Standoff at Baghdad?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

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

Why not? its as equally valid as all other "historical" examples.

LoTM:

Radio Sawa is a joke: people do listen, for the music. I don't think they give a damn about its news. There are also other arab news netwoks as well, if we are going to include outside media.

As for city fighting: we lost 18 men in a single firefight with soldiers far less effective than trained Iraqi forces in mogadishu, and those soldiers were much less effectively armed. And Baghdad is a much bigger target and a more complex one. We also lost 25 men in Panama in 1989, again, against much weaker forces. After all, the US Army is not run by the Prussian General Staff either, now is it?

As for the Israelis, they lost 23 men in the fighting for Jenin, which is tiny compared to Baghdad, against forces with far less firepower. The Israelis have not gone into Gaza in part for fear of what would develop.

1000 dead Americans in an operation of such scale with such aims is still a tiny number. To think that we will only loose as many men as we lost in Afghanistan is the view I find trully ridicolous.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

a few months ago their was talk of using an "afghan strategy" - only air and special forces working with locals, or of an inside out strategy - using about 50,000 coalition troops.
We're going in with, it looks like, about 200,000 grund troops (US 1st, 3rd and 4th inf, 1st arm, 1st cav - which is armour, 101st airborne, a marine task force,and a UK armor div) at least 4 carriers (probably more) lots of land based air PLUS special forces and whatever locals we can manage to sway. The cautious folks at the Pentagon have won, we're goin in like the Iraqi army is a major threat and there will be little help from inside.

That said, the number of "war criminals" who have no choice but to fight on is probably no more than a few hundred - we didnf imprison every nazi party member after ww2, and wont imprison every baathist - we didnt imprison every waffen SS and wont imprison ever special republican guard (though i hope no US presidents go to visit rep. guard cemeteries

[Drake Tungsten]

Why not? its as equally valid as all other "historical" examples.

No it isn't. The Nazis were commiting genocide against the Russians as they advanced; Stalin was by far the better choice in that equation. How exactly does this situation bear any resemblence to an American invasion of Iraq?

Your comparison is absurd; I expect better from you GePap...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Why not? its as equally valid as all other "historical" examples.

LoTM:

Radio Sawa is a joke: people do listen, for the music. I don't think they give a damn about its news. There are also other arab news netwoks as well, if we are going to include outside media.

As for city fighting: we lost 18 men in a single firefight with soldiers far less effective than trained Iraqi forces in mogadishu, and those soldiers were much less effectively armed. And Baghdad is a much bigger target and a more complex one. We also lost 25 men in Panama in 1989, again, against much weaker forces. After all, the US Army is not run by the Prussian General Staff either, now is it?

As for the Israelis, they lost 23 men in the fighting for Jenin, which is tiny compared to Baghdad, against forces with far less firepower. The Israelis have not gone into Gaza in part for fear of what would develop.

1000 dead Americans in an operation of such scale with such aims is still a tiny number. To think that we will only loose as many men as we lost in Afghanistan is the view I find trully ridicolous.

My point on outside media was that yes, iraqis do have some idea of whats going on outside.

Mogadishu - IIUC that was a small isolated group sent in with too little support, against a poorly armed but very large force, etc. Hopefully we've been learning some lessons too.
the israelis fought in environment where they could not use heavy firepower because of the political consequences of a largescale civilian deaths, and the civilians stayed put precisely to make it difficult for the israelis.

im not saying this will be as few casualties as afghan - and your estimate of 1000 to 1200 is certainly possible - but i think its on the high side, and COULD be lower.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Why not? its as equally valid as all other "historical" examples.

No it isn't. The Nazis were commiting genocide against the Russians as they advanced; Stalin was by far the better choice in that equation. How exactly does this situation bear any resemblence to an American invasion of Iraq?

Your comparison is absurd; I expect better from you GePap...

Actually, it is quite valid: after all, many, many Ukranians (also slated for extermination) welcomed the Germans as liberators, as did many of the Baltic peoples (also slated for extermination). The first victims of the Nazi's in the east, Jews and gypsies were not very popular with the common folk. No, a Russian soldier in June and August 1941 had no freakin idea what the German would start doing a few months later (remember, I said Russian, not Ukranian, Balt) to them. At that point, facing an oncoming enemy, what held them there? Love for the Party? Fear of what their political minders migth do to them if they moved and fled, or surrendered? (after all, at least 2 million Russian troops surrendered in the first few months, since they had no clue at that point that their fate was very likely death. If the Russians knew so far in advance what their fate under German rule would be, why would millons sign their own death warrants?) Or love of Russia?

So again, it is quite valid.

[lord of the mark]

some info from strat page on strengths and deployements, including a map

For your perusal

[Drake Tungsten]

No, a Russian soldier in June and August 1941 had no freakin idea what the German would start doing a few months later (remember, I said Russian, not Ukranian, Balt) to them. At that point, facing an oncoming enemy, what held them there?

Held them there? You act like the Russian resistance early in the German campaign was impressive. Don't you know your history? The Russian defense didn't stiffen until months later, well after the German atrocities towards Russians became known. It was one of Hitler's great mistakes; if he had treated the Russians like human beings, they might have continued to view the Germans as liberators and continued to surrender in droves.

It took horrible German atrocities to convince the Russians to throw their lot in with Stalin. Do you really think the Americans are going to be wantonly murdering Iraqi civilians? If not, your example is pointless...

[GePap]

This war will be so boring:

I wish something interesting would happen. Like what, you ask?

Wouldn't it be fun if the Iraqis reached some strange backrool deal with Iran, so that the day the US invaded th south, Iranian forces would also invade Iraq, stating that they are there as well, to liberate Iraqis from the evil Saddam regime, and head straight to Baghdad.. then the Iraqis surrender to Iranian forces, who give amnesty to all, exept saddam and his buddies, who somehow get away. Then a new Iraqi government takes place before the US and UK have even made it to Baghdad.

That would be fun...... to see, now wouldn't it?

Too bad it won't happen.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

We're going in with, it looks like, about 200,000 grund troops (US 1st, 3rd and 4th inf, 1st arm, 1st cav - which is armour, 101st airborne, a marine task force,and a UK armor div)

The deployment you found (8 divisions) appears heavier than the one I found earlier (5 divisions). Even with your deployment numbers it doesnt come anywhere near 200,000 ground troops. I havent looked at these issues for quite a while, but a better number would be 15-20K/div so around 120-160K. In addition our divisions carry a lot of support units so the number of actual troops with rifles who know how to use em is probably half that number. I've little doubt that the Iraqis are not gonna hold in the desert but Baghdad is a city of 5M people! If they oppose the 'coalition' forces or if even half do so, we will have big problems in the city.

Saddam Hussein has had lots of time to learn from his mistakes. Hopefully he hasnt done so but it's stupid to underestimate the Iraqis as soldiers because of western prejudice.

[Japher]

The last i read was 150,000 troops

[Sava]

Either way, the war in Iraq will be interesting to watch on CNN... I suspect stalemate in Baghdad... if Saddam is gone, then I suspect another US puppet regime like in Afghanistan with Mr. Karzai.

[Alexander's Horse]

Baghdad is not difficult to take militarily speaking. Historically just about everyone has rolled over it. NBC is not a big threat.

The assumption is that civilians will actually welcome the end of Saddam, which is probably true.

The real problem arises if the civilian population doesn't welcome the allies as liberators. Civilian demonstrations could be far more damaging to the US than any military action.

I think the likelihood is though that once Saddam is defeated the war will be quickly over and most Iraqis will be very happy to be rid of him.

The real problem is removing Saddam doesn't solve anything and really has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. OBL will still be out there and a whole new set of problems will emerge, like what to do with the Kurds and Iran.

Iran will have US forces on 2 of its borders if Iraq falls. Their reaction is unpredictable. They could possibly sponsor insurgencies into Afghanistan and Iraq. Some analysts argue Iran is the real sponsor of international terrorism. It is also a member of the "axis of evil". So once Saddam has gone, what does the US do about that?

[Gatekeeper]

Hmm ... well, according to an "exclusive" CBS report, the presumed war with Iraq had been pushed back to some time in mid-March and will involve 600 to 800 Tomahawk cruise missile strikes in the first two days alone, centered on Baghdad, I think. (And the cruise missile strikes are only *part* of the overall opening package.)

It's part of some scheme that has a name I can't remember right now. "A-Day," is the name of the opening day of the war, but the technique described above was called something else (it involved psychological warfare).

Gatekeeper

[Ramo]

Those underpopulated, backwater provinces are where all of the anti-American opposition is located.

Riiiight. It's not like there were anti-American demonstrations around the country or anything. Even in the NWFP and Baluchastan, the fundies didn't have majority control of the provinces until the last election, when their support shot up incredibly (they were pretty much insignificant before the election), I suppose cooincidentally after the US started using Pakistani bases. You can't honestly believe that their sudden power is due entirely to a renewed desire for sharia (although it's true that part of their support is due to the corruption and oppression of the secular parties)...

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...

Opposition to the US in what capacity? Yes, the Islamists are the people who train Islamic militants to wage war against the US (duh). But there are two major secular parties opposing Musharraf's policies, both larger than the coalition of fundie parties by themselves.

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

The whole point of this argument is Jack's premise of Arabs occupying Baghdad.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You don't understand. A local TV station have sent reporters to Baghdad. The common Iraqis hate Dubya - they will fight him. They do not trust the US, not when they still want to have weddings in peace.

You have to remember that the common people are afraid to speak their minds because Saddam's secret police have the habit of jail/torturing/killing just about anyone who makes even a sideways comment that doesn't whole heartedly support the regime.

Thus when asked political questions by a foreign reporter whom they do not know, of course, they are going to spout the party line. Especially since Iraq censors get to "escort" journalists and review their tapes.

I'm sure a bunch of them do hate Bush but the question is do they hate Saddam more and what will they gain by continueing to stay on a sinking ship? I contend that in the end they will be pragmatic.