StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=2310440

Well that makes things harder- 62,000 US troops heading into Iraq from a second front would've made the Iraqi Army's job from "impossible" to "just give up and go home".

Turkey hasn't told the US to stuff it. There will be a revote in the Turkish parliament on Tuesday. 80% of Turks oppose allowing the US to use Turkey as a staging area to conquor Iraq yet the parliamentary vote failed by only four votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2812175.stm

Hell they had a majority of those voting. I don't think Turkey is going to pass on a very good aid package. They have little hope of getting the loans they want without the US securing them. And economic damage is unlikely to be reduced by all that much.

Turkey would also be removing any say in what happens to Iraq post war. Once the US can move into some of the outlying Iraqi airfields, it won't need Turkey very much for anything.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Turkey would also be removing any say in what happens to Iraq post war. Once the US can move into some of the outlying Iraqi airfields, it won't need Turkey very much for anything.

Overflight rights might come in handy....

I'm honestly getting rather concerned. If we don't have that second front in the north for the quick seizure of the whole of Iraq, the process of instituting democratic government could be problematic. There's also a danger of intervention by the other States, especially if their own calculations come to different conclusions than our own.

Principally I've always felt that the success of democracy in Iraq is based on gaining a firm control over the ethnic groups very quickly to dampen their aspirations and prevent a period of disorder or foreign interference. Advancing from the south only precludes this and there's a serious danger that the situation could become to unstable for the institution of democracy. If intervention by the surrounding States occurs... Well, that could be interesting.

There's a very good chance the vote in the Turkish Parliament will succeed next week, however, as there were 19 absentations, and these parliamentarians can be perhaps wooed into casting votes. If simply half vote in favour the measure would pass. A bit of pressure from the Turkish military, which likely realizes the paramount danger that this situation far better than the government, is perhaps not impossible - Though I think we can probably rule out an outright coup in this situation.

Enlightenment wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Turkey would also be removing any say in what happens to Iraq post war. Once the US can move into some of the outlying Iraqi airfields, it won't need Turkey very much for anything.

Overflight rights might come in handy....

Perhaps, but unless the planes are coming from a Turkish base, Israel and Jordan work just as well.

I'm honestly getting rather concerned. If we don't have that second front in the north for the quick seizure of the whole of Iraq, the process of instituting democratic government could be problematic. There's also a danger of intervention by the other States, especially if their own calculations come to different conclusions than our own.

While you are ultimately correct that a war without Turkish complicity would be both more difficult and more costly, I seriously doubt whether the lack of a Northern Front will frustrate our ability to bring the war against Saddam to its ultimate conclusion. Although the post-war situation will be more problematic – without a Turkish base of operations the Kurds, for example, become more difficult to control -, it is likely that Ankara will join the general wave of United Nations peacekeepers – to be invited into the country the moment Saddam goes under – whether or not American troops base out of Turkey. Not that this should really concern you right now given the likelihood that Tuesday’s vote will favor the American position.

Well that makes things harder- 62,000 US troops heading into Iraq from a second front would've made the Iraqi Army's job from "impossible" to "just give up and go home".

Moving back to Vympel’s earlier post, I wish to reiterate the importance of separating our initial invasion from prolonged reconstruction (and admittedly, occupation). Our war against the Iraqi ground forces – Special Republican Guard formations and urban holdouts included – isn’t likely to be one of substantial difficulty. Not only does the Coalition enjoy total (and largely unchallenged) air superiority, but Saddam’s forces are likely to repeat their performance of 1991 almost step-for-step. Not to insult the fighting potential of the Iraqi regular, but these people aren’t going to want to fight a losing war – especially if following Saddam’s orders could result in their utter annihilation.

The difficult part of this whole equation is the post-war peacekeeping – but I can make a strong argument that much of the burden will be divided between at least three parties including the United States, Great Britain, and the United Nations itself. Not to mention the fact that we’d be opening an important foothold for American companies to lead Iraqi reconstruction and that the balance of economics in the Persian Gulf is far greater than that in Afghanistan. These people are at least used to a limited degree of luxury and modern infrastructure of the sort our business is keen to provide. Although much of Iraq will ostensibly lie in shambles after a war, there’s far more to put back together than was the case in Kabul.


As for the whole notion that Saddam is moving forward and destroying his weapons stockpiles, I point you to the fact that he waited until the last possible moment and that he clearly possesses other stockpiles not yet declared. The Franco-German proposal for United Nations intervention is both unrealistic and unacceptable by even the most mundane of standards. Saddam is clearly attempting to fool the world and represents a threat to American allies we can no longer tollerate in good consience - not to mention that Iraq represents an important stoming ground for American business as we begin to compete more heavily with our Russo-European counterparts.

First off, [bites the n00b] Welcome to SD.Net, enjoy your stay!

Second, I will sit back and watch this thread.. very interesting..

Has the United States said anything to the Kurds? I think promises of a Kurdistan carved out of northern Iraq would help calm any trouble from that sector, though Turkey wouldn't appreciate it and I very much doubt Iran would, either.

They can send some stealth thru turkey. What they don't know won't hurt them.
How developed is Turkey in a military sense??

HemlockGrey wrote:Has the United States said anything to the Kurds? I think promises of a Kurdistan carved out of northern Iraq would help calm any trouble from that sector, though Turkey wouldn't appreciate it and I very much doubt Iran would, either.

I don't think the US will be creating an independant Kurdistan.

Looks like they don't plan on voting again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... us_iraq_42

As I've said before, a Northern Front is really useful only insofar as it helps split Saddam's forces - although we can get along in Iraq with or without that sort of accomodation on Turkey's part. American might is such that a Northern Front is more convenience than necessity. It isn't to say however that this will complicate post-war peacekeeping unless US troops can reach northern Iraq fairly quickly.

Axis Kast wrote:As I've said before, a Northern Front is really useful only insofar as it helps split Saddam's forces - although we can get along in Iraq with or without that sort of accomodation on Turkey's part. American might is such that a Northern Front is more convenience than necessity. It isn't to say however that this will complicate post-war peacekeeping unless US troops can reach northern Iraq fairly quickly.

Not peacekeeping - Reconstruction. I think there's a very defineable difference and I think we'll be stuck doing the first when we want to do the second unless we can lock down the entire country quickly. I'm also worried that this is going to involve other countries.

The Iranians already have begun moving troops into northern Iraq and Syria is deploying on the Iraqi border. The Turks, of course, already have a defensive zone in northern Iraq. If they doubt our ability to succeed - even if we think we will - they could make decisions which could have unpredictable consequences. I doubt Syria will get involved, but Iran easily might and Turkey could as well if they're not brought onboard.

Even if this doesn't happen, though, allowing a transition time in which Iraq has no central government is dangerous, precisely due to the aspirations of the various ethnic groups. We must have the whole of that country gripped firmly and swiftly. My concern is that without a northern front we'll see something happen in Kurdistan which is going to explode the entire region.

Clone Sergeant wrote:Looks like they don't plan on voting again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... us_iraq_42

This may be evidence of rumours being spread by an anti-war faction within the ruling party, or some effort by the Turks to extort a somewhat better deal out of the USA. The final deal actually has not be finalized and that's part of why it was voted down.

I'd wait and see, though this certainly is problematic.

HemlockGrey wrote:Has the United States said anything to the Kurds? I think promises of a Kurdistan carved out of northern Iraq would help calm any trouble from that sector, though Turkey wouldn't appreciate it and I very much doubt Iran would, either.

We can create an independent Kurdistan only after we've decisively won a regional war with Syria, Iran, and Turkey.

Not peacekeeping - Reconstruction. I think there's a very defineable difference and I think we'll be stuck doing the first when we want to do the second unless we can lock down the entire country quickly. I'm also worried that this is going to involve other countries.

A good deal of peacekeeping will at least coincide with – and probably preclude – meaningful reconstruction of any kind. I agree that we must move as quickly as possible to consolidate the nation and keep all potential for ethnic friction at a minimum. Now Turkish support toward that goal would be valuable certainly, but vital? Not necessarily.

Iranians already have begun moving troops into northern Iraq and Syria is deploying on the Iraqi border. The Turks, of course, already have a defensive zone in northern Iraq. If they doubt our ability to succeed - even if we think we will - they could make decisions which could have unpredictable consequences. I doubt Syria will get involved, but Iran easily might and Turkey could as well if they're not brought onboard.

Iran is unlikely to do more than funnel weapons and the occasional “volunteer” to Shi’a forces in the south. Much more eminent is the threat posed by independent Turkish intervention. But as I’ve said before, so long as American troops can somehow put themselves in the way – perhaps air-dropping light forces past the No-Fly Zones might work -, the potential for a truly horrendous conflict is mitigated. Although I doubt the Kurds will gain their own homeland, American can certainly go a far way in delivering almost total regional autonomy to that group of people.

Even if this doesn't happen, though, allowing a transition time in which Iraq has no central government is dangerous, precisely due to the aspirations of the various ethnic groups. We must have the whole of that country gripped firmly and swiftly. My concern is that without a northern front we'll see something happen in Kurdistan which is going to explode the entire region.

Transition time will be dangerous yes, but Iraq will be under American military jurisdiction for a time before potentially falling under United Nations protectorate status in preparation for new leadership to arise. Until that time, we’ll be relying on fire forces and local peacekeeping units – glorified middlemen – to decrease the likelihood of ethnic combat. It’s not quite so zany as it sounds. Dangerous, yes. Impossible, no. A Northern Front will make our job in Kurdistan that much more difficult – but not necessarily impossible. As I said, it really depends on putting Americans in the center of the Turkish and Kurdish forces.

Axis Kast wrote:As I've said before, a Northern Front is really useful only insofar as it helps split Saddam's forces - although we can get along in Iraq with or without that sort of accomodation on Turkey's part. American might is such that a Northern Front is more convenience than necessity. It isn't to say however that this will complicate post-war peacekeeping unless US troops can reach northern Iraq fairly quickly.

Supposedly the 101 were going to deploy to Turkey. Chance are the plan was to seize the northern oilfields with it to prevent their destruction. However they're well out of range of helicopters flying from Kuwait.

Supposedly the 101 were going to deploy to Turkey. Chance are the plan was to seize the northern oilfields with it to prevent their destruction. However they're well out of range of helicopters flying from Kuwait.

I assume aircraft similar to the C-130 or C-141 (the former with a potential range greater than 2,000 miles) could make the trip from Bulgaria, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia? Although the entire 101st Airborne Brigade will obviously be unable to join the mission, certain forward elements could doubtless be put in place with limited motorized support, no? Given sufficient air support - the AC-130 comes to mind here -, it's presumable that we might be able to still accomplish a majority of our mission objectives.

Enlightenment wrote:Turkey hasn't told the US to stuff it. There will be a revote in the Turkish parliament on Tuesday. 80% of Turks oppose allowing the US to use Turkey as a staging area to conquor Iraq yet the parliamentary vote failed by only four votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2812175.stm

Unfortunately, Erdogan, the leader of the majority party, said on sunday that they won't bring in the motion a second time.

Axis Kast wrote:

Supposedly the 101 were going to deploy to Turkey. Chance are the plan was to seize the northern oilfields with it to prevent their destruction. However they're well out of range of helicopters flying from Kuwait.

I assume aircraft similar to the C-130 or C-141 (the former with a potential range greater than 2,000 miles) could make the trip from Bulgaria, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia? Although the entire 101st Airborne Brigade will obviously be unable to join the mission, certain forward elements could doubtless be put in place with limited motorized support, no? Given sufficient air support - the AC-130 comes to mind here -, it's presumable that we might be able to still accomplish a majority of our mission objectives.

The 101 is a division, not a brigade

The whole point of the 101 is it has sufficient helicopters to move the complete division in only a few lifts. Throwing it on transport aircraft defeats the purpose. An airfield would have to be secured first as the troops are not jump trained and I dont think anyone has ever airdropped helicopters.


However the USAF will not send any transport over Iraq bigger then a C-130, save for occasional tankers to help damaged aircraft. The heavy lifter couldn't be spared anyway. We'd be looking at moving a brigade of the 82 to secure an airhead and then the whole 101 by C-130. Thats not going to work.

The 101 is a division, not a brigade.

My mistake - though I'm more or less correct in assuming that we'd never move a whole division into the region by air; at least at first and without a significant logistical effort.

The whole point of the 101 is it has sufficient helicopters to move the complete division in only a few lifts. Throwing it on transport aircraft defeats the purpose. An airfield would have to be secured first as the troops are not jump trained and I dont think anyone has ever airdropped helicopters.

I assumed the whole basis on which these airborne units were established was that they had had jump training. I'm fairly sure they do, in fact. As for "defeating the purpose" of movement by helicopter, I don't see where that's really an issue. Sure we might wish we could move them in using their intended equipment, but what we want and what has got to happen realistically shouldn't prevent us from taking proper action - ie, loading troops onto the C-130s.

However the USAF will not send any transport over Iraq bigger then a C-130, save for occasional tankers to help damaged aircraft. The heavy lifter couldn't be spared anyway. We'd be looking at moving a brigade of the 82 to secure an airhead and then the whole 101 by C-130. Thats not going to work.

I don't see why we couldn't temporarily spare a handful of C-130s from duties on the homefront. Nor do I understand why we couldn't do as you have suggested and deploy elements of the 82nd prior to the whole 101st in a larger, subsequent landing. It would certianly serve our purpose.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: We can create an independent Kurdistan only after we've decisively won a regional war with Syria, Iran, and Turkey.

Just park B-52s, M1A2s, and AH-64Ds inside the new Kurdistan, and
tell everyone to FUCK OFF

What are they going to do? Wave flags and send their children at us
in human waves for Allah?

I think the Kurds might take the initiative themselves if war breaks out. Watching your friends and family die in chemical attacks or die slowly of skin and lung problems would give anyone quite a bit of incentive to fight.





BTW, DRESS THY LINKS OR FACE MY RATH

Axis Kast wrote: I assumed the whole basis on which these airborne units were established was that they had had jump training. I'm fairly sure they do, in fact. As for "defeating the purpose" of movement by helicopter, I don't see where that's really an issue. Sure we might wish we could move them in using their intended equipment, but what we want and what has got to happen realistically shouldn't prevent us from taking proper action - ie, loading troops onto the C-130s.

The 101 has the title of airborne. But its troops are not jump trained, they hav't been since the Vietnam war when the Army decided helicopters provided more flexibility then parachutists and it wanted a division that was designed and trained to move using them.

Do you not get my point, its not feasible to load the division on C-130's and fly it and its equipment into northern Iraq. And we'd need even more transports to haul at least a brigade for the 82 airborne, which is a parachute unit, to secure an airhead.

I don't see why we couldn't temporarily spare a handful of C-130s from duties on the homefront. Nor do I understand why we couldn't do as you have suggested and deploy elements of the 82nd prior to the whole 101st in a larger, subsequent landing. It would certianly serve our purpose.

You don't understand just how many aircraft would be needed nor how many trips they would need to conduct. Where tlaking about scores of additional aircraft flying hundreds of missions. Each mission would also need a fixed wing escort. So hundreds more sorties which could be striking targets will be tied down, as will a swarm of tanker aircraft to keep them all fueled.