Is there any scenario in which the Arabs defeat America in the current war?

[Lord Merciless]

Terrorists can't win against a dictatorship, that's why China and USSR never had problems with them. Dictatorships can engage in options that a democracy can't imagine:
- Suicide bombers? No problem, we'll just execute your entire family or sent them to Gulags.
- Villages or towns hiding/collaborating with terrorists? Raze the place like in Civ3.
- Uncooperative suspects or witnesses? A little torture will do the job.
- An ethnic group causing trouble? Lock all of them up.
- Possible innocents accused? Former Chinese dictator Chiang Kai-Chek once said that he would rather execute 100 innocents than to let 1 communist escape. Well, we are more humane than him and would be satisfied with a 2:1 ratio.

A dictatorship, especially a dictatorship in a powerful country, usually beats down the terrorists. However, the problem now becomes that the TERROR COMES from the GOVERNMENT.

In the worst case scenario, you have to pick the poison: terror from foreign terrorists or your own government.

[Az]

Terrorists can't win against a dictatorship, that's why China and USSR never had problems with them

Afghanistan?

[Chris 62]

I think you need to define exactly what "winning" means.

Does ANYBODY think the Iraqi armed forces will last more then a few day vs a US attack?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Terrorists can't win against a dictatorship, that's why China and USSR never had problems with them.

That's so not true. The CIA sponsored terrorist activities against both countries for decades. Have you ever heard of the Chinats? Tibetan and Chinese nationalists recruited by the CIA, trained in Colorado, armed, and sent into Tibet and Southern China to wage guerilla war. In the USSR fomer Soviet natioanls were sent back in with missions to committ assassinations, burn buildings, destroying power and communication lines, destroy bridges and railways, etc. This was one of the major causes of Societ inefficieny. It's hard to be efficient when much of your stuff is being destroyed.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I think you need to define exactly what "winning" means.

Does ANYBODY think the Iraqi armed forces will last more then a few day vs a US attack?

If it comes to an urban war, and if the Iraqi army fully backs Saddam, then yes, they could conceivably hold out much longer. I'll grant you, even though the first situation is likely, the second is a big if.

Of course, any fighting out in the open desert would be a slaughter......

[Chris 62]

Can't see a way Iraqi forces would try for a urban war, nor would the US need to fight one.

Simply cut off any large city and watch it starve.

[Kontiki]

That's great in theory, but I highly doubt the US would engage in seige tactics. The government is already pushing that they want to go after Saddam, not the Iraqi people. Rest assured, the US will actively pursue Saddam, not sit and watch hundreds of thousand of people starve to death.

[Chris 62]

Don't agree, nor is it needed.

I have a strong feeling that as soon as the invasion starts, he will run like a rabbit and his military will surrender faster then a frenchmen to a german.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
his military will surrender faster then a frenchmen to a german.

Is such a thing even possible?

[chequita guevara]

I doubt the Republican guard will surrender. They probably have a good idea what will happen to them if they get turned over to the Iraqi people.

[Chris 62]

Look at the last war Che, they had their hands in the air quick, they are "elite" in name only.

[chequita guevara]

The RG ran away mostly. The people you captured were mostly conscripts according to the media (reported about a year after the war).

Anyway, it's not about being elite or not, it's about fearing retribution from the Iraqi people they've been terrorising. I'm thinking like the way the Securitate went down fighting in Romania.

[Chris 62]

Nope, no way.

They would take their chances with the civilian popualtion, knowing the US would stick around to protect them, rather then face certain death fighting an enemy with superior firepower.

Only a fool or a fanatic would fight in such a scenario, and I bet they are neither.

[monkspider]

Is there any chance Iraq could get any serious military assistance from any of the other Arab nations in the region? Certainly, it may not be prudent to get on the United States' bad side in this situation, but muslim fundamentalism rarely knows prudence. There is a lot of fear and resentment toward the US in that region right now.

[Chris 62]

That would mean the help would have to cross open terrain, in the face of US airpower.

Who is going to be dumb enough to do that during a shooting war?