Hi Tantor,
Good to have you on board at A2k you certainly give the discussion an edge!
I believe it safe to assume Iraq's military characterized by poor training and readiness, inept leadership, and appalling morale. There will, of course, be units of somewhat higher caliber, but militarily a US-Iraq armed conflict will be more of a "Live Fire Exersize" than a War in the traditional sense. Judging from the recently announced increase of Reserve Forces Activation Advisories, it would appear likewise safe to assume hostilities are yet a month or more away. The most likely scenario to my mind would involve an overwhelming initial air attack, followed closely on by ground forces, with unprecedented air-to-ground support, siezing strategic staging areas. permitting the forward deployment of Heavy Armor and Armored Infantry units augmented with considerable conventional and rocket artillery. Little damage will be done to critical civilian infrastructure by design; the bridges, pipelines, rail yards, airfields, and the like are assets of use in rebuilding the Post-Sadaam-Iraq. A few accidents or miss-targetings will occur, and it is possible retreating Iraqi units might attempt widespread destruction of civil infrastructure, but I doubt that; the troops will likely be in full route, beyond effective centralized control, unlikely to be in any mood to carry out any sort of orders period.
All of this presupposes there will be no deployment of WMD. I would not put it past Sadaam to order unleashing a gas attack actually aimed at current internal foes, and I fully expect an Iraqi attempt tp engage Israel. We can only hope the Iraqi Field Commanders with access to WMD choose to avoid assured self-destruction and refuse orders to deploy them. One of the certainties of War is that it is filled with uncertainties. It is an old military axiom that "No Battle Plan, however carefully crafted, survives First Contact with the Enemy". When the metal starts whizzing around, things can suddenly become far more complicated than had originally been accounted. Any Iraqi attempt, successful or not, to deploy WMD likely will have dire consequences for the civilian population of Iraq. Limiting "Collateral Damage" caused by Nukes, even Tactical Nukes, seems a very "Iffy" proposition at best. Sadaam probably supposes this precludes actual US deployment of Nukes. I fear he underestimates our capacity for brutality. A few hundred US/UN WMD casualties will cost Iraq a city or two.
In any event, the Post-Sadaam Iraq will be a thorny proposition itself. Tribal and ethnic divisions are no less significant in Iraq than they are in Afghanistan. Years, if not decades, of turmoil could well ensue. Like it or not, World War Three started on September 11, 2001. It promises to last a good while.
Scary times, scary times.
timber
". . . and it is possible retreating Iraqi units might attempt widespread destruction of civil infrastructure. . . ., brings to mind the oil wells set on fire by the defeated Iraqi forces as the fled Kuwait. We will be better prepared for this, this time around.
So is the US going to win?
The war games earlier in the year gave victory to Iraq, until they were replayed, because Iraq won.
If this thing happens under the proposed scenario - No One Wins!
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:So is the US going to win?
The war games earlier in the year gave victory to Iraq, until they were replayed, because Iraq won.
That's news to me. Iraq is so far worn down that I can't imagine a scenario in which they win. I have heard of no war game where Saddam won. I'd be interested to hear more specifics.
Tantor
I can't cite specifics off the top of my head Tantor, but it did happen, though it may have just been a computer simulation. I believe it was a retired Marine Corps general who went public with this. And the assumptions were later jiggered to result in an Iraqi defeat. I'm not going to try to dig this one up, but if I could recall the general's name, it would be easy.
Which is kind of like saying that 3 out of 8 missile interceptors failed in their results. That's why they test them. And make alterations based on the tests.
yeah roger i remember that and it was not that long ago like maybe in sept? they had to stop the exercise cause they lost and restarted. what seems to have happened was that the "enemy" used non-convententional tactics like using runners instead of radios for communication and blew the entire defense positions.
That's right, the General was a contractor also - they call unfair and adjusted. He was pissed!
I'm with Tantor here. This seems, as described, unlikely under any scenario I can imagine. Perhaps some other tricky corner (eg fighting in modern cities and consequent huge loss of life) is at least conceivable. So I'll wait to see evidence on this one...if anyone can point me, please do so.
Wouldn't you just know it! I disagree with Tantor and blatham doesn't. In honor of the occasion, here's you a link, which I just hate tracking down.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,787017,00.html
There was a more exhaustive, not to mention, more critical article in the WSJ around the same time.
whew thanks roger/billw i was pretty sure my memory was not all that bad.
Thanks kindly, guys. Geesh...that's quite astounding. An example perhaps, of how eagerness to keep a mandated storyline consistent can do grave damage to the truth and to the ability to see.
Here's my read on it from a distance.
Saddam is a despot. Of that there is no question. He may or may not have WOMD. He may or may not be planning to use them.
None of these things make any difference. George Bush Sr was widely criticized for allowing Saddam to stay in place after the Gulf War. George Jr is finishing the job that Daddy started. All the words are nothing but rhetoric.
Wilso
I don't buy that notion, though you aren't the only one to hold it. As I mentioned earlier, and as some analysts have argued, it would more likely seem that Bush Sr belonged to a camp (with at least Scocroft) who pressed for prudence and 'go slow', specifically indicating that folks such as Perle and Wolfowitz out to be reigned in. Though it is difficult to tease apart the various motives of the principals, I think your notion is overly simplistic.
The purpose of such exercises and simulations is to expose and define flaws before committing flesh and metal to the field. Millenium Challenge xposed glaring flaws in then-current operational planning. While not common, it is not unheard of for Opposing Forces to defeat The Home Team during maneuvers. If such weren't the case, there would be little point in conducting them. Back in the late 'Seventies and early 'Eighties, there was a great deal of criticism of the then new and unproved Abrams M1 Main Battle Tank. The Anti-Militarist Press had a field day with the unending stream of reported failures and shortcomings. In 1991, the beast's Combat Effectiveness Ratio became Several Hundred Kills to None. I believe it preferable to suffer defeats and embarassments on proving grounds and computer monitors to enduring them in the heat of combat. Van Riper's unorthodox, unexpectedly successful tactics have certainly brought adjustments to the developing battle plans, adjustments no doubt tested and refined in the more recent Qatar-Based "Inner Look" rehearsal which inuagurated the new In-Theater Command-and-Control System.
It is possible, however unlikely, that there may be no war with Iraq. The physical presence and impending certain deployment of clearly overwhelming forces may provide sufficient incentive to bring saner leadership to Iraq without actual hostilities. "Best Case" scenarios, however, rarely play out. Over the next several weeks, additional Reserves will be called up, hundreds of thousands of tons of equipment and supplies will be added to stockpiles already in the region, Active Duty units will be dispatched to the region. The fight won't begin tomorrow. If and when it does begin, the direct military outcome is a foregone conclusion. The Iraqis stand less chance against Western Military Capability than would a troop of paraplegic Cubscouts against a top-ranked NFL team in a football game. For the most part, our stuff works, and we know how to use it to greatest effect. The same cannot be said of the Iraqis.
There is the wildcard of WMD deployment by the Iraqis, but that will have no effect on the outcome, beyond horrendously raising Iraqi civilian casualties. Any previously existing Global Anti-War or Pro-Iraq sentiments will evaporate more rapidly than will the gas clouds over the battlefield. Punative retribution for such an atrocity will be swift and terrible. Sadaam knows this, but may well be crazy enough to decide that if he's going down anyway, he will try to take it all down with him. Gotterdamerung could hold a fatal fascination for him. Nevertheless, Sadaam is doomed.
The most critical, and costly, phase of this adventure will be the Post-War Reconstruction of Iraq. It is absurd to think these folks will immediately begin building strip malls, buying big-screen TVs, and amicably voting in peaceful elections. That just ain't whuts gonna happen, partner. I'm sure our Military Capability is infinitely more than a match for Iraq. I have serious reservations regarding our Post-War Diplomatic and Humanitarian capabilities. We are quite adept at wielding the hammer of war. We have not been proven particularly skilled at the art of rebuilding a war-shattered society ... something we've accomplished only once before in history, following World War Two. If indeed we can bring Iraq, and by extension, the region, into the Community of Developed Nations, with efficient, modern schools, meaningful employment, active Global Trade, representative government, and responsible social and economic programs, we win. If we fail in the endgame, we don't necessarily lose, but nobody wins. Whatever may come, Sadaam has already lost. The World had better hope we win The Peace ... The War itself is just a sideshow.
timber
Timber has hit the nail on the head, for my thinking. I've no doubt we can clobber the idiot, but i don't automatically buy the contention made by many (not necessarily Timber), that it will be quickly over with few casualties--that is a "best case" scenario, and competent military men hope for that, while planning to deal with much worse contingencies. I remain convinced that an occupation will play out much like Somolia, with a no-win situation for us as well as for the population of Iraq.
And, i agree with Wilso--even more because the Shrub's tean is just Pappy Bush's hawks redux--Cheney, Rumsfeld & Powell. When the Shrub "chose" Cheney, before the election, my first thought was, uh-oh, we're gonna get a Cheney administration if this clown wins. I remain convinced that Cheney runs this show, and that pay-back is the prime motivator in this whole bullsh!t operation.
Some of these questions seem to be a bit irrelevant, but some things a certain. Saddam does have all the weapons he is accused of, however I do not know that he has a delivery system for any of these in place as of yet.
He is supporting terrorists with money and any weapons they might ask for, the latest being several drums of VX poison that is an oily substance that kills humans by contact or inhaling and clings to everything untill washed off by rain or other sources of water.
Saddam is not personally a threat today, given a little more time he will become a terrible threat and many lives could be lost in a wait and see mode.
Think about the time lapse between the terrorist attacks. This will tell you that they are a very patient threat. The death toll grows with each attack and the last count was around 3000 for a single or multiple attack, how ever you view it.
This body count will be much higher if they are left unchecked to attack again. One fly over in a small plane with a garden sprayer and this vx poison could concievably kill 100,000 people in a populated area.
Should we wait and see? should we just turn the other cheek after 9/11? What would be the moral thing to do?
I have to admit , I do not know and I am happy it is not on my shoulders, and I must admit I am happier it is not on Al Gores Shoulders.
