posted
Might it not be prudent to consider the trouble the U.S. (and probably Great Britain, too) will have to go through to oust Hussein, since Iraq will probably be our first target of the three nations Bush mentioned?
* Limited staging area. With the Saudis asking us to reduce our forces in their country, I doubt they'd let us build up an army as they did 10 years ago. They might also refuse to allow us to launch air-strikes from our bases in Saudi Arabia (not so sure if they have the legal right to refuse that, but I think they do).
* The Turks have had a long dispute with the Kurds. They would object to any military force utilizing the Kurds as allies, since such action could possibly result in the Kurds gaining their own nation in what is currently northern Iraq. If we do decide to utilize the Kurds, the Turks might also refuse permission to launch strikes from our bases in Turkeys, and possibly not allow us to use any naval ports in Turkey.
* Without being able to stage forces in Saudi Arabia or Turkey in a worst-case scenario, this would leave us with an amphibious landing by US Marines. Even backed up by Navy jets launching from Aircraft Carriers, this would both extend our time to put any sizeable force of troops on the ground, as well as give the Iraqis time to muster a stronger, more concentrated defense then they've previously had.
Of course, once the Marines have secured an airfield or two, we can start bringing in Army troops by C-130s and sending in the short-range jets which comprise the majority of the USAF to go to work on Saddam.
Anyhoo, I certainly think an invasion of Iraq is possible. Even given the worst-case scenarios above, we should be able to march in, oust Hussein and his Republican Guard, and start setting up a provisional government fairly quickly. I don't think we'd be able to move as quickly as we have in Afghanistan (due in large part to support from the Northern Alliance), and, again, the majority of fighting will be done by U.S. and British troops -- not by the rival faction in a civil war. Another big question: with Americans and Brits taking the brunt of casualties, will Bush still have enough support after this to go after Iran or North Korea ... ?
posted
Gee, if only he would finish what was once started.........
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Frankly, I only see Iraq as the only credible threat. Iran is turning a corner with its reformist factions, and North Korea is becoming less triggerhappy. I'd take a Wait and See approach on those two nations.
As for Iraq, I can agree with the sentiment around that So Damned Insane is hiding something very destructive.......
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You didn't mention an extended pre-ground-troops air bombing, which would almost certainly come from carrier groups in the Med, Red Sea, and Gulf (assuming we aren't granted the use of bases in any of the countries you mentioned), would be essentially unopposable by the Iraqis, and is much of what allowed the first war to be won in as short a time as it was.
If they concentrate their defense, we just drop more bombs closer to each other and blow them up more. Or use a multipronged attack.
I think if we could capture or create a staging ground airfield somewhere inside Iraq (perhaps just north of Saudi Arabia - in a lonely part of the desert where it wouldn't be too hard to hold), we could land tanks there. Of course, then the problem becomes getting water in. I don't know how we did that for our field troops last time... maybe need to find an oasis or artesian well.
And if Hussein uses any chems or bios, we vaporize him.
[ February 04, 2002, 17:45: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:You didn't mention an extended pre-ground-troops air bombing, which would almost certainly come from carrier groups in the Med, Red Sea, and Gulf
The problem is, that the Navy by itself is a lot less effective then with the Air Force, which can bring a lot more weaponry to the field. Sure, we can launch long-distance bombers from the States, but just saying that we can send in carrier groups doesn't mean that all is okie-dokie. I'm sure Ritten can attest to this, as several friends in the Marine Corps corrected me when I asked "why do we need an Air Force when we've got the Navy, eh?"
posted
There's always Diego Garcia and Italy, from which medium-range bombers could launch, I think.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I say we use a few venture-class scouts to relay transporter singals to safe areas ourside the country... to evacuate all the innocent people.. then pummel the surface with a few quantium torpeedos.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The transporters have an innocence filter now?
As for air strikes, there's always Israel, who might let us use their airbases. Theoretically, I suppose we could use Afganistan, but we'd have to go either through or around Iran. Then there's the southernmost tip of Russia, near the Caspain Sea. And don't forget Kuwait. They kinda owe us. Though I'm not sure whether they have the launching facilities.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:but we'd have to go either through or around Iran
Oh, yeah, like they're going to let us fly unopposed through their air-space. Well, maybe, but only if Bush promises to back off his rhetoric. Otherwise, you're talking about two fronts.
quote:And don't forget Kuwait. They kinda owe us.
Yeah, 'cuz we were the only nation in the coalition against Iraq. Don't forget, Omega, despite the propaganda you've heard, Kuwait isn't a whole lot nicer then Iraq or Saudi Arabia. And if Saudi Arabia won't let us use their airbases, why would Kuwait?
posted
Non sequitor. How "nice" a government is to their people is not relevant to whether they would let us use their military facilities.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Launching attacks on Iraq from Israel strikes me as a candidate for what could be the most retarded military plan ever. Up there with marching on Moscow in late fall.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Um... I wasn't saying that any of those options would WORK. Just that they were areas nearby that we just might be able to use. Thus my pointing out the flaw in using Afganistan.
You really have a hair trigger lately, Benson. Take a deep breath, and go meditate upon the works of Peter David. It'll help clear your mind.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
