Stephen,

We may even have a thing or two to teach the Israelis.

While the Israelis are very, very good, it is useful to remember that, at the end of the day, they are also resource constrained. The state of Israel has only so much to spend; the US military has substantially more.

So, on top of useful suggestions and hints from them, we've probably got a few toys that even they may not know about.

Arquilla and Ronfeldt have been arguing for this for years and have written tons of material on this, including In Athena's Camp, Netwars, etc (some of thier books can be had for free in the Rand website). They call their doctrine Battleswarm. Just FYI.

Sounds like the kind of operation 4ID would be exceptional at.

I also read Henkin's article in the NYT this morning, and while it is certainly interesting and informative, I WAS left wondering, though, whether or not his input would be particularly applicable to the situation US forces will face in an attack/siege at Baghdad. IIRC, the casbah at Jenin did not occupy all that large an area (as evidenced by the aerial photos the IDF provided to disprove the claims of "massacre"), I think the destroyed area was something like maybe 200 x 300 meters (?? Pls correct if wrong!!) - and Jenin town is nor particularly big. Nablus, I think, is a bigger town, but in any case, neither present the sort of military challenge inherent in an attack/siege of a city the size of Baghdad. We are told that it has a population of 5 million people - and that it is a generally low-rise city (i.e., it is pretty well spread out). While a "Stalingrad" scenario may or may nor be in the cards here (I fervently hope not!), Mr. Henkin's advisements, while relevant to the Israeli experience, just don't seem. IMO, to relate to the the situation US forces will have to deal with. ANy comments?
PS: Another (possibly silly) question - has anyone computed (or guesstimated) the ACTUAL numbers of troops involved in FIGHTING this war so far? IIR, Coalition forces in the Iraq theater were estimated at about 300,000; Iraqi military about 350,000. However, it seems from news reports that the bulk of the actual combat has been carried on (on our side) by a fairly limited number of units (3ID, 3/7C, 2 & 3 MEF, 101AB) - I wonder exactly how many US/UK troops are on the firing line (vs. how many Iraqis?) - cany anyone help with these figures?

Personally, I vote for a kind of modified, instant 2nd amendment for the citizens of Baghdad, using what by now must be a considerable amount of intelligence on who is friend or foe. Seems to me this might synergize nicely with Yagil's planned unpredictability, though fog of war & friendly fire issues might be a problem. But better that than massive hostage taking & unending house to house searches. I understand there are about a million Kurds along with the 50%+ Shia population in Baghdad. Also understand there's now quite a flood of residents starting to overwhelm our troops. Seems like a systematic, down & dirty recruitment & arming of populace along with disgorgment of wumin & chilin would be very much in order. Whatcha think?

I do suspect the technique we'll see will be something like this -- an inside-out approach, that is, more than swarming. A lot of what we've been doing seems to involve feints to draw fire and damned if the overeager Fedayeen and RG aren't being drawn. And then quartered.

The competence evidenced so far in all the major strategic defensive actions we feared -- burning oil wells, demolished bridges, blown dams -- doesn't seem to incidate that the training has had much effect at the strategic level. Some of the tactical training has been effective, it appears, but mainly because they're using the we're-crazy-and-you're-not dichotomy, and throwing bodies at the enemy. It isn't indicative of a long-term guerrilla war.

So I question how much they're really gaining from their contacts with Fatah etc.