Grozny And Baghdad: Disturbing Parallels

Today in Chechnya, the city of Grozny – formerly the home of almost half a million people - lies inruins: utterly devastated. The fate of Grozny thus stands as a testament to the brutal and terrible cost ofmodern urban warfare. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, separatist ambitions previouslyrepressed in the overwhelmingly Muslim republic once again bubbled to the surface to provide the greatestcrisis faced by the Russian Federation since that fateful (some would say disastrous) moment.

As the separatist movement rose to challenge the authority of the Kremlin, intense and bloody battleserupted in Chechnya during the period 1994-1996. During this period, and the later conflict, beginning in1999, it is estimated that over 2,500 Russian troops paid with their lives. Unofficial estimates suggest aneven higher price was paid. The price paid by the Chechens themselves was even more onerous: with an estimated80,000 casualties, and the virtual leveling of habitations and infrastructure. Heating, water, electricity:were all devastated. Guerilla resistance continues to this day, providing an ongoing nightmare for Russianoccupation forces, who continue to grapple with regular ambushes.

Like the current war in Iraq, the war in Chechnya also concerned what US commentators like to refer to as‘resource security’: that is, the control of oil. In the case of Chechnya, at stake was one of the mostoil and natural gas rich regions of the former USSR, including refineries and a major oil pipeline. The riskof losing control of this pipeline, in particular, posed a major strategic dilemma for the Kremlin. Whitehousestrategists, however, seem to be far more ambitious than successive Kremlin leaders, apparently aiming fornothing less than domination of the world’s oil supply via the Persian Gulf. Containment of Iran and Syriawill prove to be a useful byproduct of this process.

There are important differences, however, between the nightmare confronted by Russian forces, and theordeal currently facing coalition forces in their attempt to take Baghdad. The Kremlin invaded Chechnyaoriginally with a force of some 45,000 troops: this in an entire region of barely over one million. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/chechnyatime1.html

By comparison, coalition forces in Iraq number over 300,000, but are attempting to subdue a nation of some22 million. Baghdad itself comprises a sprawling metropolis of over 5 million: a potential nightmare forCoalition troops facing a hostile populous and vicious house to house fighting over a huge urban landscape.

Furthermore, though, while Chechen fighters were able to retreat to neighboring Dagestan to reorganize, onesuspects that Syria would not dare provide a base for such a movement in a post-B’aathist Iraq under longterm US occupation. Additionally, as compared to the mountainous terrain of Chechnya and neighboring Dagestan:used by rebels as a base from which to continue an ongoing guerilla war, Iraqi forces in the North confrontoverwhelming Coalition airpower, and the further obstacle of Kurdish forces.

Some military aspects of the two conflicts, however, will seem disturbingly familiar to Coalitioncommanders. Suicide bombings have been employed in Chechnya, as in Iraq, to devastating effect. In one suchperiod the Kremlin admitted to having lost 37 soldiers to ‘suicide trucks’. Chechen rebels, meanwhile,claimed the figure to be more in the vicinity of 200. http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/chechnya000704.html AsCoalition troops penetrate Baghdad in greater numbers and concentration, vulnerability to such attacks willincrease exponentially.

And while Baghdad: a city boasting a fairly low and level skyline, does not provide the same ambushopportunities as some cities, this certainly ought not be taken as cause for complacency on the part of theCoalition. Russian armour, for instance, often faced devastating ambushes in the streets of Grozny. Boastingextensive smuggling and organized crime links, Chechen rebels were able to secure potent anti-tank weaponry towreak havoc upon Russian formations. One Russian soldier recalled the horror of Chechen ambushes on Russianarmoured columns in Grozny during the period of the initial invasion:

"According to the well-developed tactics, the first and the last vehicles in the convoy are destroyedfirst. Then, the rest of the column is methodically eliminated. Reliable tactics. Very few ever escape."http://www.artofwar.ru/english/mironov_eng4.html

Baghdad, also, developed a sprawling worldwide smuggling network with the intent of evading sanctions, andpreparing for invasion. Already the Americans are aware of the import of night-vision goggles and anti-tankmissiles from a firm in Russia. Who knows, then, what surprises might await Coalition forces in Baghdad? Withthe Coalition’s technological advantage significantly eroded by the prospect of close urban combat, theRepublican Guard’s possession of night-vision goggles alone would present a nightmare for Coalition troops.

Presently, the Coalition is intent on showing its capacity to ‘move in an out’ of Baghdad at will,inflicting devastating casualties upon those units intent on resisting heavy armour with small arms firealone. In the event that Iraq’s stockpile of Russian anti-tank missiles is minimal, such incursions maycontinue to meet with success, but imposing a lasting and successful occupation on a sprawling city of 5million will be a different matter entirely. Eventually, presuming Iraqi forces continue to resist, Coalitionforces will be driven from the protection of their heavy armor, and forced to clear neighborhoods house tohouse.

Aaron Zitner, Elizabeth Shogren and Paul Richter, writing in the ‘Los Angeles Times’, for instance,detail the horror of house to house fighting in Grozny, as Russian troops attempted to clear out Rebelstrongholds:

"Russian troops would toss grenades into basements, hoping to kill snipers or other rebels. But thepractice would also wipe out entire families at a time."

A similar horror, no doubt, awaits in Baghdad.

Houses and other buildings could also be booby-trapped, making high casualties inevitable in the instanceof intense house to house fighting. Such traps were widely employed in Grozny, amidst rubble, and recentlyvacated buildings. These unconventional fighting tactics turned out to be the bane of the Russian military. IfSaddam’s Republican Guard has any sense, such tactics will inevitably take their toll.

While the Russians ultimately resorted to the virtual leveling of Grozny in 2000 to deprive Chechen rebelsof cover, or opportunities for ambush, the Coalition will have no such option in Baghdad for the immediatefuture. This will remain the case at least so long as the city continues to house millions of Iraqi civilians.The fear here is that of a massive public opinion backlash which could send shockwaves through the Arab world.

One possibility discussed amongst some quarters, however, is that of knocking out what remains ofBaghdad’s basic civilian infrastructure: water, electricity, sanitation. Presuming sufficient care had beentaken to prepare for the flow of refugees, this would free Coalition forces to take for advantage of superiorfirepower, including total air superiority. In such an instance, we could expect the ancient and beautifulcity of Baghdad to be devastated: much in the same way that Grozny was reduced to ruins by Russian airpowerand artillery.

No matter what happens, it is unlikely that anything can deter the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld fromfollowing this war through to its brutal, hideous conclusion. While anti-American feeling will, no doubt,reach fever pitch throughout the Arab world as any assault on Baghdad unfolds, much of the Western media hasproven to be pliant and uncritical in the face of the Pentagon’s orchestrated campaign of spin andpropaganda. At home, at least, government strategists "have the information war in the bag." In the US, aselsewhere, dissent will be contained through spin and misinformation, as well as a hysterical appeal tonationalism.

Presuming, however, that Coalition forces are not able to destroy the B’aathist regime’s undergroundintelligence networks, the end of the conventional war could only be the beginning. Once again, the parallelswith the Russian campaign in Chechnya are poignant. Any new client regime could be haunted by the spectre ofassassinations, while any US occupation force will live under the cloud of possible Lebanon-style suicidetruck-bomb attacks, the likes of which claimed the lives of 241 Marines in 1983. While the scale of the USoccupation, it must be noted, will go some way towards reducing this risk, Iraq could become a nightmare whichhaunts the US for many years to come.

Courtesy: Znet