Analysts say Franks' fast-track strategy courts risks

WASHINGTON - United States commander General Tommy Franks is electing to bypass some Iraqi forces and not occupy key cities in the dash to Baghdad, raising questions about leaving behind dangerous enemy fighters and chaos in urban areas in the wake of his advancing troops.

Military analysts said yesterday that Franks, the head of United States Central Command, may be taking unnecessary risks in the strategy he is employing, including stretching supply lines, allowing concentrations of enemy forces in the rear of his advancing troops, and using an invasion force that simply may be too small.

"The force probably has the lowest ratio to enemy forces of any major ground campaign we've fielded in the last century," said military analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank in Virginia.

In essence, the US was attacking a dozen Iraqi divisions with two divisions of its own, he said. Divisions generally were composed of roughly 15,000 troops.

"Normally with a ground force of this size going up against a ground force the size of the Iraqis, one doesn't prevail quickly," said Thompson, who still foresees a decisive and swift victory for the US-led forces.

"Can air power compensate for that? It's going to be interesting to watch."

Franks, during a briefing in Qatar, said invading US troops had moved rapidly towards the Iraqi capital and "intentionally bypassed enemy formations", including paramilitary forces, in southern Iraq.

Iraqi forces in the rear of the advancing US troops already have drawn blood.

"You can expect that our clean-up operations are going to be ongoing," said Franks, adding that Iraqi forces could be expected to "mill about to create difficulties".

"We'll fight this on our terms."

Analysts said the US strategy required the invading troops arriving at Baghdad to be at the end of a 480km supply line.

"We're watching the flanks with the full realisation that we are stretched out somewhat," said retired US Rear Admiral Stephen Baker of the Centre for Defence Information in Washington, who played a key role on an aircraft carrier battle group in the 1991 Gulf War.

"The vulnerability of supply lines has been looked at with extreme intensity."

Another consequence of not occupying cities and towns left in the rear of the advancing Army is the possibility of civil unrest, looting and strife in those areas.

A US defence official, who asked not to be identified, said American forces could adequately control some of these areas without actually occupying them.

"There may be some populated areas where we're not interested in going street to street, building to building."

Thompson said one of the reasons for not occupying every city and town on the route to Baghdad was to avoid draining away forces needed for more critical battles ahead. He said there may be a breakdown in civil authority once invading forces pass through an Iraqi city or town.

"I think the US would welcome a popular uprising in the wake of its forces against Saddam's people. But I doubt that was factored into the plan because Saddam's people are so heavily armed that it could result in a civilian massacre," Thompson said.

Asked whether US forces opted not to occupy these places to allow ordinary Iraqis to rise up and exact revenge on President Saddam Hussein's local representatives, the defence official said, "Not at all. It's keeping focused on what the military objectives are - advancing on Baghdad."

The defence official said follow-on forces may later be assigned the task of providing security in these places.

Retired US Army General William Nash, who commanded an armoured brigade in the Gulf War, said he hoped more forces would be made available soon to provide stability in territory behind the advancing troops.

"I'm concerned about the necessary follow-on support forces to stabilise and then provide immediate humanitarian assistance."

- REUTERS

Herald Feature: Iraq