War on Iraq, worst case scenario

[Mr. Mister]

Umm... firebombing Iraqi cities would accomplish what, exactly?

You don't go to war unless you have a clearly defined objective that you can accomplish by force (something the U.S. culturally has never accepted very well, although Vietnam made us recognize its truth, to some degree). In this case, the objective is the replacement of Saddam Hussein. Killing Iraqi civilians does nothing to accomplish this. Beyond that, the American populace probably wouldn't put up with it very long. Nor would Congress, so I suspect.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't see the need to flatten the population centers. Utterly destroying the local infrastructure makes the populations of cities irrelevant.

[weemadando]

Dude, look at Israel and Palestine, what is left of Palestinian infrastructure?

But they keep going and going and going. Its like the entire Middle East is composed of self-immolating energizer bunnies

[IRG CommandoJoe]

AND NO, the US could not defeat the entire Middle East without using nukes. Even you guys don't have sufficient force projection to pull it off.

Ok, he said defeat the Middle East. Basically defeat means making the other nations surrender. He gave no other specific objective than defeat. Bombing their cities would make them surrender. If a huge superpower completely leveled NYC, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C., etc., and we had no means of stopping these attacks other than surrendering, wouldn't we surrender? I never said it is a moral thing to do, but this is WAR. And the objective here is to defeat the enemies by making them surrender. Any means necessary, besides nukes, means ANY MEANS NECESSARY. So bombing cities is a way of making them surrender. I wouldn't support this unless we had a damned good reason to do so, but he said that the U.S. couldn't defeat the Middle East. I just gave him a way it could. Might not be the most moral way, but it IS a way.

[Stuart Mackey]

*looks around and hopes that Phong, Dalton and Shep doesn't notice this thread*

Look at it this way, the American Airforce and Navy Carriers provide a massive amount of force projection allowing them to effectively wage war on a massive scale and obtain air-superiority.

This is of limited use however, when you don't have the capacity to hold territory on the ground. Without men on the ground you can't win a war.

The current White House plan (last I heard) was 250,000 men (correct me if I'm wrong). Your looking at about 20 to 30 times that in the surrounding nations whom are armed and could well join in a war against the west should they choose to invade Iraq without a UN mandate, or should Israel do something excessively silly.

Now you can talk about superior training, air support and all the rest, but ground forces in the Gulf area would be cut off from land resupply, so would have to rely on aircraft resupply. Look at the Berlin airlift, it can be done, but in combat conditions? Look at Stalingrad.

I think that defeating the middle east, for the US, is quite plausable in theory, however there is the issue then what?. The US has so far demonstrated little, if any, idea of what to do with Iraq if the invade it and topple Saddam letalone the middle east as a whole. Also there has been little or no forthought into the future repercussions of such a action. Onething is quite clear however, the combat ability of the middle east is piss poor, but America would probably play it safe and deal to one state at a time with a rest period to repair and restock the ammo and fuel levels.

[Sea Skimmer]

Dude, look at Israel and Palestine, what is left of Palestinian infrastructure?

But they keep going and going and going. Its like the entire Middle East is composed of self-immolating energizer bunnies

There not thirsty and not starving, for the most part.

[Stuart Mackey]

AND NO, the US could not defeat the entire Middle East without using nukes. Even you guys don't have sufficient force projection to pull it off.

Ok, he said defeat the Middle East. Basically defeat means making the other nations surrender. He gave no other specific objective than defeat. Bombing their cities would make them surrender. If a huge superpower completely leveled NYC, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C., etc., and we had no means of stopping these attacks other than surrendering, wouldn't we surrender? I never said it is a moral thing to do, but this is WAR. And the objective here is to defeat the enemies by making them surrender. Any means necessary, besides nukes, means ANY MEANS NECESSARY. So bombing cities is a way of making them surrender. I wouldn't support this unless we had a damned good reason to do so, but he said that the U.S. couldn't defeat the Middle East. I just gave him a way it could. Might not be the most moral way, but it IS a way.

Germany had to be almost occupied befor it surrendered, And Britian never showed any desire to surrender in 40-41. The Palistians are constantly having a go at the Isrealies despite the total military superiority of the Isreilies. What counts is whether the people are of a mood to quit fighting, politians either go with the flow in such situations or are replaced.

[Stuart Mackey]

Dude, look at Israel and Palestine, what is left of Palestinian infrastructure?

But they keep going and going and going. Its like the entire Middle East is composed of self-immolating energizer bunnies

There not thirsty and not starving, for the most part.

So what? once they get food and water they go right back at it. You cannot keep a alien people captive for long. {I thank god that Azeron's not here any more..}

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Germany had to be almost occupied befor it surrendered, And Britian never showed any desire to surrender in 40-41. The Palistians are constantly having a go at the Isrealies despite the total military superiority of the Isreilies. What counts is whether the people are of a mood to quit fighting, politians either go with the flow in such situations or are replaced.

The point is that they WOULDN'T be fighting AT ALL. It would only be civilians being bombed just for not surrendering! They are being blown up by things they have no possible way of defending against. Britain and Germany kept on fighting because...what? They COULD fight. Japan gave up because they COULD NOT fight. We held back our forces and nuked their cities. It was just mass slaughter to get them to surrender.

[Stuart Mackey]

Germany had to be almost occupied befor it surrendered, And Britian never showed any desire to surrender in 40-41. The Palistians are constantly having a go at the Isrealies despite the total military superiority of the Isreilies. What counts is whether the people are of a mood to quit fighting, politians either go with the flow in such situations or are replaced.

The point is that they WOULDN'T be fighting AT ALL. It would only be civilians being bombed just for not surrendering! They are being blown up by things they have no possible way of defending against. Britain and Germany kept on fighting because...what? They COULD fight. Japan gave up because they COULD NOT fight. We held back our forces and nuked their cities. It was just mass slaughter to get them to surrender.

{sigh} And after this bit of genocide you have to occupy the country, after a period of time what do you think they are going to do? lie back and think of mother England? If a country that you have just smashed does not like you then you are going to have problems. That a government surenders does not follow that the people do, in all situations.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I repeatedly said that you wouldn't have to invade. Why would we have to invade the country after they surrender? They surrender, so the war is over. We don't have to occupy their territory.

[Sea Skimmer]

Dude, look at Israel and Palestine, what is left of Palestinian infrastructure?

But they keep going and going and going. Its like the entire Middle East is composed of self-immolating energizer bunnies

There not thirsty and not starving, for the most part.

So what? once they get food and water they go right back at it. You cannot keep a alien people captive for long. {I thank god that Azeron's not here any more..}

The requirement was to defeat the Middle East. Japan and Germany where both defeated in WW2 yet today could both start and fight rather large wars. What happens after the surrender is irrelevant, the US needs to defeat them, not conquer them.

Anyway when your water works are piles of rubble at best, dams breached,your crops have been burned, every bridge dropped, roads riped appart by exploding CBU's and your ports filled with mines and wrecked hulks, recovery is not a quick thing.

[Vympel]

I disagree with your reasoning.

I don't think there is a "morale" issue the way you described it. The Iraqi soldiers include many 1991 veterans. They know that fighting the US = certain death, but surrendering to the US means staying alive. They can reasonably expect that they will not be killed wholesale by Americans once captured, since many were not last time. experienced soldiers will tell this to the younger ones.

But that does not address the point that they will be fighting for their country in their own land against a foreign invader. Also, Saddam moved untrained Shi'a recruits on the front line and quickly moved the Republican Guard back to Baghdad- hardly any Republican Guards units were unlucky enough to face Coalition forces.

Also, since US intent is to remove Hussein, troops will surrender more quickly, knowing that they will not be going back to face the same dictator after having failed ot fight for him.

They are hearing more than the US side of the story- like the Iraqi side (propaganda and facts), and their personal experience with bombing (no-fly zones), and sanctions.

I think the Iraqi civilian population will be happy to clear out of the cities before the Americans arrive (through our psy-ops campaigns, we will give them notice), making this much easier.

Now that's just ridiculous. What are these psy-ops campaigns? You think people are actually gonna leave their homes to go out into the countryside? What are they going to eat? Where do they sleep? Will Hussein let them leave? Come off it.

Hussein may launch toward Israel. But I don't buy the "Arab world" response. Who?

Saudi? The rulers are more concerned with in-country problems, such as combatting fundamentalists. They can't unify against Israel. The rulers need every oil dollar they can get, because they are literally paying of regional religious leaders to keep the fundies in check and preclude civil war. One step against Israel and we can threaten to slow our oil purchases; in fact, this is porbably going on in secret negotiations now. Corruption and greed by the House of Saud has reversed the oil weapon: it has become (politically) a liabilty to them, not an asset.

Iran: they're not Arabs. They're Persians, who hate Arabs, and Shiite, who hates Sunnis. They won't align with Arab powers.

Egypt? Maybe, but Israel has already shown an ability to destroy them.
As an Army Ranger I trained with Egyptians. Officership in their Army is based on status not merit, anyway, suffice it to say they are a weak military force.

So who is left? I just don't buy the "Arab world" thing. It is a misconception.

- The governments friendly to the US does not mean the population is. I didn't say there'd be a region-wide conflagaration, but the civil unrest will be there, undoubtedly. Iran (it doesn't matter if they are not Arabs, they are still Muslim, and they still support the Palestinians against Israeli occupation), Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Qatar, etc etc.

Turkey wants nothing more than to get into the EU. They will tread carefully around activities that wil cause them to be denied access.

The EU means nothing compared to the territorial integrity of Turkey. And they just got rebuffed a few weeks ago, again.

[Stuart Mackey]

There not thirsty and not starving, for the most part.

So what? once they get food and water they go right back at it. You cannot keep a alien people captive for long. {I thank god that Azeron's not here any more..}

The requirement was to defeat the Middle East. Japan and Germany where both defeated in WW2 yet today could both start and fight rather large wars. What happens after the surrender is irrelevant, the US needs to defeat them, not conquer them.

Anyway when your water works are piles of rubble at best, dams breached,your crops have been burned, every bridge dropped, roads riped appart by exploding CBU's and your ports filled with mines and wrecked hulks, recovery is not a quick thing.

What happens after the war has everything to do with it, otherwise why are you going to war? After defeating them you do have the responibility to ensure the ability to sustain life, once that is established what is to stop them from going back to their old ways? even then, if you have units in the country there is always going to be the risk of individuals taking pots shots etc.
War is not a case of smashing their millitary and or infrastructure and going home to a parade and forgetting about it, this is something I rather thought America had learned about some 50 odd years ago.

[Sea Skimmer]

So what? once they get food and water they go right back at it. You cannot keep a alien people captive for long. {I thank god that Azeron's not here any more..}

The requirement was to defeat the Middle East. Japan and Germany where both defeated in WW2 yet today could both start and fight rather large wars. What happens after the surrender is irrelevant, the US needs to defeat them, not conquer them.

Anyway when your water works are piles of rubble at best, dams breached,your crops have been burned, every bridge dropped, roads riped appart by exploding CBU's and your ports filled with mines and wrecked hulks, recovery is not a quick thing.

What happens after the war has everything to do with it, otherwise why are you going to war? After defeating them you do have the responibility to ensure the ability to sustain life, once that is established what is to stop them from going back to their old ways? even then, if you have units in the country there is always going to be the risk of individuals taking pots shots etc.
War is not a case of smashing their millitary and or infrastructure and going home to a parade and forgetting about it, this is something I rather thought America had learned about some 50 odd years ago.

Sigh.. Listen, the question was could the US defeat the Middile east, it can, the question is answered.

The US vs. the whole middle east at once is not a realistic senario in the first place so I dont see the point in debateing if it could put stable nations back together after the guns fall slient.

[Stuart Mackey]

Sigh.. Listen, the question was could the US defeat the Middile east, it can, the question is answered.

The US vs. the whole middle east at once is not a realistic senario in the first place so I dont see the point in debateing if it could put stable nations back together after the guns fall slient.

Sorry I have this habit of looking at long term effects. Also, pre/post war effects do have a impact on what happens during the war. You simply cannot divorce one from the other.

[Sea Skimmer]

Sigh.. Listen, the question was could the US defeat the Middile east, it can, the question is answered.

The US vs. the whole middle east at once is not a realistic senario in the first place so I dont see the point in debateing if it could put stable nations back together after the guns fall slient.

Sorry I have this habit of looking at long term effects. Also, pre/post war effects do have a impact on what happens during the war. You simply cannot divorce one from the other.

Yes I know. Your points are very valid. The problume is we don't have enough information to work with, and the realisium problome would hamper efforts reguardless.

[weemadando]

Pakistan and India, however, would probably nuke each other into oblivion before making peace...

I put the blame entirely on Pakistan for that conflict. Religious separatism is evil, plain and simple. It has never led to anything remotely constructive in any way.

You are attempting to throw the blame wholly onto Pakistan? What the hell is wrong with you?

India is one of the most dangerously unstable countries because of its high levels of sectarian violence. You have Hindus, Muslims and even the goddamn Buddhists all fighting and bombing each other all because they want their religion to be the leading, state, religion.

That Pakistan has a state religion of Islam means nothing. Christians are accepted. Australias state religion is Christianity yet we are arguably one of hte worlds most multi-cultural societies. Just because Pakistani is muslim doesn't automatically qualify it as a theocracy that will brutally suppress all other religions. Just look at what the extremists are doing to the government now.

And a closing note, India is the aggressor nation in the Kashmir crisis, the only thing holding them back now is the fact that the Pakistanis have nukes and have a declared an intention to use them. And I personally blame the British Empire.

[Vympel]

How is India the agressor in Kashmir?

[Mr. Mister]

There's no "them" involved here. The strategic goal is the extermination of all bearers of the Hussein Y-chromosome in Iraq and the destruction of Iraqi weapons facilities. Anything not directed solely at the death of Saddam Hussein and his immediate male relatives is a waste of resources and causes needless death. What the hell does the subjugation of the Iraqi people have to do with killing Saddam Hussein? Nothing. What does the destruction of military targets in Iraq have to do with it? Unless they impede those two goals, nothing.

The proper course of action would involve heavy bombing strikes against the facilities during working hours. Elimination of weapons facilities - and their trained researchers. It would also mean airstrikes against defensive positions around wherever Hussein's suspected to be, done simultaneously. Immediately following the airstrikes, infantry landed at the sites to locate and summarily execute target individuals, and withdrawn as soon as their mission had been done. Additional bombardment/airstrikes would probably be necessary to clear a path through air defenses for transport helecopters.

Regardless, no large scale invasion. No duking it out with the Iraqi military. Just a quick and overwhelming use of force designed to ruthlessly have a scorched-earth effect on Iraqi weapons research facility, the death of every trained scientist or engineer at such facilities, and the death of Saddam Hussein and all those around him.

Harder to pull off, and it puts more American personell at risk. On the other hand, it is purposeful and direct. It gets Hussein dealt with, doesn't do anywhere near the damage to Iraq, and is less likely to incite a worst-case situation, since it's done quicker.

Gerald Ford took entirely the wrong direction when he banned assasination attempts by the U.S. government. He should have banned assine ones. You avoid war by using military equipment (read: napalm carpet bombing) against enemy political leaders.

[Sea Skimmer]

There's no "them" involved here. The strategic goal is the.. snip

Shut up and stop spewing bull about things which you know little about.

[Mr. Mister]

Things I know little about? Like the fact that Iraq isn't a democracy, so scaring it civilians by bombing some of them will have no effect on the decision to surrender? Like the fact that Saddam hasn't cared to change his ways after an embargo that's had horrible effects on Iraq's economy and left plenty of civilians dead, and is actually quite fond of killing them himself, so bombing them will have no effect on the decision to surrender? Or the fact that the U.S. has, through President Bush, defined a goal which has nothing to do with the defeat of the country as a whole?

The suggested method, yes, that came straight from my ass, inspired by reading too many Tom Clancy novels. Doesn't change the fact that fighting a war with one, or several, countries when you're after one man is overkill.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Here's another thought, our government unleashes our troops, they commit some attrocities on some locals, and we use the Serviceman Protection Act. To piss off all of our allies, and the most finantially influential country in the world. The United States is declared an "Outlaw Nation", China demands that we get off their back on their human rights violations, and the world court wants to hang Bush.

[MattTheSkywalker]

Vympel,

But that does not address the point that they will be fighting for their country in their own land against a foreign invader. Also, Saddam moved untrained Shi'a recruits on the front line and quickly moved the Republican Guard back to Baghdad- hardly any Republican Guards units were unlucky enough to face Coalition forces.

In Iran, teh Shah's forces were known as the "Immortals" because they would "fight to the last man". This all changed when they saw that they were going to lose.

The R-Guard, while it escaped intact, is a second rate force at best. Not only are they overmatched, they will be happy to give up once they know Saddam is finished.

Now that's just ridiculous. What are these psy-ops campaigns? You think people are actually gonna leave their homes to go out into the countryside? What are they going to eat? Where do they sleep? Will Hussein let them leave? Come off it.

Once US forces enter Iraq, Saddam's authority declines proportionally to our continuing advancement toward Baghdad. When the tanks are in the streets, Saddam is not in charge anymore. I suspect we will encounter thousand of surrendering Iraqi civilains.

- The governments friendly to the US does not mean the population is. I didn't say there'd be a region-wide conflagaration, but the civil unrest will be there, undoubtedly. Iran (it doesn't matter if they are not Arabs, they are still Muslim, and they still support the Palestinians against Israeli occupation), Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Qatar, etc etc.

I will agree with you only insofar as to say that our invasion could cause considerable civil unrest in the region. Not sure that is entirely bad though.

The EU means nothing compared to the territorial integrity of Turkey. And they just got rebuffed a few weeks ago, again.

The EU would be a nice carrot to put on a stock to discourgae the Turks, no?

[Colonel Olrik]

The EU would be a nice carrot to put on a stock to discourgae the Turks, no?

And what does that mean, exactly? If it is simple anti EU BS, then go fuck a tree.

Although in my opinion Turkey should join the Union ASAP, its entry has a lot of problems.

They're in a cold war with a member state. And the conflict is very latent.

There's a serious risk the fundie movement becomes too powerful. That's an argument which can be used both ways, but the major point is that the E.U doesn't want extremism inside its borders, and there are in fact strong rules against it which also apply to the member states.

An extremist Turkey member of the E.U, bordering countries like iraq, would be the hell set loose within the E.U, as the lack of control inside the E.U would allow fast route by terrorists from the middle east to Lisbon.

Finally, whether you want it or not, the level of human rights protection and overall democracy do not yet fully satisfy the requirements for membership.