It is difficult to answer questions; It is even harder not to be adopted! I have made great efforts; I hope the answer will help you, so take it. Thanks for pulling ~ ~ ~ In the Iraq war, in the face of the powerful offensive of the US military, Saddam instructed the Iraqi army to attack the enemy with the tactics of "breaking the whole into parts, fighting small battles, soldiers entering the people, fighting and leaving". In the past few days, some events on the battlefield in Iraq have puzzled many American and British Coalition forces. First of all, there was no expected fierce exchange of fire between the United States and Iraq in the suburbs of Baghdad. From a military point of view, the success or failure of urban street fighting depends largely on the battle between the offensive and defensive sides in the strategic points around the city. If the defender wants to consume a lot of the effective strength of the attacker in street fighting, he must slow down the attack speed of the attacker as much as possible in the ring war. However, according to the current situation of the US military, it seems that the Iraqi army and the National Guard around Baghdad are voluntarily giving up all strategic points and retreating to Baghdad in pieces. Secondly, it can be seen from the bodies of some Iraqi troops killed by the US military that the elite of the Iraqi army and the National Guard have changed into civilian clothes. At present, it is difficult for people to tell the difference between Iraq and the national guard, militia, regular army and ordinary people from their clothes. The above two important characteristics show that Saddam Hussein is trying to fight a "people's guerrilla war" with Iraqi characteristics. So, how effective can this defense strategy be? The advantages of the "people's war" organized by Saddam Hussein are obvious: First, it is easy to preserve the effective strength. Because of the obvious air superiority of the United States and Britain, how to better preserve the effective force in order to fight with the United States and Britain in the final street fighting has become Saddam's biggest problem. Now, the Iraqi army has "entered the people and left", which provides the possibility for the Iraqi army to better preserve its effective strength. Second, it is easy to blur the judgment of the US military. As the Iraqi army has been integrated into the civilian population, it is difficult for American commanders to assess the exact number of Iraqi troops in some areas. Third, it is convenient to launch a surprise attack on the United States. After the previous US invasion of southern Iraq, there was basically no resistance from large-scale Iraqi troops. Instead, from time to time, many Iraqis dressed in casual clothes came out to shoot snipers, which made the US military very headache. In the face of the powerful mechanized troops of the US military, Iraqi troops dressed in civilian clothes launched an attack when the US military was not careful, effectively slowing down the US military's advance to Baghdad. The shortcomings of the "people's war" are also outstanding. Judging from the current situation, the "people's war" seems to be a "double-edged sword" in Saddam's hands. Although it has caused a lot of trouble to the US military, Saddam seems to be being hurt by it. Mainly manifested in the following points: First, it is not conducive to encouraging the morale of officers and men. In this war against Saddam launched by the United States, the Iraqi army fought to defend the country and won the peace of all the people. Compared with the last Gulf War, the morale of the army has been greatly improved, and it has the conditions to overwhelm the enemy in momentum. However, because Saddam ordered the Iraqi army to be dispersed among the people, the so-called "integration of defense and civilian technologies" may make many Iraqi troops with weak resistance "disappear". Second, it is not conducive to unified military mobilization. Due to the limited communication and command capabilities of the Iraqi army, it is difficult for the Iraqi army to be unified once it is divided into small units. Actual combat has proved that these small units can "harass" the US military at most, and they are easily breached by their opponents. Third, it is not conducive to the preservation of heavy equipment. * * * of the Iraqi army and * * * of garde nationale's Hammurabi Division and Nebuchadnezzar Division are armored divisions or mechanized infantry divisions. These troops have a lot of heavy equipment belonging to their divisions. If these troops are to be reorganized into guerrillas and retreated to urban areas, these heavy equipment can only have one end: voluntary scrapping. Aside from the accustomed heavy equipment, the role of Iraqi armored forces in street fighting may not be as good as that of local militia groups. Fourth, it may cause a large number of civilian casualties. As the Iraqi army has been integrated into the civilian population, the US military is bound to be highly nervous in street fighting. For the US military, the direct consequence of Iraq's "no distinction between military and civilian" is that "suspicious" targets have greatly increased, which is absolutely disastrous for the Iraqi people. References:

/zt/2003-08/ 142207.html