Defend Iraq!

magick

Lets just say your in Saddams position (or at least a level in the high command to dictate defence policy) how would you boost defences for Iraq against the coming American tide? Personally id boost air defences as much as possible, even though the Americans are using smart weapons, but in order to invade they require air superiority, so try and hold them off for as long as possible with SAM weapons.

bonkey

You dont fight a war you cant win.

If Saddam's will to survive outweighs his ego, he'll most likely attempt minimal "in the field" resistance, and go for urban warfare instead. This presents the invading forces with incredibly tough decisions to make in terms of civilian casualties, potentially causing international public opinion to swing far enough that the various governments are forced to call the whole thing off.

On the other hand, if he's going to try to hold his land as well, then he's pretty much doomed. I dont think of anything which can realistically help him in the field.

jc

bugler

Before you even discuss the tactics that could possibly be used in a defence of Iraq, you'd need a motivated and loyal fighting force, which Iraq doesn't have. Would you die for Saddam?

halkar

Originally posted by bugler
Before you even discuss the tactics that could possibly be used in a defence of Iraq, you'd need a motivated and loyal fighting force, which Iraq doesn't have. Would you die for Saddam?

You wouldn't but they probably would. Even if Saddam has few thousand of very loyal supporters, that can cause major damage to US troops in the area if US goes war with Iraq. Look at the suicide bombings in Israel!!

Anyway if I was Saddam, I would stay in my palace and play C&C for the day, as that will be the only time I might have a change of winning agains US.

The Gopher

Bonkey-IMHO this time around the troops will be very loyal.There were mass surrenders in 1991 but a reason for that was that the soldiers realised that they were fighting a war that had no merit.They had seen some of their more unstable colleagues commit violent acts against civillians,despite Saddam stating that his quarrel was only with the Kuwaiti royals and not the citizens of the country.
Therefore thousands couldnt be bothered fighting a stupid war for such an idiot as Saddam and surrendered.

But it is a whole new situation this time.Most Iraqis,from looking at the state of government public services,most probably believe that the country simply doesnt have the money to run an advanced weapons programme.Therefore they believe Bush is making up the allegations in order for an excuse to finish the country off.Therefore they are more likely to resist this time around as they see this as an unprovoked attack on their country.

Remember,the reason that US casualties have been so low in recent wars is because they are fighting armies which have commited atrocities but whos men are by and large decent and who disapprove of the killing,therefore they arent prepared to fight and die for a tyrant.In Serbia soldiers had little will to fight for murderers like Milosevic.In Afghanistan the Taliban soldiers generally didnt want to fight for Al Quaidas benefit and so folded quickly.
But in this case the soldiers will see it as a case of the US attacking a country which poses no threat and therefore will resist strongly.

This war could very easily turn bad for the US in a number of ways.If Saddam realises he is doomed he is likely to launch one of his weapons of mass destruction if he has nothing to lose.If there is a war Im sure there will be terrorist attacks and attacks by lone sympathisers.

The truth is that there would have ben no war if there was never any attack on September 11th.And Saddam would never have used his weapons if the USA wasnt threatening him as it is now.He may have given them to terror groups but he himself enjoys his comfortable lifestyle and had no intention of giving it up by firing a germ filled scud at Israel.

bugler

It's a non-contest. Iraqi's are by and large a fairly secular people, and the religious fervour of its fighting men its not nearly like that of the Taliban. It didn't do the Taliban much good did it? If the U.S just flashes some cash, and flashes its muscle then plenty of the Iraqi army are going to realise that they may aswell switch. If they attempt to engage the U.S conventionally they'll die. They know this, and so only the most devout (and I'd imagine these would also be the foreigners who would answer the call) will stand. Allah might be the greatest deity (the onlyone!), but he can't do shít against a B-52 or AC-130.

I say again, would you die for Saddam? Then why should an ordinary Iraqi man? In Afghanistan at least the Taliban soldiers could have claimed to be defending their ideal type of society, they could claim that they had worked to achieve something that they could believe in and may merit self-sacrifice. Since the gulf war Iraq hasn't been much fun. Sure the elite might be able to live well enough, but the common man has it rough. What would the typical Iraqi soldier die for? To keep a violent corrupt scumbag in power. Yeah I'm sure it's annoying to have the big bad U.S interfering in your business, but is it really worth all you have?

And Gopher, the reason the U.S casualties have been so low in their last couple of skirmishes is because they have fought mainly from the air where they enjoy complete supremacy. They haven't fought on the ground. You seem to think that a good army is one that actually likes killing civilians. Saddam will fight dirty with chemical/bio weapons, if so well then the really nasty work can probably be done with Kurds/Shias/other dissidents/Special forces, all the while being aided by complete air supremacy.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, especially if Saddam gets a bio/chemical attack in on Israel. Apparently last time Israel had its nukes loaded and ready to fly to Baghdad in such an eventuality. I'd imagine the U.S will work to stop that this time

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

Funny, I thought it said "Politics" over the forum, but apparently it's "Politics / War". Or would the more politically correct "Politics / Defense" be more appropriate?

adam

mike65

Originally posted by dahamsta
Funny, I thought it said "Politics" over the forum, but apparently it's "Politics / War". Or would the more politically correct "Politics / Defense" be more appropriate?

adam

That may be the single most naive post I've ever read here...

Mike.

ps defence is spelt with a c.

Bluehair

There is little doubt that the American war machine is superior to the Iraq forces in every way but that does not mean a low-casualty (US) or even quick victory is guarenteed.

Some war games played last year highlighted this in a rather embaresing way last year... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,787017,00.html
Unless US technology is way beyond what anyone realises they won't have the option of raising troops from the dead in a real conflict!

'Would you fight for Saddam' Ah jeez come on :rolleyes: Of course not I live in Ireland.... If however my country and people had been ravaged by economic sanctions imposed by a force about to invade us purely for oil then I suspect i would be out on the street with arms. The facts behind the situation are irelevant the general citizen of Iraq blames the US for their woes and view the talk about weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to get their oil.

Btw the one thing that stopped Israel deploying nukes last time round was the supposed 'missle defense shield' the US supplied to knock down scuds. If Saddam somehow did manage to utilize a bio/chem weapon on them this time things would get very nasty very quickly indeed. Saddam has been doing his utmost to rally other middle east countries to his defense and whilst he's had no success so far bringing Israel into the conflict could in fact help widen the war to other countries.

The one huge advantage the US has is simply the Almightly Dollar. Much of the taliban forces during that conflict were just bought off and there is a massive budget (100s of millions) set aside for just this purpose now as well. People are much the same the world over and buying people off is ultimately less costly (esp in lives) than actually engaging in combat.

It might all come to nothing yet though as there is very intensive efforts being made to get Saddam and company to step down. Unlikely I admit but the next few months will be interesting to say the least.

There's a lot of uncertainty and speculation around at the moment but if there is conflict I doubt very much it will be either swift or low casualty for the Americans.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by magick
how would you boost defences for Iraq against the coming American tide?

Sack (or as Saddam sees it, shoot) all the Generals, or at least tell them that a tank batallion travelling in a single column down a road in broad daylight is actually liable to be seen and bombed by the Americans, and that the freely available GPS is rather handy for navagating away from roads. Having an actual army, as opposed to one filled with people that couldn't find another job, would help too.

If I really was Saddam I'd be getting the hell out of Iraq right around now, and going on an extended holiday to South America.

mike65

Originally posted by Barry Aldwell

If I really was Saddam I'd be getting the hell out of Iraq right around now, and going on an extended holiday to South America.

Yeah but you'd be sane...I wonder who'd be willing to give him a home. France has been kind to "colourful leaders" in the past....

Mike.

Bluehair

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
Jebus... when did you come out of the wood work!!!

Halo!!

Been round for years but haven't posted here much (at all?)

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
I hope all goes well in your head!

Waaay waay too late to worry bout that

Originally posted by Mike65
I wonder who'd be willing to give him a home. France has been kind to "colourful leaders" in the past....

If I was a betting man I'd say this might be the kind of direction it ends up going. There's already intensive competion as to who might replace him... I'd also put money on it not being put to the vote (democracy ha! :rolleyes: )

dahamsta

That may be the single most naive post I've ever read here...

Why? The first post in this thread is about war/defence strategy, it has no direct connection to politics whatsoever.

defence is spelt with a c

I should have stuck to war, since defence is just the shiny pretty name propagandists think makes it acceptable no matter what. Like "collateral damage", which means "the death of innocent people". Just in case anybody hadn't noticed.

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Clintons Cat

Saudi Arabai have offered him Diplomatic immunity,cant see him taking them up on the offer though.
More likely destination is probally Jordan or fellow Ba'thist state Syria.

mike65

Adam no war ever took place in a true political vacuum. Its all politics, be it of the balot box or the gun (that sounds familiar)
As such, dicussing the possible war on Saddam and how he might react, is entirely fitting on the politics board.

Of course if Dev is willing to sanction yet another board....

Mike.

bugler

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Saudi Arabia have offered him Diplomatic immunity, cant see him taking them up on the offer though.

I hear he has something against Idi Amin.

Clintons Cat

I hear he has something against Idi Amin.

although the latest issue of disposed dictators monthly does reccomend Idi Amins Superb Satellite TV and Taste In decorators,

DeVore

"War is politics by other means", (usually attributed to
Karl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general)

(Actually Clausewitz wrote "War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means." in his book "On War" (1832))

Or to quote one of my favourite female singers "Yes its fnckin political... everythings political!"
(and if you need a reference for that, shame on you! )

in other words... like our favourite claymation referree..."I'll allow it!" (this time).

DeV.

(must look up Sun Tzu to see if he had anything to say on it.... anyone remember? )

Snowball

Originally posted by magick
Lets just say your in Saddams position (or at least a level in the high command to dictate defence policy) how would you boost defences for Iraq against the coming American tide? Personally id boost air defences as much as possible, even though the Americans are using smart weapons, but in order to invade they require air superiority, so try and hold them off for as long as possible with SAM weapons.

Would not work, against the US? no way.
He will prob run like the sh!t he is or try to get rid of the US by killing his own ppl.

???? ither way he will loose a war

The Gopher

Russia and Belarus have both been rumoured as countries that would accept him if he decided to give up power.My money would also be on Syria or even somewhere like China,Cuba or North Korea.He will want to be in a country which will not hand him over if the USA decided it wasnt happy with the original arrangement and wanted to put him on tiral.He also would want to be out of reach of Iraqi dissidents who would try to assasinate him,so that puts western europe out of the question.
If there is a war the USA will certainly win eventually.But it could take many months or even years to achieve it.IIRC Afghanistan folded after one month of air attacks and didnt it take Serbia 3 months?(cant remember for sure)With all the wars the USA has fought in the last 4 odd years it hasnt as many smart bombs as it once had.While the original Iraq plan was for an 8 day air assault in which 80% of bombs would be smart bombs they realised that with all the recent camapigns in Afghanistan and the Balkans and with an uncertain future in Korea the bombs they can use are in limited supply and cannot be squandered.
Call me cynical but as much as I normally disapprove of the eagerness of the public to savage George Bush I am honestly starting to think that this war and its buildup is partly in order to take up media coverage and divert it away from the fact the American economy has gone pear shaped and was doing so even before september 11th.If Bush wins this war easily then by the time the news has stopped talking about Iraq it will be time for the next election and people will look upon him as the man who aved the country rather than a man who oresided over a faltering economy.

Turnip

If we can take in an evil thug like Mexico's Carlos Salinas, we could take Saddam.

personally if you're defending against an american attack, i'd be inclined to take to the cities. America relies alot on both its armour groups and its air forces. Reduce that and the americans are just another army. Tanks are vulnerable in street warfare, and air superiority is reduced alot if they're unable to ,bomb a city to the ground. So I say, fortify the streets, and let the americans come to u. (Make sure u have a nice reserve of ammo though). Once the americanxs have suffered enough casulties they'd either bugger off, or go psycho. The alternative is to do a conventual defense, and thats a sure failure.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
ps defence is spelt with a c.

No it isn't, http://www.dod.gov/ Department of Defense

bonkey

We'll have none o' that Murricanized spelling in here, thank you very much.

Defense, indeed.

Sheesh - not content with ruling the world, they had to go and steal a language too.

Language...oil...whats next?

jc

p.s. Yes, it is a weak attempt at humour.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by magick
Lets just say your in Saddams position how would you boost defences for Iraq against the coming American tide?

Grab a few hundred innocents/foreigners and forceably use 'em as "Human Shields".............again.

Uh, no need........... I read that over fifty UK citizens are already overlanding to Iraq to volunteer for this duty. :rolleyes:

-- I read that over fifty UK citizens...

Are some of them, those mothers that are leaving their children at home? I do believe that if you believe in something, you should stand by it (even if i, personally think they're idiots), but to head off to act as human shields, when you're leaving children behind, is terrible.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
Are some of them, those mothers that are leaving their children at home? I do believe that if you believe in something, you should stand by it (even if i, personally think they're idiots), but to head off to act as human shields, when you're leaving children behind, is terrible.

Are you saying they aren't committed enough and should bring the children with them? [I say this without being convinced of it]

mike65

Originally posted by Victor

quote:
Originally posted by mike65
ps defence is spelt with a c.

No it isn't, http://www.dod.gov/ Department of Defense

Fecking Yankee spelling does'nt count!

Mike.

Victor - actually i'm saying they shouldn't be going in the first place.

growler

on a practical level he has little hope in any form of conventional war, but presumably they learnt this the hard way last time , if i was he ..i'd be mining every patch of desert i could , hiding lots of special forces types all over , booby trapping everything near the oil fields, painting hospital signs on every building and training snipers for urban warfare.

the US are fully confident of Gulf War 2 , Sadam may not oblige.

I suspect that the iraqi's themselves believe this to be an invasion over oil , that should motivate more of them than before and they now know what to expect from long range bombers etc.

gandalf

Actually the more I think about this then I am of the opinion that Saddam will trash his oilfields like he did to those in Kuwait if he's attacked.

I reckon he will use the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as delivery vehicles for the Natural WMD that he has Oil. Flood the Persian Gulf with the biggest natural disaster it has ever seen with millions of barrels of oil (and then light it!).

It took 9 months to quell the fires in Kuwait with all the worlds oil well firefighters in quite a small area. Remember that Iraqs oilfields are spread out so it would take alot more resources to sort out that issue if Saddam realises that his number is up.

Gandalf.

MrPudding

Originally posted by growler
on a practical level he has little hope in any form of conventional war

I think if he plays it right, using conventional means he could give the Blair/Bush Axis some serious trouble.

Firstly, don't spend anymore money on air defens(c)e. In this case it is a waste. SAM's can only shoot what they can see and they can't see F117s. Besides whatever he buys will be gone in a week anyway.

Secondly, stay away from open spaces, the axis technology works best in the open. The Abrahms (and to a certain extent challenger) tank fire control systems make them almost unbeatable in open warfare. The APFSDS rounds used by the Americans & British have a very long effective range against Iraqi tanks. The Iraqi tanks would need to be much closer to get though the American & British superior armour.

Thirdly, DO NOT USE CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, this will only piss them off.

If I had to fight this war on the Iraqi side I would move all my troops in built up areas. I would put my tanks in the basements of schools, hospitals & any other building that would look good as smoking rubble on SKY news. Iraqi tanks would have no problem putting a hole in an M1 at 40 feet.If they wanted to take my country I would make them fight for every foot. The Americans do not like to see there sons and daughters come home in body bags.

Before anyone flames me, I am just answering the question.

MrPudding - i don't see anything you've said that deserves flaming....

Victor

Originally posted by MrPudding
Secondly, stay away from open spaces, the axis technology works best in the open.

Axis?

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
Actually the more I think about this then I am of the opinion that Saddam will trash his oilfields like he did to those in Kuwait if he's attacked.

Alternately, he could trash his neighbours, and then point out to the world that the next thing he will do is trash his own if things dont get done his way.

Someone will then do the math and realise that if Saddam does this, then even if Venuzuela was on full production, there would be a world shortage of oil.

End result...the US may be forced to back out of Iraq, explicitly so that Saddam can keep his own fields producing...

jc

Clintons Cat

I dont think he has the capability to trash his nieghbours that would most likely require an active airforce which will probally sit the war out in a neutral country such as iran again.He certainly wouldnt expose his armour to a land rush.

I think he is more likely to fire a couple of his own large oilwells at the begining of the airwar and blame the americans and try to persuade the Russians and French to intercede at the UN to force a ceasefire on enviromental or humanitarian grounds.