Intense debate over timing of Baghdad siege

As the sun sets in the west, the Arabian sands swallow up a convoy of armed might that snakes incessantly north toward the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers - and the prize target of Baghdad.

When the US advance is complete and the siege of the city begins - something that could be days or weeks away - the campaign will have entered its most crucial and uncertain stage.

"The siege of Baghdad is what the fight for Iraq has always been about," says Paul Beaver, a military analyst for the British Broadcasting Corp. "But US commanders still face the same problem ... as we see smaller sieges developing across the country. The allied forces have to fight on Saddam Hussein's terms, since he still controls these key population centers."

US officials say that the timing for a siege and attack on Baghdad are under intense discussion, with senior Pentagon officials arguing against a rush into heavy fighting.

Some young marines have said in recent days that they do not expect any siege to begin for at least two weeks because of overstretched supply lines and Iraqi resistance.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that military officials told troops with one frontline unit the pause could last 35 to 40 days, longer than a pause of up to six days they were warned of Saturday. At a briefing yesterday at Camp Doha in Qatar, Gen. Tommy Franks denied there is any pause on the battlefield.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has hinted the US military prefers the idea of a siege of Baghdad - a blockade that cuts off the city from outside sources - to the kind of violent street fighting that could make invading US forces look more like conquerors than liberators.

Anticipating the assault on the capital, Saddam Hussein has embedded his elite forces with the civilian population, say Iraqi officials and Western military sources. He appears anxious to draw Western armies into a trap, they add.

"The Iraqi leadership is playing a game now where it actually concedes defeat somewhere way down the road," says Michael Corgan, a military historian based in Boston. "The regime is hoping that this road is too long and unbearable for the United States. It expects that the siege of Baghdad will end when the US is itself so isolated by negative international public opinion that it can't go on."

That is because, regardless of their length, military sieges can take a heavy toll on general populations first, and fighters second.

"In siege warfare, you invariably try to put pressure on those inside to use up their supplies and resources," says Mr. Corgan. "Surely, great hardships will fall on the Iraqi people. Since Saddam Hussein's elite Republican Guard has no history of showing concern for their fellow citizens, the civilian plight is likely to grow increasingly worse under any kind of siege."

Page: 1 | 2