Standoff at Baghdad?

[Drake Tungsten]

Look at how the people in a mostly secular, non-Arab state like Pakistan have responded to the fact that US soldiers operated from their bases when there was a legitimate casus belli.

You think Pakistan is mostly secular?!?

Do you honestly believe that an Arab state is going to get away with sending soldiers to help the US in Iraq when there is not a legitimate casus belli?

Yes. Their governments are experts at deflecting and destroying opposition. I don't see why this would be any different...

edit: Note that I don't think any Arab states are going to commit troops to the US war effort. I think they'll limit their support to basing rights, which they can most likely get away with.

[GePap]

Tanks SpencerH for a very good link. I recommend everyone read it: it is highly informative.

I took a class with a prof. that the US air force had hired to teach USAF officers about air war theory. IN our class, he showed us the estimaes of bombing damage the US had done right after the gulf war, and the revised estimates a few years later. In many categories the US had overestimated the damage it had done by 20 percent, though 10 percent was more common.

I do think US casualties will be light, perhaps 1% fatalities, which should run about 1,000 men to 1,200 overall, highest estmate. The thing is, yes, the Shi'ites might not fight for Saddam, but what about the 20% of the pop. that might not want a democracy that much because that means more power to the Shia and the Kurds? It is from their ranks that Saddam's officals, the Republican guard, and his stanchest supporters come from. If, lets say, 40,000 men dugg themselves in Baghdad to fight to the death, the last battles of this war might be very messy.

[Ramo]

You think Pakistan is mostly secular?!?

It is... Pakistan is a far cry from Saudi Arabia. Islamism thrives only in its underpopulated, backwater provinces.

Yes. Their governments are experts at deflecting and destroying opposition. I don't see why this would be any different...

Deflect and destroy opposition with what? Again, look at Pakistan; what will happen to an Arab state that sends soliders to occupy Baghdad will be much, much more extreme.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Tanks SpencerH for a very good link. I recommend everyone read it: it is highly informative.

I took a class with a prof. that the US air force had hired to teach USAF officers about air war theory. IN our class, he showed us the estimaes of bombing damage the US had done right after the gulf war, and the revised estimates a few years later. In many categories the US had overestimated the damage it had done by 20 percent, though 10 percent was more common.

I do think US casualties will be light, perhaps 1% fatalities, which should run about 1,000 men to 1,200 overall, highest estmate. The thing is, yes, the Shi'ites might not fight for Saddam, but what about the 20% of the pop. that might not want a democracy that much because that means more power to the Shia and the Kurds? It is from their ranks that Saddam's officals, the Republican guard, and his stanchest supporters come from. If, lets say, 40,000 men dugg themselves in Baghdad to fight to the death, the last battles of this war might be very messy.

you raise 2 questions - 1. what about the Sunni arabs - i dont think all of them are pro-Saddam - most of his staunch supporters are from his own Tikriti clan - plenty of sunni arabs have experienced the regimes oppression - i suspect it will go something like in Afganistan with the Pashtun - they will stand aside as coalition forces win, but with more wariness then the other ethnic groups - and will then push for maximal influence psot-war - with the difference that the Sunni arabs are less numerous proportionately than the Pashtun, but have MUCH more powerful friends outside (IE most of the Arab world)

2. What do we do about 40,000 or so special republican guards??? Depends. Are they sitting amidst rubble without civilians nearby, with pro-Saddam civilians around or with anti-Saddam civilians around?? Are there chemicals on the battlefield?? How well supplied are they?? How well trained???

[Drake Tungsten]

It is... Pakistan is a far cry from Saudi Arabia. Islamism thrives only in its underpopulated, backwater provinces.

Those underpopulated, backwater provinces are where all of the anti-American opposition is located. You can't claim that the opposition to the US in Pakistan is secular; it's not true. The opposition is led by some of the most virulent Islamists in the world, certainly the equal of anything in Saudi Arabia...

Arab state that sends soliders to occupy Baghdad will be much, much more extreme.

Why would they send soldiers? America doesn't want or need them...

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


you raise 2 questions - 1. what about the Sunni arabs - i dont think all of them are pro-Saddam - most of his staunch supporters are from his own Tikriti clan - plenty of sunni arabs have experienced the regimes oppression - i suspect it will go something like in Afganistan with the Pashtun - they will stand aside as coalition forces win, but with more wariness then the other ethnic groups - and will then push for maximal influence psot-war - with the difference that the Sunni arabs are less numerous proportionately than the Pashtun, but have MUCH more powerful friends outside (IE most of the Arab world)

2. What do we do about 40,000 or so special republican guards??? Depends. Are they sitting amidst rubble without civilians nearby, with pro-Saddam civilians around or with anti-Saddam civilians around?? Are there chemicals on the battlefield?? How well supplied are they?? How well trained???

But here are very great difference between Iraq and Afghanistan:
First, our enmies in Afghanistan were very weak: at most, 50,000 men armed with very few heavy weapons at all, no means to challenge, even for one day, our control of the air, minimal military training and cohesion, and they fought out in the open, were US control of the air matered most. There was minimal city fighting in Afghanistan.
Second: while many Sunni have been oppresed, the qestion is, would they like to give up power to the Shia majority? In Afghanistan we made heavy used of internal forces waging a civil war. Among the Arab parts opf Iraq infighting ended with a Sunni victory back in 1991.
As for the Republican guard, estimate put them at about 100,000 men. They are the best equiped, best trained men of the Iraqi army, and really the only bit we worry anything about. What kind of future can they see for themselves wth Saddam gone? and many of the officers have city fighting experience, and close fighting experience built during the war with Iran. As for civvilias: their political stripes matters not to figthing: thy will simply want to put their heads down: even if they are anti-Saddam, they won't want to die in the battle.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


But here are very great difference between Iraq and Afghanistan:
First, our enmies in Afghanistan were very weak: at most, 50,000 men armed with very few heavy weapons at all, no means to challenge, even for one day, our control of the air, minimal military training and cohesion,

I remember being told there were at least 75000 taliban. Also that there lack of heavy wepaons was a challenge, becuase there would be no good targets for our Air force. So the Iraqia have some air defence, and some heavy weapons - that means good targets, no ?? Not that them having heavy weapons is good for us (pace above) but the heavy weapons and air defense are the easiest for us to hit - if their going to hurt us in Bagdad it has to be an infantry battle.

and they fought out in the open, were US control of the air matered most. There was minimal city fighting in Afghanistan.

afghanistan was goin to be a quagmire because of the mountains, poor roads, etc. Iraq is falt and open. Now urban terrain does unique present challenges, i dont dispute that, but its an open question whether and how we can overcome them.

Second: while many Sunni have been oppresed, the qestion is, would they like to give up power to the Shia majority?

Other than a handful of Tikrities, the Sunni Arabs dont HAVE power in Iraq today. They certainly wont like a Shiite-Kurdish majority regime, but I doubt many will fight for Saddam.

In Afghanistan we made heavy used of internal forces waging a civil war. Among the Arab parts opf Iraq infighting ended with a Sunni victory back in 1991.
As for the Republican guard, estimate put them at about 100,000 men. They are the best equiped, best trained men of the Iraqi army, and really the only bit we worry anything about. What kind of future can they see for themselves wth Saddam gone?

And yet Saddam wont let them the main Republican Guard into Bagdad, apparently for fear of a coup. Now with US troops in Iraq he will likely take the gamble and let them in, but I dont think all of them are completely reliable.

and many of the officers have city fighting experience, and close fighting experience built during the war with Iran.

IIUC the iran - iraq war had very little sophisticated combined arms tactics - if they think that the US troops will fight like the Iranian Revolutionary Guards theyre in for some rude shocks.

As for civvilias: their political stripes matters not to figthing: thy will simply want to put their heads down: even if they are anti-Saddam, they won't want to die in the battle.

If the civilians just want to be safe, their best bet is to flee Bagdad, which coalition forces will certainly encourage - that should make the goin much easier in Bagdad.

[Ned]

I don't know what has changed since the Gulf War that would make the Iraqi soldier into a tough and determined fighter. They will never be like the Japanese who fought to the last man, or the Germans who continue to fight on in Berlin even when there was no hope, or the Vietnamese who took a long and profound beating, but refused to quit. Saddam is no Osama bin Laden who will use religion to exhort his people to die for Allah. Saddam is no Hitler who inspired fanaticism in the German people. Saddam is no Ho Chi Minh who, like Hitler, was an inspiring nationalist.

Saddam is about Saddam.

I think he either flees or he is assassinated by his own people. As soon as he is gone, Iraq's successor government will negotiate a surrender.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Does the US military have any new toys intended for combat in urban areas it wants to try out?

Well theres the night vision gear - if you can see the enemy in the dark, and he cant see you, should give you an advantage in urban situation.

Also GPS to make it easier to call in helicopter gunship support quickly and accurately.

[GePap]

What about the Russians early in ww2?

Many fo them fought to the death for a system I can't see them loving.

Many young Iraqis know nothing before Saddam, and thier only source of information is the Saddam run press. A boy who might hate Saddam, but love his country might think this is about oil and another country coming to take what his country has: thta boy might then fight the US, even if he doesn't crae one bit about Saddam.

If the leevl of nationalism in Iraq is so low that no one will fight for thier country, then what's the future of the country going to look like?

LoTM:

The best estimates I saw were 50,000. Also, the Taliban for the most part did not go to the mountains: they fought out in the open, were US bombers pulverized them. The Iraqi's have ad years of studying the effects of the 1991 air war, and they have sent delegates to Serbia to figure out the efefcts of our bombing there. I find it hard to believe that the evel of tactical sophistication between a bunch of guys who think TV is evil and a bunch of guys who watch CNN or the BBC would be the same.

[Ned]

GePap, what you say presupposes that the Iraqi government will fight on after Saddam flees or is assassinated.

I don't believe that for a second. They are not fools and will cut the best deal they can.

[chequita guevara]

Given what will happen to them if they surrender, unless they are granted an amnesty, I suspect many will fight on to the death.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
What about the Russians early in ww2?

Many fo them fought to the death for a system I can't see them loving.

Knowing what the Germans would do to their country when they occupied it. Which makes the case for conquering the area outside bagdad first, then setting up a provisional govt, and letting them see what the fate of occupied Iraq.

Many young Iraqis know nothing before Saddam, and thier only source of information is the Saddam run press. A boy who might hate Saddam, but love his country might think this is about oil and another country coming to take what his country has: thta boy might then fight the US, even if he doesn't crae one bit about Saddam.

well theres the BBC, radio sawa, etc. There should be loads of leaflefts and other psy ops. May not work, we'll see.

If the leevl of nationalism in Iraq is so low that no one will fight for thier country, then what's the future of the country going to look like?

I dont see them failing to fight coalition forces as a sign of lack of nationalism.

The best estimates I saw were 50,000. Also, the Taliban for the most part did not go to the mountains: they fought out in the open, were US bombers pulverized them. The Iraqi's have ad years of studying the effects of the 1991 air war, and they have sent delegates to Serbia to figure out the efefcts of our bombing there. I find it hard to believe that the evel of tactical sophistication between a bunch of guys who think TV is evil and a bunch of guys who watch CNN or the BBC would be the same.

Touche. But the taliban were supposed to be heirs of the pashto fighting tradition, everyones a warrior all their lives, etc. and the iraqis may at least realize they need to learn tactical lessons, but this isnt the Prussian general staff we're dealing with. Yeah theyve learned not sit out in the open and to go hide (the troops they can trust) in the cities. Doesnt mean they know how to fight effectively against our troops in the cities. This isnt going to be a repeat of GW1 or Kosovo. It will be harder than either of those (or afganistan) but i really doubt the outcome will be as dire as you think. The israelis have managed to take cities against smaller but much more motivated forces, with considerably less resources on thier side, and in a much more difficult political environment. .

[GePap]

Saddam isn't superman Ned:

A man like him stays in power for 30 years only because there are many, many other complicit in his crimes. As Che said, there is no future for many Iraqis in an Iraq without Saddam. Saddam has family members as well. Kill Saddam and leave Udday, tha's not much better really.

THe worst mistakes to make are to underestimate the enemy and overestimate oneself. Those that think Saddams Iraq will fall lke some flimsy house of cards are those that open themselves to the worst possibe disappointment.

[Drake Tungsten]

What about the Russians early in ww2?

Many fo them fought to the death for a system I can't see them loving.

You're not using this as a serious example, are you?