US ability to prosicute war against Iraq

[Sea Skimmer]

The problem is that most of the sealift is reserve, and depending on ship needs anywhere from a week to four months to get into service. Things like the SL-7's would be ready to go before the Tanks could get to the ports of embarkation. But the Crane ship and Barge Transports, which would be very important to a Kuwait-less buildup, would take months since no one is currently trained to man them.
snip

So you have a logistics problem if rapid action is called for. I would also suggest that dependig on light forces may not be enough, depending on Iraqie actions.
Aside from this, and American commentators have not delved into it, That I have seen in NZ,is the attitude of the whole ME resulting from US action.

Given less then six weeks notice, no more then one heavy division can be supported in the gulf, and thats using prepositioned equipment. After that, we cn support as many troops as can be shipped in, about a heavy division every two weeks. However, on no notice several light divisions could be flown in and supported, and troops can flow in to use the pre positioned equipmnet for an Armored Division.

Light force alone likley are not enough, but light forces plus three over strength heavy brigades would be. Two can be ready for action in five days, though the third has to come up from deigo garcia and thats a couple days extra.

[Stuart Mackey]

People will not leave there homes, they never do, and in Iraq where are they going to go where there is shelter/food and above all, water?
Remember that Iraq is a dictatorship as well, freedom of movement is not exactly a constituational right over there

Yes but Mr Hussan happen to build bomb-shetlers in his city's so when the bombs start droping your own fault

Just like you can't blaim Civ casutlies on Hitler in England after a week of bombing and 2/3 of the Popluation of Britian where in *Bomb proof shelters

Ahh, I am sure that the news media will also point out the number of civvies killed by US action while in shelters etc, by bombs. FIBUA is nasty thing, and a PR nightmare for any democratic country, esp when the independence of that democratic country is not at stake.

[Stuart Mackey]

The problem is that most of the sealift is reserve, and depending on ship needs anywhere from a week to four months to get into service. Things like the SL-7's would be ready to go before the Tanks could get to the ports of embarkation. But the Crane ship and Barge Transports, which would be very important to a Kuwait-less buildup, would take months since no one is currently trained to man them.
snip

So you have a logistics problem if rapid action is called for. I would also suggest that dependig on light forces may not be enough, depending on Iraqie actions.
Aside from this, and American commentators have not delved into it, That I have seen in NZ,is the attitude of the whole ME resulting from US action.

Given less then six weeks notice, no more then one heavy division can be supported in the gulf, and thats using prepositioned equipment. After that, we cn support as many troops as can be shipped in, about a heavy division every two weeks. However, on no notice several light divisions could be flown in and supported, and troops can flow in to use the pre positioned equipmnet for an Armored Division.

Light force alone likley are not enough, but light forces plus three over strength heavy brigades would be. Two can be ready for action in five days, though the third has to come up from deigo garcia and thats a couple days extra.

Uh huh. Well time will tell what ill happen. But as as I suggested above, the reaction of the ME to US action against Iraq will be interesting as No one sems to have considered the results of this in the US.

[Sea Skimmer]

Perhaps because no one cares? The Middle East can do what to American? Another punitive oil embargo? The US currently gets less then 10% of its oil from Middle Eastern nations, and other suppliers can easily make up the difference. An oil embargo by the Arabs really just ends up slitting their own throats, they can't find some one else to sell to, but American has many nations to buy from. In the end, that’s the only thing they can directly do to hurt America, and its not much.

[Stuart Mackey]

Perhaps because no one cares? The Middle East can do what to American? Another punitive oil embargo? The US currently gets less then 10% of its oil from Middle Eastern nations, and other suppliers can easily make up the difference. An oil embargo by the Arabs really just ends up slitting their own throats, they can't find some one else to sell to, but American has many nations to buy from. In the end, that’s the only thing they can directly do to hurt America, and its not much.

But Mr Bush cares So why the fuss? You go in there and screw it up, I makes life difficult for others. While I dont have a problem with disposing of Saddam, I do wish that Ameica would do things in a more diplomatic manner, It ould make life easier on the rest of us.

[Sea Skimmer]

You know, the reason America did not roll north and throw Saddam out of power in 1991 was because our Allies said it was a bad idea, and that he would be taken down by his own people soon enough anyway. Being diplomatic and appeasing others resulted in the current mess. I'd rather the US did not go down that road again.

Thigns are better sorted out later, once the guns have fallen silent.

And since Iraq has been in non-compliance with the Cease fire since 1998 anyway, were already at war anyway.

[Stuart Mackey]

You know, the reason America did not roll north and throw Saddam out of power in 1991 was because our Allies said it was a bad idea, and that he would be taken down by his own people soon enough anyway. Being diplomatic and appeasing others resulted in the current mess. I'd rather the US did not go down that road again.

Thigns are better sorted out later, once the guns have fallen silent.

And since Iraq has been in non-compliance with the Cease fire since 1998 anyway, were already at war anyway.

The current mess is a result of someone in your state department realiseing that you cannot piss of multiple countries and not suffer some adverse consequences. If America goes into Iraq with out the support or at least the acquiescence of the bulk of Europe and most of the Islamic nations in the ME, you only create the kind of situations that have set up the mess that is in the ME in the first place. The world detests one dominant power, and for better or worse America will find out why that is so, good intentions notwithstanding, if it acts in such a manner.

[Doomriser]

[text below quoted from an article]

Retired Army Special Forces Master Sgt. Stan Goff, who taught military science at West Point, thinks the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein will be easily accomplished. Iraqi military power is a shadow of what it was in 1991.

Goff wrote:

“If they go, Seal Team 6 will go too, along with the Army's door-busters. They'll hit key communications, command and control targets in the city, as the 75th conducts two to three airfield seizures, whereupon they pour in conventionals onto the airheads and push out the perimeters. The set up folks like the 101 (a heliborne outfit), will begin coordinated attacks on light targets, and strongpoint lines of communication. Armor will crawl overland for eventual link-up, after the bombers make them a road. The Marines will probably forego beach assaults, with maybe one or two exceptions, and they'll be used to open up non-existent defenses, then pull glorified guard duty for a year at a time. Expect massive air, with massive civilian casualties, as prep. The hi-tech weapons are only toys.

“This will be a walk-through if it happens. The Iraqi forces are not only technologically under-gunned, they are poorly trained and unmotivated, and their doctrine is an anachronism.

“War-gaming here: If I were defending the place, I would stand down the conventionals, let them blend back into the population, and train up a thousand two-man sniper teams, and deploy them like a "go" game throughout the urban areas. Then arm the masses with light weapons and grenades. Everywhere anyone goes, they stand to be triangulated: single shots, low signature, hard to acquire a target. Single-casualty incidents and a lot of bad nerves. That’s a morale buster that provokes over-reaction, which in turn provokes popular hatred. Slow boil escalation, with the invader tied to expensive fixed installations, where he loses the battlefield initiative. I would decentralize the command structure, and issue broad strategic guidance every month or so through totally non-tech communication. About a year of that and you can spell quagmire with a capital “Q.” There would be no way to ever regain the initiative. But Saddam can't do that.

“There are four Arabs I would not want to be right now: King Fahd, Prince Abdullah, Yasser Arafat, or Hosni Mubarak. All are perceived as U.S. flunkies, and that's not a great thing right now.”

It is foreseeable that Saddam Hussein’s bluster, ego and command style will not permit him to do anything but take the field for a short time and then either be killed or take flight like so many other petty tyrants of recent history. The difference with Saddam is that much of the world might willingly receive him. The nations of Indonesia and Malaysia with the largest Muslim populations in the world are distinct possibilities.
whom the bells toll.

[jegs2]

As has already been said, the toppling of Saddam is the easy part. His army will likely not readily die in place for him. Once we overthrow Iraq, the rest of the Middle East won't make a whimper. They tend to respect the use of overwhelming military force (even if they hate it).

The difficult part will be, "What then?" Iran likely already has a shadow government ready to move into Iraq and cause us no end of grief, as most of the population of Iraq are Shi' ite Muslims, just as in Iran. A US occupation force of around a quarter of a million men would be required to both rebuild and control Iraq until a government friendly to the US could be installed and empowered. How long would we then have to occupy Iraq? Years? Decades?

Our Army isn't that big anymore, so we'd likely have to activate a few Reserve divisions. Then we have to train them to the standards of our active duty troops, stage and move them, and then conduct RSOI operations, all while maintaining the war on terrorism. How long will the American people allow thousands of Reservists to remain on active duty? How long could our economy support it?

What of Bosnia, Kosovo, and our many other commitments? Do they magically just go away?

There are countless complications involved in overthrowing Iraq, and one must ask whether or not it is worth the effort in the long run...

[Sea Skimmer]

As has already been said, the toppling of Saddam is the easy part. His army will likely not readily die in place for him. Once we overthrow Iraq, the rest of the Middle East won't make a whimper. They tend to respect the use of overwhelming military force (even if they hate it).

The difficult part will be, "What then?" Iran likely already has a shadow government ready to move into Iraq and cause us no end of grief, as most of the population of Iraq are Shi' ite Muslims, just as in Iran. A US occupation force of around a quarter of a million men would be required to both rebuild and control Iraq until a government friendly to the US could be installed and empowered. How long would we then have to occupy Iraq? Years? Decades?

Our Army isn't that big anymore, so we'd likely have to activate a few Reserve divisions. Then we have to train them to the standards of our active duty troops, stage and move them, and then conduct RSOI operations, all while maintaining the war on terrorism. How long will the American people allow thousands of Reservists to remain on active duty? How long could our economy support it?

What of Bosnia, Kosovo, and our many other commitments? Do they magically just go away?

There are countless complications involved in overthrowing Iraq, and one must ask whether or not it is worth the effort in the long run...

Actually, yes, both of those can go away on a wim. Bosnia almost did about a month ago. The rest of Europe and NATO can fill the gap with ease. South Korea has almost gone way several times, heck in 1977 when the Northern threat with 20 times what it is today Carters withdraw plans got to the point that equipment was being moved out of the country.

Most of Japan would be happy to see the Marines leave, and that about does it for major non-combat deployments.

Activating reserve formations and training them up is no big deal, the sealift doesn't exist to move much beyond the active forces needed. By the time those are in position, the Reserves and NG are already to go. It works out quite well in reality, and is a good case for deleting another active Army heavy division.

The war on terror has never used up more then a division of light infantry and a marine brigade; with have several of both on hand already. Special forces are in something of shorter supply, but the degree to which there needed really is a product of the invasion plan.

Aircraft aren’t even an issue, the Carrier rotations have gotten normalized, so three could be deployed against Iraq, and Qatar has so far not objected to an invasion, allowing the USAF to use the countries ample airfields to base several hundred planes at least.

My only concern would be the PGM supply, but a second JSOW production line is coming online shortly, and JDAM kits can be produced at an incredible rate. Plus we have some huge Maverick and Pave way II stockpiles, which haven't been touched for some time because of the more limited accuracy.

They may date to the late 70s, but they'll drop a bridge or blast a tank just fine.

As for how long the Country will support it, Clinton got away with activating a complete reserve division for peacekeeping duty in Bosnia at massive cost. And the costs of a long-term occupation can be offset from oil revenues, assuming one is needed. It really depends on if it's acceptable to break up the country, or if it must be kept in one peace with one government.

Iraq currently pumps at something like 10% of its capacity, and if the money weren't so badly abused, that would be enough to give the people a standard of living comparable to what they had in 1990. Ramped back up to 100% with the lifting of the embargo, money for both the people and the US, possibly in the form of discounted sales, will be in more then ample supply.

In the long run, it's worth it. Saddam's not an old man and its not getting any more likely that his own people will take care of him. They failed in the 1991-92 rebellion, and several later assassination attempts failed.

Leaving Saddam in power will keep a brigade in Kuwait and hundreds of planes plus a MEU busy for the next couple decades easily.

[Mr Bean]

Devil's Advocte question
What if we claim Iraq for our own?(Not the 51st State but more in the way of *War Booty style, IE the oils ours, feel free to try and take it from us)

[Master of Ossus]

Devil's Advocte question
What if we claim Iraq for our own?(Not the 51st State but more in the way of *War Booty style, IE the oils ours, feel free to try and take it from us)

We would be accused of taking over Iraq much as Iraq conquered Kuwait in its infamous extra province campaign. The Arab states nearby would turn against us and prevent American forces from moving freely in the region, and the Americans would really not have much of an ability to move oil around without coming under attack from Arab ships and aircraft (the ones they have), without great difficulty.

[Mr Bean]

The Arab states nearby would turn against us and prevent American forces from moving freely in the region, and the Americans would really not have much of an ability to move oil around without coming under attack from Arab ships and aircraft (the ones they have), without great difficulty.

Except the only Arab stats with weapons bascily are SA, Iraq, Iran and Kuwait

Iraq we have. And troops in SA and Kuwait we do

[Sea Skimmer]

Devil's Advocte question
What if we claim Iraq for our own?(Not the 51st State but more in the way of *War Booty style, IE the oils ours, feel free to try and take it from us)

We would be accused of taking over Iraq much as Iraq conquered Kuwait in its infamous extra province campaign. The Arab states nearby would turn against us and prevent American forces from moving freely in the region, and the Americans would really not have much of an ability to move oil around without coming under attack from Arab ships and aircraft (the ones they have), without great difficulty.

And their armed forces would be completely destroyed within three days at minimal loss to the United States. They have shit for navies, two carriers can field as many modern aircraft, and they'd slit their own throats in attacking America. America could easily intercept every tanker leaving the gulf and impound it, or seize the cargo and ship. The Arab economies, especially Saudi Arabia cant take that. Its doubtful SA could even support a one-week oil embargo today; they just don’t have the cash.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

We won't have to take over Iraq. We will instate a democraticly elected government. This will remove the claims of "puppet regime." Freedom is contagious. Look what happened to Eastern Europe. When the gripping hand of tyrrany slipped, just for one moment, they wriggled free.

The one and only democratic Arab state, being assured prosperity like our old enemies of WWII, will pressure the other despots. By it's very exsistence. Iran is teetering on the edge, right now. The show of force, (the only thing ANY despot respects) will not go unnoticed.

With Iraqi oil flowing freely into America, (and the money flowing freely INTO Iraq) the US will move out of Saudi land, onto Iraqi land, and glare menacingly at the rest of those piss pot assholes.

We will then be able to confront the Saudis, about this supporting terrorism thing. As they will no longer be needed, for oil, or land for bases. This will also take the wind out of many sails, reguarding the presence of infidels, in the holiest of lands.

The loss of revinue to the Saudis, will cripple their already teetering economy.

The cowardly Eurotrash, will, (now that the hard part is over), proclaim they were behind us all the way.

China will rethink it's "America is a weak willed paper tiger" model.

If Saddam lets loose a few chemical, or radialogical weapons on Israel, then the sands shift. The Isrealis have made no subtle point, about MASSIVE nuclear retaliation, if ONE gas or dirty bomb is fired into there land. Intercepted or not! They will not stop with Iraq, either. Damascus, and Beirut are going as well. Their northern border will be "demilitarised"!

[Stuart Mackey]

Devil's Advocte question
What if we claim Iraq for our own?(Not the 51st State but more in the way of *War Booty style, IE the oils ours, feel free to try and take it from us)

We would be accused of taking over Iraq much as Iraq conquered Kuwait in its infamous extra province campaign. The Arab states nearby would turn against us and prevent American forces from moving freely in the region, and the Americans would really not have much of an ability to move oil around without coming under attack from Arab ships and aircraft (the ones they have), without great difficulty.

And their armed forces would be completely destroyed within three days at minimal loss to the United States. They have shit for navies, two carriers can field as many modern aircraft, and they'd slit their own throats in attacking America. America could easily intercept every tanker leaving the gulf and impound it, or seize the cargo and ship. The Arab economies, especially Saudi Arabia cant take that. Its doubtful SA could even support a one-week oil embargo today; they just don’t have the cash.

And just how long do you think that the rest of the world will tolerate America behaving like that? Or for that metter America tolerating such behaviour? Acting in self defence is one thing, so is supporting democracy in other nations, but invading countrys esp in the ME tends to fuck off a lot of people and cause economic problems as well. Suffice it to say, why cause more of the same trouble you have now?
If America wants to act like that, fine, just expect to get yours at some point in the future from fundimentalists.

[Next of Kin]

We won't have to take over Iraq. We will instate a democraticly elected government. This will remove the claims of "puppet regime." Freedom is contagious.

Just who will the U.S. instate? If you allow for free elections will the US be willing to accept a fundamentalist party taking over or worse, one of Husseins kids taking over. No matter how you dress it up it will still be a puppet state. In this case it is US puppet.