How would you organise Iraq's defences?

[DanS]

We couldn't supply it, you must not have needed it anyway.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I disagree Reb.

First, you put WAY to much faith in the world doing anything, and your glossing over some points.

I have little faith in the world doing anything.

First, a massive food shipment from say, the UN, who will organize it?
How will it be sent?
By whom?

It doesn't need to be massive. It's all about symbolism and political will. How about by road from Jordan, with Jordanian drivers, a few paid "volunteers" from some other Islamic country not on the US **** list, and Red Crescent observers with a token guy from the Red Cross, an Italian reporter, a French reporter, and another lefty Euro type?

The US either stops it, and takes propaganda **** from the world, or the US lets it go through, and gives Saddam a propaganda victory.

Whenever the UN needs help moving large blocks of chow, they come a runnin to Uncle Sugar, only the US can move the tonnage needed quickly.
Have YOU EVER seen the UN move quickly anyway?

Of course not, but the US can't deploy quickly either. It took months to set up logistics and transfer supplies throughout Saudi before the US was ready to act, and this time, we don't have access to Saudi bases or ports. Kuwait has limited port capacity and a limited road net.

Second, a huge humanitarian effort REQUIRES security council approval to get UN backing, what are the chances of such a resolution being passed, let alone drafted, and who would write it?
The French?

It already has been passed, years ago. All the Iraqis need to do is continue to operate under the resolution authorizing oil sales for food and humanitarian supplies.

Next, we have unused airmobile assets, in two places, the MAUs aern't commited to Afghanistan and they have the choppers to do the job.

We do, but we're not likely to deploy airmobile forces in front of IRG armor. Throw in winter weather, the fact we need to maintain reserves to respond to other potential threats, etc.

Next, you SERIOUSLY think ANYBODY is going to throw his life away for Saddam?
He would try to bully them, threaten them, but it won't work.

The larger number will be those who've been Saddam's henchmen and enforcers, who realize that in any regime change, they and theirs will be ****ed but good and payback will come with interest. Hitler had his fanatical loyalists, why wouldn't Saddam?

I'm not underestimating them, the Iraqis are crap at war, their record going back to the 60s is a continous failure, you think they will sudenly see the light for Saddam?
I have seen the reports, and spoken to a number vets who faced them, they remember scarred sh1tless men running for their lives, squeezing off a few hardly constitutes "serious resistance".

I made it clear they have no chance fighting in the open. I think everyone knows that but Saddam, so he'll probably try to cowboy things. The motivation level statically defending your home country from foreign invasion is a bit different, so is the level of tactical sophistication. They engage minimally, the US will clear 'em out aggressively, and there will be collateral damage and the propaganda machine starts.

Next, your WAY over-stating the arab world reaction, which is always the same.
Loud rhetoric followed by calculated inaction.

Arab reaction to the invasion and occupation of an arab state by a foreign (infidel) power will be a bit different. I'm not talking about the Kings and Emirs who pretty much stay in power because they suck our Cheney. I'm talking the average "line his ass up in the direction of Mecca five times a day" arab in the street. You want to see political support and popular sympathy for terrorists go up? Invade and knock over an Islamic country. We just saw a minor prelude in the recent Pakistani elections where fundamentalist anti-western parties had much higher support than before.

Calculated inaction is exactly what will happen on the part of arab governments - intelligence cooperation will just get less efficient, and every time the US wants cooperation, well, it'll just get delayed a bit, lost in the woodwork, done on arab time.

From a military standpoint, there is no possible way for Saddam to put up a fight, he would need politically reliable forces that have high moral and high levels of training, and we both know that ain't the case.

He can't put up a fight. But you can bet we'll see more "Baby Milk Plant" displays, and have a hell of a lot more problem with refugees than we're prepared to handle if we go to a siege.

Best guess is his own forces will bump him off as US forces cross the border.

That assumption ten years ago is why we're still talking about dealing with Hussein now.

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Blah...blah...blah....
It's Hollywood...
Blah...blah...blah....
It's Hollywood

It is Hollywood, a propagandistic, brainwashing machine which produce crappy movies full of **** about American superiority. If you guys like those movies- fine, personaly I throw up when I see such crap as BHD or Air force one or Independence day, etc. A propagandistic crap full of arogance and which have nothing common with reality.

We only did it for a day, though, you FUBARd for years, and our troops operated at a fire higher level of profiency than yours could even dream of.

Come and get us. You never had balls for this and more probably will never have. Super warriors my ass.

[DanS]

BHD wasn't a feel good movie. It was a cautionary tale about use of the military by the political class. The operation was a failure in everything but valor and training among a small group of soldiers.

I expect that you would be able to spot the differences between BHD and the other Hollywood movies pretty easily.

[Dom Pedro II]

Yeah, I wouldn't really consider Black Hawk Down to be propaganda of American superiority, and thats uncharacteristic for me because I'm constantly railing American arrogance. Take something like Behind Enemy Lines... now THERE was a real piece of crap. That was pure unadulterated Americentric self-worship on the part of Hollywood. Few unarmed men could single-handedly run from several tank howitzers and about forty guys with machine guns directly behind them without so much as a scratch.

[Verto]

Any movie with Owen Wilson is bound to be garbage...

[GePap]

I agree that saddam wll be his own worst enemy in this situation, and that because of him the Iraqis will have a less then optimal defense.

A siege of baghdad is out of the question: what, our massive 360 billion dollar ayear military to pansy as scared to go into Baghdad? Is this what we pay for? I mean, we won't be able to get our necessary ration of glossy military pornography if his is what they do.

This war is a s much a propaganda war as MtG says. Be sure that every srap of WMD equipment found will be paraded out so that a huge news conferecne can see it, thus validating the invasion.

Just going for Baghdad also ignores various things: the US will have to grab political control all over Iraq to calm fears of a breakdown, specially as violence aginst members of the Saddam regime in the south and north begin. This will take lots of troops. And then there is the race to secure WMD sites and so forth and so on. So our ful force will probably not be available to besiege anything.

This will be an interesting test of US logistics. The amount of troops is much smaller, but the scope of the mission much larger. I am interested in seeing how the US will protect munitions and food shipment deep into Iraq, and to see how efefctively, if at all, small Iraqi units try to disrupt US logistics.

[The Andy-Man]

Sorry, but i didn;t bother to read this rather loong thread :/

If you were Saddam, how would you defend Iraq against an American onslaught, given the vast inferiority of your forces?

Trenches! Trenches everywhere, heavy cement ones to, with good supply lines, mines every where, anti-aircraft guns station all over the country and anti tank guns at all places where its possible for a tank to pass through. And if all that fails, Gurrila Warfare.

[DinoDoc]

This is the first time I've ever heard someone say that BHD was a feel good propaganda movie.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is the first time I've ever heard someone say that BHD was a feel good propaganda movie.

Remember who said it though and you have your answer to how it happend.

[Az]

How long would it take to get 200,000 American troops to surround Baghdad efficently? At least 1 week if not more, assuming resistance by Iraq forces to keep lines of supply open. How in the hell would we stop Iraqi leadership from getting out during that time?

how would the escape of Saddam hamper US' efforts for regime change?

[DanS]

It wouldn't. Once he leaves Baghdad, he's toast.

[GePap]

how would the escape of Saddam hamper US' efforts for regime change?

It wouldn't. Once he leaves Baghdad, he's toast.

First of all, I doubt the US could find Saddam anymore than it could find Osama if he decided to flee outside of baghdad and go elsewere. We could catch Omar or Osama, why would we be any better at getting Hussein?

Second: it is key for the US to try to create a 'legitimate' new government. Having a government in exile, even one like Hussein's, creates political instability, as such a government becomes a standard-bearer for opposition to any new regime created in Badghdad. It also makes it more difficult to have such a new US installed regime be considered fuly legitimate by outside players. The US wants political instability in Iraq.

Killing Hussein or having him step down is key. Having him run away top Damascus an install the 'Iraqi government' in exile create a thorn in the side of the US. Lets hope noone in the current admin. ever said anythign imprtant to Hussein, like when Rumi went to shake his hand back in 1983 to reopen ties with Iraq. we wopuldn't want any damaging documents to come out, now would we?

[Drake Tungsten]

First of all, I doubt the US could find Saddam anymore than it could find Osama if he decided to flee outside of baghdad and go elsewere. We could catch Omar or Osama, why would we be any better at getting Hussein?

Saddam isn't exactly loved by the people of Iraq. Or by his neighbors. How exactly do you expect him to blend into the populace like Omar and Osama? Those two had popular support and people willing to hide them. Who is going to hide and protect Saddam outside of Baghdad or Tikrit?

[GePap]

As Machiavelli said: be feared!

Fine, most people may not love Hussein, but do we think his secret police apparatue will fall apart on day one? I am sorry, but anyone who messes with Saddam in Iraq would probably end up dead even aftre the US wins, so they won't mess with him. As for who would hide him? Officials of his government all along the route (you know, he does have government officials), Baath party supporters, the men Saddam has made rich and powerful over his rule. Plus Saddam won't be ridding alone, now will he?

this noption that once the attack begins all vestiges of his apparatus will fall apart is laughable. And saddam is not universally hated. Even a system like his has winners and loosers. Obviously more loosers than winners, but the winners will really be screwed once his system collapses, so they woe Saddam a lot.