 | | | | Webchat - 26/03/2003 | | | |
Mike Williams, in Kuwait City and Lt General K S Randhawa, a retired Indian Army officer seconded to the Iraqi defence in the 1970s. He has trained several of Iraq's leading military commanders
Question 1
Frazer Wilson : With the war on Iraq having begun, how long is it expected to be before the first troops reach Baghdad. Also given that one of the aims of the war is to remove Saddam Hussein, what happens if he is not either killed, or forced to leave the country?
Lt. General Randhawa: My personal feeling is even if Saddam has bioligical weapons, he will only use them if driven to the wall and given some kind of a moral excuse. For instance, they didn't create any havoc with Um Qasr and left it intact because Iraqi reconstruction will depend on the efficacy of ports like Um Qasr. But they set the oil wells on fire in the belief that the Americans can bring their oil from Saudi Arabia or Texas - that is the attitude.
Mike Williams: I think it is, sadly, quite possible. He has done it before.
Question 2
John Barritt: The French news media are reporting that coalition troops close to Baghdad are tired. For how long can an invading army maintain fighting efficiency without quality sleep and relaxation.
Mike Williams: Of course they're tired. We are experiencing massive sand storms, regular missile warnings during which we must clamber into bulky chemical protection suits. The soldiers' body armour is heavy and they carry immense amounts of equipment. All this while fighting their way up through the deserts and the towns of Iraq. How long can this continue? I don't know. Much will depend upon the supply of equipment and re-inforcements as the battles continue. Both sides will be worn down. One of the key aims of any military commander is to ensure that happens to the enemy first.
Lt. General Randhawa: Sorry for giving a personal example: in the India Pakistan conflict of 1971, as the commander of the spearhead tank regiment, I stayed 14 days and 14 nights on my seat in a Soviet-built T55. It doesn't have anything like the comforts of the Abrams and the Chieftan. A lot will depend on the mental and physical resilience of the mechanised forces leading the American advance. I think British units will take it better than US units because the British don't supply ice-cream in the desert.
Question 3
Peter Driver: Though Basra might fall in a matter of days due to the internal opposition to the Iraqi regime, Baghdad seems to be a far more difficult nut to crack. Will it take the coalition months, rather than weeks, to take the city?
Lt General Randhawa: It can take some time but I seriously doubt if it will take months. I'm aware of very intricate preparations - every house has got six months' rations in advance. Every Iraqi who could afford it will have dug a few wells for water consumption. And every home has an underground shelter which meets the parameters of gas and chemical fumes, and of course over-head cover. This means the population stays put underground as the Republican Guards and the militia come out and fight.
Question 4
Ted Bell: I feel that both Bush and Tony Blair have misjudged the great resentment and depth of feeling not only in Iraq but also in other Arab states that has been generated by this aggression - do you agree? What aftermath effects within the region do you think this war will produce?
Mike Williams: No doubt that there has been much opposition to this war within and without the Arab world. It's difficult to tell whether the political leaders have misjudged the opposition, it seems unlikely given the high profile protests we all witnessed before the bombing began. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair argue that the war is necessary.
With regard to what follows the war, much will depend on its conduct and conclusion. There is concern about instability in the Kurdish areas in Turkey and elsewhere. Iran is worried about the presence of so many American troops on its border and a number of Arab regimes in the region are looking nervously at the principle of regime change by military force. Many commentators suggest this war will change almost everything in the Middle East. Some fear that change, others look forward to it.
Question 5
David Roberts: As the war is to rid Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction how do you rate success so far?
Lt General Randhawa: The rate of success will be reasonably good and not too far off the American timetable. But as they near Baghdad and in the final battle within Baghdad, this will take much more time.
Question 6
S. Matthews: What is the prospect, given progress so far, that the war will be over in less than 1 month?
Lt General Randhawa: I think there's a good a chance that it will be over within a month because the resources of the Iraqis are limited.
Mike Williams: I defer to the general's greater knowledge. There was much talk of a rapid war and even some speculation that the Saddam regime would crumble within days, awed into submission by the might of the American military. Clearly some Iraqi forces are resisting strongly and Pentagon sources have told us that their time frame for the war is between 30 and 60 days.
Question 7
Garry Sherriff:Yesterday I was watching the pentagon showing there accurate weapons hitting a tank in the desert.The tank was surrounded by mounds of sand for camouflage.As the attacks are coming from the air why was it not covered so it could not be seen.Are we blowing up cardboard tanks.
Mike Williams: The mounds of sand are not really for camouflage. The tanks are dug in so lower their profile and protect them from other tanks and ground troops. Frankly, there is nothing a lone tank can do to protect itself from air attack. It would anti-aircraft support or defence from its own war planes.
I haven't the slightest idea if the US-led coalition is blowing up cardboard tanks. Certainly during the NATO bombing of Serbia, the Alliance expended a great deal of effort blowing up decoys. I think we will have to wait to see if the same thing has happened in Iraq but it is clear that the US and UK war planes are destroying a great deal of Iraqi armour.
Lt General Randhawa: It could have been a decoy tank and I know the Iraqis use decoy tanks
Question 8
Darren Cryer: I would like to ask Lt General K S Randhawa a question regarding the conflict around Baghdad. Does he believe the resistance the US & UK forces from Iraq population & Republican guard means the war could drag on much longer than expected & even turn into a Vietnam type situation that the US/UK find they are unable to win?
Lt General Randhawa: No, I think that the Allies will get their way. The Vietnam war was different and the Vietnamese had much more resilience. The Iraqis will give a good fight no doubt and cause delay and casualties, and try to break the morale of people at home so that mothers, daughters and sisters in the US question Bush: why are our menfolk dying in a country which we are even unable to pinpoint on the map of the world.
Question 9
Ian Farrer: Why can't the US and British army properly secure the southern cities, to allow full aid to reach these cities, before moving on to Baghdad. This strategy would better encourage a civil uprising in the whole of Iraq. What’s the rush and why do half a job?
Mike Williams: A question for the generals and the politicians rather than me. But there are a few factors to consider. Politically there was (and still is) great pressure for a quick war. There is also little appetite in the coalition for prolonged urban warfare. So the plan was to avoid the population centres, if possible, and race to Baghdad, hoping that, as the South collapsed, Saddam's control would be greatly weakened. Much of the strategy was built around early mass capitulations of Iraqi military units and popular uprisings against Saddam's rule. We are still waiting.
Question 9
Peter Ross: Is there still an air of optimism within Kuwait City that this conflict can be resolved successfully, efficiently and without more tragic loss of life?
Mike Williams: Yes to the first question. Doubt about the second. No to the last question. The coalition military is convinced that its victory is assured. There are certainly growing concerns about the rate of progress. The lack, to date of mass capitulation and popular uprisings in support of the coalition. Finally, no one here believes the rest of the war will be bloodless.
Question 10
Darren: We have seen over the last few days several incidents of "friendly fire". Also, there are other reports of a popular uprising in Basra. What effect would these have on the moral and determination of the remaining Iraqi forces?
Lt General Randhawa: The friendly fire problem is more applicable with the Allies than with the Iraqis. As far as uprisings are concerned, there are bound to be some dissidents. They'll be put down with a heavy hand in a dictatorial regime. You can take it that most of them will be suppressed perhaps ruthlessly.
Question 11
Gary Pocklington: In the earlier interview with Lt General K S Randhawa, the General was asked a question about the differing sizes between the two forces. He responded by saying that the difference in size was being made up in other ways. Can he expand on this, because I would think that by implication this means non-conventional force i.e. chemical weapons? Also by his own admission he states that he has still got allegiances with the Iraq regime, so is his arrival on the scene to act as a propaganda tool?
Lt General K S Randhawa: By non-conventional I don't mean chemical, I mean the total resources and strenths of the Allied armies and the Iraqis. By closing the gap I mean superior technological and the upper hand in open spaces. Then you get into built up areas like Um Qasr, Basra, Nasaryia and ultimately Baghdad. The defender is fighting on home ground from behind cover and therefore the attacker is at a disadvantage. When you bomb heavily like in Stalingrad or in Berlin, the rubble makes the task of the attacker even more difficult. This is the reason why the Iraqis only want to fight in the built up areas in cities.
Question 12
George Berry: After we obtain a change of leadership in Iraq, will the UN be allowed to bring in their inspectors again to enable the public to know if there are any weapons of mass destruction. If there are found to be none, how do we remove the egg from our faces?
General Cordingley: My understanding is that specialist weapons inspectors will be brought back in: it is a very specific job and there are not that many available so many will be UN inspectors. I've always felt that there will be stockpiles but not in significant numbers. And I also suspect they'll also be very difficult to find.
| |
| | |
