SCENARIO: Iraq Triumphs Over Coalition Forces

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not a bad assessment, although the "shock and awe" show didn't really start until that little column out of Baghdad suddenly found itself in a landscape of craters and hot steel rain.

One of the dirty tricks we have up our sleeves to discourage counterattacks in the north is that wide open desert to the west allows us to stack up B-52s, keep them on station, and have JSTARS call them in for strike missions against mobile targets. The Iraqi air force hasn't flown a single sortie (makes me think they'll be set for kamikaze use), and the 52's are beyond reach of any mobile air defense system. They can't be seen or heard, and the bombs are just there.

An enemy that realizes he can't make any offensive moves, anywhere, without them being almost immediately liquidated, has a hard time keeping morale and control of their units. It's just a matter of time - the IRG units in GW 1 ran like screaming girlies when their time came, too.

The only "negative" in this campaign so far is that it was based on an unrealistic timetable. Four days to get to Baghdad was the most nonsensical thing since Monty's timetable for XXX Corps to relieve the Red Devils in Arnhem. The difference is that the chickenhawks who created this timetable don't control the troops, so now that their fantasy has gone down the toilet, the professionals can go to work and win the war.

If we'd said it was going to take a month of cautious advances and hard fighting to reach Baghdad, people would be thrilled with the progress so far and the casualty levels - it's all about creating expectations.

Our two basic defects are being cured with time - our initial insufficiency of force is cured by the arrival of scheduled forces in theater, and the Iraqi "civilian" reaction is conditioned to their perception of the balance of power - they remember what happened twelve years ago, and nobody wants to risk a repeat. It was unrealistic for the US to expect help from an immediate Iraqi rebellion, but the finishing blows are likely to come from that source, or at least with the active help of an Iraqi uprising. The time to defect or to rise up is when the regime's enforcers are too busy thinking about how to cover their own asses to try to shoot yours, and that time hasn't come yet.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by ThePantaloonDog
A democratic city state surronded by warlords controlling their own little fiefdoms is not a democracy. Afghanistan most assuredly does not have anything resembling a democracy.

I was thinking medium term — 3 to 7 years out — rather than immediate term (where Afghanistan is, indeed, what you say it is). And maybe a democratic Afghanistan will take even longer — 10 to 20 years may not be too far-fetched.

Gatekeeper

[spiritof1202]

A coalition loss is one where they leave Saddam in power. Saddam claimed victory in GW1, because he managed to stay in power. I just don't see Saddam able to manage that this time... even if it takes months to occur. Rules of engagement will be changed to get the job done, even if its more unpopular than the current rules.

The US forces really haven't engaged the enemy in a meaningful way yet.... except from the air. Facing tens of thousands of well equiped troops will have a definite demotivating effect to the Iraqi morale.

The US are picking the place of this engagement. The guerrilla tactics are, in a military sense, almost irrelevent.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Here's an ugly fact for all to remember: If the hardcore elements of the Iraqi regime pull back into residential areas and try to blend in with the population to continue the fight, those former "civilian" areas become military targets. A fedayin or SRG fighting out of uniform doesn't become a civilian. Minimizing collateral damage is a goal, but not a positive obligation, i.e. we're not obligated to get our people killed on the ground getting armed resistance out of civilian areas.

Is the coalition willing to show that they do care about the Iraqi civilians, which is what they have been asserting, by not bombing civilian targets? If they don't, i.e, start bombing everywhere, they lose this last sherd of legitimacy, which is to liberate the average Iraqi.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ultimately, a lot of armed civilians will rebel against the regime, they just have to be sure that the balance has tipped decisively against Saddam and his murdering *******s. The Saddamites' treatment of mild dissidents is well known, and so is their treatment of rebels 12 years ago. Fear of retribution still dominates Iraqis, just as it did for an eight year murderous war against Iran, when hundreds of thousands of Iraqi conscripts' lives were expended as so much cannon fodder. They didn't do that out of love for the Hussein regime, or patriotism, any more than they sat and took what the coalition did last time out of love for the Hussein regime or patriotism. They did it, and many will resist us until the relative last minute, because for most people, there are far worse things than a high probability of one's own death.

I am not an expert on the Middle East, but the excellent thread Jaakko has linked to in another thread contains some very good firsthand information by the author.

The overall sentiment is this: they may not like Saddam, but they like Uncle Sam even less. News of Iraqi refugees in Jordan flocking back to defend their country is just but one of the pieces of evidence. Not only the Iraqis are worked up against the coalition, but it seems like the entire region is pretty much up in arms. The King of Jordan is getting a tad nervous. If this war doesn't stop soon, something very bad is going to happen. In fact, this is the worst case scenario: regardless of whether there will be a coalition military victory, the political climate in the whole Middle East region is going to turn decidedly fudamentalist, with religious uprisings topping many of the pro-Western rulers.

[Dom Pedro II]

In terms of destroying Saddam's army, I think it will be relatively brief. Like France in 1940. But like France in 1940, there will be many who will begin a resistance movement, and that's where things will certainly get hairy for us.

With regards to the "If" of bombing civilian targets... there is no "if". It has already been done.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
With regards to the "If" of bombing civilian targets... there is no "if". It has already been done.

That's a shame. They could have consulted the regional experts before committing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Is the coalition willing to show that they do care about the Iraqi civilians, which is what they have been asserting, by not bombing civilian targets? If they don't, i.e, start bombing everywhere, they lose this last sherd of legitimacy, which is to liberate the average Iraqi.

I assume you're familiar with the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question. The coalition hasn't been targeting civilian targets, although the Iraqis disguise plenty of military activities in civilian areas.

The overall sentiment is this: they may not like Saddam, but they like Uncle Sam even less. News of Iraqi refugees in Jordan flocking back to defend their country is just but one of the pieces of evidence.

Not many "refugees" it would seem, and a lot of Saddam's boys, just like the last war. I keep waiting for that same guy to badger a western journalist until he asks his name, and then the guy says "Uy um Saddam Hussein. We ur all Saddam Hussein."

The Iraqis are doing the same propaganda crap they did last time. As far as the rest of the arab world goes, they were jumping up and down over the whole US-Israel-Palestine business, so it's a little early to see what the long term balance is.

The King of Jordan is getting a tad nervous.

If you were a Hashemite King who signed a peace treaty with Israel, governing an Arab country full of Palestinians, and your economy was based largely on kissing Uncle Sam's ass while smuggling for Saddam, you'd be a tad nervous too.

If this war doesn't stop soon, something very bad is going to happen.

It will, it will.

[monkspider]

I think that at the onset of the war, nearly every American thought that the might of the American Army could no more be stopped than the waves that wash our shores. In fact, I have even heard some reports that Washington expected Baghdad to fold in as soon as twenty-four hours! However, Iraqi resistance has proved considerable. If America is unable to complete her military goals in a timely manner, the war could bog down into a quagmire not seen since Vietnam. If that were the case, Bush may be forced to sue for peace, or else, face grave consequences that are beyond anything he could have ever expected. In short, the longer Iraq is able to hold out, the greater it's chances.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I assume you're familiar with the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question. The coalition hasn't been targeting civilian targets, although the Iraqis disguise plenty of military activities in civilian areas.

That's not my point. My point is whether the coalition is willing to risk lives of their own soldiers for the Iraqi civilians or the other way around. A number of civilian targets have been hit - sure, it is probably just honest mistakes, but try to tell that to the Iraqis on the streets.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Not many "refugees" it would seem, and a lot of Saddam's boys, just like the last war. I keep waiting for that same guy to badger a western journalist until he asks his name, and then the guy says "Uy um Saddam Hussein. We ur all Saddam Hussein."

The news is coming out from Jordan, so I'd presume it's not some Iraqi propaganda.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If you were a Hashemite King who signed a peace treaty with Israel, governing an Arab country full of Palestinians, and your economy was based largely on kissing Uncle Sam's ass while smuggling for Saddam, you'd be a tad nervous too.

My take is he is nervous about popular uprisings. From what I gathered the Arabs are gathering around Hussein. It's like "he's a nasty bastard, but he is our nasty bastard."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's not my point. My point is whether the coalition is willing to risk lives of their own soldiers for the Iraqi civilians or the other way around. A number of civilian targets have been hit - sure, it is probably just honest mistakes, but try to tell that to the Iraqis on the streets.

First, it's spurious to think that going in on the ground and applying ground firepower to enemy holdouts blending with the civilian population is going to result in less civilian casualties, if the scale of action is such that airpower would be used.

There's no overall criteria, it's case by case on the tactical situation and availabity at the moment of different assets.

But if you've got a battalion of fedayin holding out in a highrise residential area, you can be that airpower may become an option, if a localized siege or some other type of operation isn't feasible. We're not going to squander hundreds of casualties proving some BS propaganda point that won't mean anything once the first civilian gets hurt anyway.

The news is coming out from Jordan, so I'd presume it's not some Iraqi propaganda.

Iraqi government agents operate everywhere there is significant Iraqi emigre populations. It's certainly not hard for a bunch of Baathist, ISSS and fedayin to drive out, check on the "refugees," then later make a big show of patriotically driving back as "ordinary Iraqi citizens" showing their "devotion to Saddam Hussein, without whom we'd be nothing."

It may be coming out of Jordan, but it's being done by Iraqis.

My take is he is nervous about popular uprisings. From what I gathered the Arabs are gathering around Hussein. It's like "he's a nasty bastard, but he is our nasty bastard."

Most Arabs always do that when it comes to an outsider against an Arab. The thing that fried Saddam last time is that it was considered intolerable for one arab state to openly attack another.