How would you organise Iraq's defences?

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What the **** would you know, moron?

Oh it wasn't a fairytale?
Great, just great. The world can relax, because if this movie is true, we shouldn't fear American military threat.
Let's see. An elite regiment of Texas rangers have soldiers who have epilepsy!!! COOL, Just cool beggining of the movie. Another soldiers have asthma and constantly breath from small baloon.
Great!!! Just great If such soldiers serve in your elite regiments, what type of people serve in your regular regiments?
Next, the team lost its first member during landing. Great too! Very professional.
And later this brave sergant walking under heavy gunfire like "highlander", endless ammo, silly enemies who dance before hit the ground in best traditions of "commando" and my favorite- a black hawk dodging a missile launched from RPG aproximatly from distance of 30-50 meters after (just notice!!!) ONE OF THE SOLDIERS SHOUT- "Missile attack" How could pilot evade a launched missile after he heard warning, if missile speed is much greater then speed of sound?
This movie is total propagandistic crap full of silly situations. If this is not a fairy tale, I'm absolutely happy.

[MRT144]

and serb missed the whole concept of artistic liscense when he was growing up...

BHD WAS NOT A FREAKING DOCUMENTARY!!!

and for a brief amount of time my dad thought he was teddy roosevelt and said bully often...sadly

[Seeker]

Option A:

1. Make a lot of speeches.

2. Shoot my pistol bravely in the air.

3. Put on my coolest looking dictator-outfit and say to my generals 'look at my chestful of medals and fear'

4. Get out of the country and retire in Nassau.

Option B:

1. Give in. Give in to total UN inspections, whatever.

2. Wait for CNN to start covering something else.

3. Gradually reign in the inspectors, and try to modernize my conventional army (buy American from the Egyptians, covertly)

4. Try to build an alliance.

Option C (forced to fight):

1. False everything
2. Mines everywhere
3. Humanitarian disasters, basically clog the roads with wounded civilians like the Germans did in france.
4. A few suicide rear guards, also a some suicide 'manned torpedos' might be a good idea.
5. Dump everything in Baghdad, blow it up, it is a huge city, turn it into one giant tank trap, everyfloor is a bunker, multiple RPGs around every corner, snipers on every elevation, mines everywhere, massive TNT piles in natural 'channels'.
6. The Republican Guards job will be to shoot those who wish to surrender.
7. Wait, hope to inflict big casualties, then make a contrite offer for peace 'on behalf of the people and to avoid bloodshed'.
8.Accept a peace that is essentially Option B

[Verto]

Bah... my plan was the best.

[Kull]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Iraqis have a lot of potential to win this one. Yes, win. Not because they'll ever kick our ass, but because the definition of winning this time hinges off of regime change and occupation.

Everything you say is theoretically possible, but I just don't see it happening. First and foremost, Saddam's rule is based upon iron-clad control of his nation. He is able to move easily and often from place to place, and it's difficult to target him on that basis. All that will end when the siege begins. He'll be restricted to a relatively small area, his communications will be disrupted, and most important - all his non-family member subordinates will know that the game is up and they'll have no incentive to support him any longer. Quite the contrary - their post-Saddam future will be guaranteed if they play a role in ending his rule. During the siege, Saddam will be faced with a huge conundrum. The strategy you outlined requires a heavy dose of local command and control, but that significantly enhances the chance of his being discovered. Conversely if he goes into hiding, the noticeable lack of his iron hand will just hasten the revolt. It's a no win situation for him.

Although everyone focuses on Baghdad, I'm betting that Tikrit is the harder nut to crack. It's full of his relatives, and the entire city knows that all of Iraq has no sympathy toward them. We could nuke the place and nary a tear would be shed. There's no question that the bunker mentality will be strongest here. Saddam would actually last longer if he took refuge in Tikrit, but losing Baghdad would make him irrelevant and would result in defacto regime change - i.e. a win for Bush. (Just as taking Afghanistan without getting Osama was less than optimal, but "good enough")

One other comment. If the US has learned anything, it's that video images of dead babies are a BAD thing. That's the only real weapon Saddam has, and it would be irresponsible to allow him to use it. Not the creation of dead kids - because I agree with you, there will be many (and most of his making) - but the resulting media exposure. Expect the US military to clamp down tight on all broadcasts in and out of the besiged cities, to forbid entry of journalists into them, and to confiscate all video and pictures that come out. The press will scream, but the military will come up with an explanation and ignore them. If we're smart, a huge screening center will be established to process all folks who leave the cities - to include a full strip search and check of belongings (under the guise of "suicide bomber" prevention).

None of this will be easy, but the US can play the game for several months - although I think the end will come swiftly. Saddam's ability to communicate, repress dissent, and inspire fear are the first things we'll take from him, and after that it won't be long until internal revolt finishes him for us.

[GePap]

I think MtG has writen by far the best plan:

1) Saddam's aim is first, to live, 2nd, to keep power. Unless we actively seek to deprive him of his life and make his death a very high riority target, he has nothing to gain from WMD use. I doubt he has any effective delivery methods for biologicals, so Chemicals are his only good weapon vs. troops on the field.

Kull: the US military is not doctrinally open to the idea of sieges, including its type of forces and so forth.They are too slow and allow for lots of Collateral damage.To besiege a city of 3 million takes a huge amount of troops, with a huge amount of logistics for munitions, water, food. The US has to win quick (a few weeks). The longer a siege last, the more expensive the war, just for the upkeep, and the more likely serious political consequences in neighboring regions. The longer the war, the greater the possiblity of agitation by Kurds and Shiates for greater autonomy, undermining long-term US aims. A long sieeg also increase the cost the US must pay after the war fr the occupiation, but in materials and political costs.
On what iraqi troops will do: his Republican guard will probably stay loyal. Disloyal troops can be placed outside to slow the US and force them to handle the logistics of prisoners.

As for controls of the press. satellite pictures will get out, and the US can't stop press from entering Iraq from Iran and Turkey, syria and elsewere, plus all the journalist that will be in Baghdad waiting for the war to start.

As for internal revolt: Saddam has been no more repressive than Stalin. Hitler counted on internal revolt to bring down the Soviet union once it begun to fail on the battlefield. Did it?

[Chris 62]

Reb, all of that isn't going to work, your forgetting something.

Iraq is a desert surrounding a flood plain, the easest and cheapest way to win is to surround them and starve them out.

If Saddam is dumb enough to opt for a city fight, let him starve in Baghdad, use airpower to interdict resupply, and watch em starve. The place has 5 million people, how long will they last cut off from food?
The argument will be that anti-war "humanitarians" would object, but we both know the media can only go where the Army let's em, and what they don't know won't hurt em.

Iraq's ONLY chance is to comply with disarming.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Reb, all of that isn't going to work, your forgetting something.

Iraq is a desert surrounding a flood plain, the easest and cheapest way to win is to surround them and starve them out.

If Saddam is dumb enough to opt for a city fight, let him starve in Baghdad, use airpower to interdict resupply, and watch em starve. The place has 5 million people, how long will they last cut off from food?
The argument will be that anti-war "humanitarians" would object, but we both know the media can only go where the Army let's em, and what they don't know won't hurt em.

Iraq's ONLY chance is to comply with disarming.

You utterly ignore the aftermath. The US has to occupy the place and try to create a new government in baghdad and try to avoid a collapse of the country. To do what you advocate creates an endless amount of problems for the future.

Winning the war is not the hard part, putting back Iraq together is, and anything that makes the latter harder is a poor and dangerous strategy.

[DanS]

I agree with Chris about his only option.

However, a siege would be too expensive for the US and why would the US want one anyway? Hussein relies on the typical modern dictator's instruments of power to portray that he is in charge--a loyal military, an effective secret police, propaganda machine. Separate him from those tools, create an alternative reality through good use of our own propaganda, and Hussein is toast.

[Chris 62]

I don't believe a seige would take more then a week, tops.

As for rebuilding Iraq Gepap, that's another thread, and has NOTHING to do with this topic.

[DanS]

A week? How do you figure?

If it's only that, then it would be tempting.

[Chris 62]

Easy, take 5 million peolpe, add to it maybe 200,000 soldiers, confine them in a city, and use tatical airpower combined with drones and airmoblie forces to surround and enforce a blockade, and they will use up food, and fast.

Consider your own household, how often do you shop?
I do usually weekly, but I often have to pick up perishables like milk a few times a week.
Now multiply that kind of consumption by 5 million.

The only way besiged people hold on is if there is hope of relief, what hope does Saddam have?

[Sandman]

I agree with others that using biological and chemical weapons on Israel is a waste of time. There's no effective delivery system for germs, and gases have no more killing power than conventional explosives.

What gases are good for is tactical use, creating a headache for US forces, which is as good as Iraq can expect.

Bioweapons would probably be more trouble than they're worth, consuming valuable medical personnel and probably infecting his own army.

No-one has commented on my more wacky ideas, such as using floodlights to spot stealth aircraft. I mean, would that actually work? And what about using burning oil slicks to prevent marine landings?

And finally, what defences does a US carrier group have against frogmen with limpet mines? The Italians scored a rare victory in WW2 with them.

[DanS]

Interesting scenario, Chris. When was the last siege that the military has performed?

[Chris 62]

Most people don't understand logistics, Dan.

For example, Stalingrad in WWII, the Germans consumed 200,000 tons PER DAY of supplies while encircled, and were only 300,000 men, they wern't feeding hungry civilians.
They recieved by air on average 60 tons per day, a HUGE shortfall, and they lasted less then 3 months while encircled.

When you add in all those hungry civilians, things get worse.
Of course, you allow ANY civilian who wants to leave the encirclement to do so, it looks good in the press and will make SADDAM look bad if he tries to prevent them, and you work on the besiged psychologically.