Halloween Story

Today's

Inside Washington Report

Related Story



10/31/2002 - Updated 10:33 PM ET

Pentagon Plans Block-to-block Fighting in Iraq

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 31, 2002; Page A01

FORT POLK, La. -- Just seven months ago, Capt. Glenn Kozelka and his men from the Army's 10th Mountain Division fought al Qaeda terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan. But last week, as he commanded a furious mock assault on the U.S. military's most sophisticated urban training ground, he began to understand why Army doctrine describes city fighting as "primordial combat."

He had lost an entire squad to mortar fire, a sniper atop an adjacent building was picking off his soldiers in the street one by one, and a rocket-propelled grenade had just slammed into the next room, killing or wounding everyone inside.

"We call it three-dimensional warfare," Kozelka said early one morning. "You can be shot from all around."

War planners at the Pentagon understand this geometry only too well: They foresee a battle for Baghdad, a sprawling city of 5 million people, as one of the most difficult and unsettling aspects of any invasion of Iraq. The last thing they want is to mount a full, frontal assault on the city because of the likelihood of high casualties, both military and civilian, and the demands it would make on already strained manpower.

Lt. Gen. Edwin P. Smith, in last month's issue of Army magazine, called urban warfare "the great equalizer." The U.S. military is trying to minimize that equalizing effect, both in its planning and its training.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Oct. 1 directed Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conduct "a top down national review and theater review of assets involving urban warfare." Two weeks ago, retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson, a Pentagon contractor, briefed Rumsfeld's aides on the results of a two-year urban warfare analysis and recommended that 36 infantry battalions -- about 18,000 troops, or roughly half the Army's infantry force -- receive intensive training in urban operations right up until the time they deploy to the Persian Gulf.

All Army and Marine infantry units have routinely been given training in urban warfare, but recently that training, such as the exercise Kozelka and his troops were on, has increased in intensity and focus, with an eye toward a conflict in Iraq.

The Big Unknown

Recent experimentation by the Marine Corps has shown that battlefield casualties exceed 30 percent in simulated urban operations involving troops who receive, on average, only about two weeks of urban combat training per year, said retired Marine Col. Randy Gangle, an official at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory.

Senior Iraqi officials have already said they would try to lure U.S. forces into Baghdad, acknowledging that the Persian Gulf War in 1991 taught them the folly of fighting in the desert against superior American armor and air power. Bluffing or not, the Iraqis understand that the U.S. military's overwhelming technological advantages are to some extent nullified in cities, where buildings shelter enemy forces from reconnaissance aircraft and satellites and the presence of civilians makes the use of even the smartest bombs infinitely more difficult.

The big unknown confronting senior defense officials is whether the Iraqi military would fight to save President Saddam Hussein -- and, if it did, whether it would have the discipline and leadership to fall back into the Iraqi capital and extract a heavy price from the U.S. invaders, as Chechen rebels did when Russian forces invaded Grozny in 1994.

Military analysts inside and outside the Pentagon do not think that Iraq's military can or will put up much of a fight, but even a limited number of engagements, most likely against Hussein's Special Republican Guard, could be nasty affairs.

"It is very unlikely that we could become involved in any type of urban warfare and not see young American men and women fight and die," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former defense official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The worst case in urban warfare is a bad case indeed."

The Army's urban warfare training manual quotes an Israeli officer in starker terms: "Every room is a new battle. . . . Avoid cities if you can. If you can't, avoid enemy areas. If you can't do that, avoid entering buildings."

In addition to posing the risk of casualties, urban operations also require extremely large numbers of troops. One recent Marine scenario that used Chicago as a battle template determined that it would take the entire Marine Corps to clear and hold the city. Far from that kind of block-to-block engagement, Pentagon strategists envision cordoning off Baghdad, providing escape routes for civilians and surrendering military personnel, and striking critical facilities whose loss, over time, should make the city, and Hussein's government, fall .

Navy Capt. Tom Johnston, head of the Center for Joint Urban Operations at the U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, said the U.S. military has progressed since World War II from laying siege to cities to waging "effects-based operations" that seek to destroy an enemy's will without harming large numbers of civilians or devastating infrastructure.

"Are we prepared to fight in the urban environment? Sure, but it's going to cost us," said Johnston, explaining that the new organization he commands is working to ensure that any necessary ground attacks "cost less and less and less."

But any engagement in and around a city the size of Baghdad would almost inevitably be characterized to some extent by poor communications, elusive targets and enemy forces typically no more than 50 yards away, Army officers believe. It is for these unforeseeable difficulties that the troops train at Fort Polk.

Laser Tag and Grim Lessons

Kozelka, a 29-year-old from LaCrosse, Wis., said his men are ready for combat in Iraq after a year in which they went from their home base at Fort Drum, N.Y., to Uzbekistan and then to Afghanistan for a sweep of the eastern mountains there in March, the last major ground engagement of the Afghan war and the first involving large numbers of U.S. forces.

He and his men arrived at Fort Polk's Joint Readiness Training Center in early October with two battalions -- about 1,000 troops -- from the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade for a regular three-week training rotation that began with live-fire exercises and ended last week with a 10-day force-on-force war.

The simulated combat, which costs more than $1 million a day to wage, involves what is probably the world's most sophisticated game of laser tag against an opposing force, fought over a battlefield in central Louisiana, 15 miles long and 10 miles wide, part of which consists of 28 buildings arrayed across the equivalent of three city blocks.

The Army takes great pains to simulate the strain of actual combat. Every soldier wears a laser sensor that beeps when he or she is shot. Once the sensor sounds, a soldier opens an envelope containing a card that describes how badly he or she is hurt.

Medical personnel must evacuate wounded soldiers from the battlefield in time to treat their wounds. Soldiers who die are taken to a holding area, where they are made to do manual labor to underscore the point that dying is never fun.

The 2nd Brigade's combat training began with five days of operations against an insurgent force like al Qaeda, switched to a defensive operation against a more conventional invading force with tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, and ended with a night assault on the urban battleground.

A battle plan developed by brigade commander Col. Kevin Wilkerson, 43, who has fought in Grenada and Afghanistan, called for Kozelka's company to execute the all-important breach of the perimeter defenses. This would come after Kozelka's company and five others had traveled nearly 10 miles by truck through enemy country and then marched through two miles of swamp and heavy woods.

Almost nothing went as planned. The enemy compromised the battalion's radio network, and an enemy armored vehicle machine-gunned the convoy and killed two squads of engineers who were supposed to help Kozelka's men cut through the concertina wire around their assault point, Building 13, which they had planned to storm and use as a company command post.

By the time Kozelka made it inside, after 2 a.m., his forces had fallen prey to all the hazards of city combat -- an unseen enemy, fire from guns high in buildings, and maximum confusion. "Hey, captain, I've got six personnel in first platoon left alive," Spec. Matt Floyd, a radio operator, yelled at Kozelka after the rocket-propelled grenade attack on their position.

"Okay, keep 'em alive," Kozelka yelled back.

Commanding from a room littered with casualties, Kozelka was busy calling in suppressive fire on the next building over and warning soldiers over the radio of a machine gun on the roof of another building across the street.

"It's lighting us up," he said.

After a few hours of continuous combat, Kozelka and the remnants of his company captured the post office building across the street. During a lull, Kozelka relaxed and started chatting with an observer. Then, an Opfor soldier burst through the door and shot him. A half hour later, commanders called a halt to the exercise.

"This battlefield throws everything at you all at once," Wilkerson said, mingling with Kozelka and other soldiers as the smoke cleared. "Now, you've done another scrimmage, you've learned how to fight this war, and you'll do it better when there's live bullets."


10/31/2002 - Updated 10:33 PM ET

Bush White House Shows No Respect for 'Opinions of Mankind'

By Hubert G. Locke

In less than four months, we've managed in this country to go from the incredible to the bizarre. Four months ago, it was unbelievable to a good many Americans that in the midst of a war on terrorism -- with American troops in Afghanistan having their hands full trying to root out the last of the al-Qaida band there -- the White House should decide to make the invasion of Iraq a sudden national priority.

It was mind-boggling that President Bush could announce his intent to do so, no matter what the rest of the world thought, including nearly every one of our allies along with the entire Arab world, with everyone warning us that such a move could only further destabilize the Middle East and increase the likelihood of terrorist retaliation. And it was beyond imagination that the Bush administration would persist in pushing for an invasion against the advice of some prominent American generals, a cadre of respected former national security advisers and the CIA.

Now, four months later, the unbelievable has become the absurd. While American citizens in this city and across the country were pouring into the streets to protest the idea of war in Iraq, Congress -- mesmerized by Bush's ostensible popularity -- has given him a legislative blank check to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

While the Pentagon ratchets up its preparations to go to war in Iraq, the Bush administration also announces a multimillion-dollar campaign to launch a public relations effort designed to improve the image of the United States in the Arab world. And although the White House has reluctantly pledged to consult the United Nations regarding any action it might contemplate taking, immediately after the vote an administration official blithely announced, "Right now we have accomplished what we had to do to take the action we need to take, and we don't need the (U.N.) Security Council."

One hundred and fifty thousand Britons turn out for a march against our proposed war, a national election in Germany becomes a referendum on U.S. war policy (and the United States loses), the Nobel Peace Prize committee goes out of its way to indicate that this year's award to former President Jimmy Carter can be considered "a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken" and the war-mongers in Washington act as though nary a word of dissent to their invasion passions has been uttered. As a British newspaper observes, only the nation's citizens now stand between Bush and war in Iraq.

"Once upon a time" -- and it will sound like a fairy tale to most people -- this country's leaders and citizens cared a great deal about what other nations thought of us. "A decent respect for the opinions of mankind" led an earlier American who later became president to set forth the reasons that drove the decision of the American colonies to declare their independence from England. That marvelous phrase is enshrined in our nation's Declaration of Independence; it is a matter of national embarrassment that it no longer has significance in the conduct of our country's business.

Robert Burns, the beloved Scottish poet, has a bit of wisdom that goes (with my apologies to those of Scottish extraction if I do not get the dialect correct):

"O that God the gift would gie us;

to see ourselves as others see us."

If we ask what it is that has our friends across the Atlantic and elsewhere around the world so upset, it is not that we plan to declare war on another country in violation of every international law ever written; it is that we act so arrogant and cavalier about it. In a period in which we should be witnessing a display of the best of prudent leadership, we are treated to a Texas swagger that boasts of getting our enemies "dead or alive," of an "axis of evil" that, so named, implies we can do whatever we choose to get rid of it, that describes Saddam Hussein as "stiffing the world" about his weapons arsenal and that generally uses language for public discourse more fitting for a barroom brawl scene in a cheap-budget Western movie than for discussions by a head of state.

Everywhere one turns these days everyone is discussing the possibility of war -- and doing so with unconcealed anxiety. It is a pity of incalculable proportions that in a period of such widespread uncertainty -- with the nation buffeted by a shattered economy, awash in revelations of corporate greed, with the stock market in disarray and a pervasive dread about the prospect of having to face more acts of terror on our own soil -- that we should find ourselves in the hands of and at the mercy of national leaders with such a frighteningly perverse set of national aims and objectives.

Hubert G. Locke, Seattle, is a retired professor and former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington.

©1999-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

###

 FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.