) "Segment and Capture." In this modified version of an overland, frontal assault, specific neighborhoods and areas of Baghdad would be identified and assaulted by air and ground operations.
>>
7) "Softpoint Capture and Expansion." This would involve seizing "unprotected city segments" where military opposition is thought to be weak. The aim would be to "expand" those bridgeheads into more contested parts of the "urban area." (Like the tunnels they just found that run from the airport into the heart of the city?)
Comments