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 by Lost (Member # 417) on :
Gee, if only he would finish what was once started.........
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
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.......
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Any disagreements/agreements with my military analysis ... ? Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
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 ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
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 by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
There's always Diego Garcia and Italy, from which medium-range bombers could launch, I think.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
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.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
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.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
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 by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Non sequitor. How "nice" a government is to their people is not relevant to whether they would let us use their military facilities.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, but the other points I made are. Of course, you skipped over those.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
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.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, unless you actually are Israel.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
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.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
When you can land a C-5 Galaxy with an M-1 Main Battle Tank, a B-1 Bomber, and a KC-135R Tanker on a carrier deck then you won't need the Air Force.....
The Navy and the Marine Corps like their carriers, can't blame them, they can move, airbases can't, they can sit and get hit though.
These days it is, usually, unimportant too distinguish between branches, since they all work together as a matter of nessecity. Except for the Army/Marine Corps thing.... Marines really hate to be called Naval Infantry.......
Strategic strikes with B-2's can happen against any country, easily, so that should be the first strike, unless you want to make a statement, then Tomahawks fired off of cruisers/destroyers/submarines will do that. We can fly up the Gulf and over Kuwait, since we can fly out of Kuwait to strike Iraq right now.... Same for Turkey.
Re-enforcing the brigade stationed in Kuwait would be nessecary, several Corps could be placed there, if the Navy can protect them in the Gulf. This would also be a job, in the air, for the Air Force.
All the SL-7s, fast sealift ships, would need to transport what they can. Heavy armor and their supporting trucks.
Also the MPPS, Maritime Pre-Postioning Ships, which carry most of what you need to take over a country the size of Kuwait (sustained combat opertions for 30 days) are also stationed at Diego, along with a couple of boat loads of equipment.
It would have to work like it did for Operations Shield/Storm, depending on what treaties have come about since then......
And if there are no treaties worth a crap you can also use money, Most Favored Nation status, increased military aide, lowered tariffs, etc. to gain cooperation from who we need.....
Turkey may have to decide between the lesser of two evils, Say Damns NBC weapons or letting us help the Kurds... Which they have already, letting us fly aid out of our NATO sanctioned airbases and air drop it on the Kurds....
The military aspect is usually easy to plan and accomplish, compared to the political aspect....
Dang, this frisky keyboard stuff is catchy......
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The problem with sealift is that you need a harbor to offload any serious hardware. The Navy or the Marines don't have anything that could sail all the way to the shore and disgorge large numbers of vehicles directly (and they don't want that - they got rid of the Newports and they are not going back). AFAIK, they don't have anything like the WWII portable harbors, either.
What they have is the ability to do a semi-standoffish delivery of a couple of "reinforced batallions" to an essentially pre-secured (read: carefully bombed) beach.
So the trick is in establishing an area where the main forces can offload safely, and Saudi and Kuwaiti unco-operation would mean that area would have to be in Iraq. Meaning that a non-superior US force would have to hold a beachhead until it could be reinforced into a superior one. I think that means a bloody fight, or the risk thereof.
Surely that's doable, but it's bloodier than anything the US has done for a while. The air superiority would have to be even more absolute than in 1991 to minimize the risks on sealift, let alone airlift. And there's no chance of making it a surprise attack now.
A special forces strike against Saddam himself might do the same as a full-scale invasion. If only such strikes worked in reality as nicely as they do in the books.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:You really have a hair trigger lately, Benson.
Sayeth you.
quote:Take a deep breath, and go meditate upon the works of Peter David. It'll help clear your mind.
I doubt it, given that his stuff is pretty damn horrible.
Posted by Jack_Crusher (Member # 696) on :
We should have just nuked Iraq in 1991 when we had the chance. Any countries that tried to fill in Iraq's place, we could have bombed them. Put the fear of Allah into all of those countries over there. That would've made all those countries over there stop fighting.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, let's nuke everything. Warmonger.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
From what I heard at the time, there was a possibility of our using a nuclear device on Baghdad, but only if Saddam had launched an all-out chem/bio attack on the coalition troops.
Because if you nuke Baghdad, you lose thousands of years of precious archaeological artifacts, sculptures, art, and whatever else Saddam's hoarded there. Plus you probably don't get Saddam, and you give the Left something new to complain about you having done.
No, we shold not have nuked Iraq. We should have fully committed, invaded, captured him, whacked his supporteres, set up a pro-West government, and rebuilt the country according to our terms, but we shouldn't have nuked them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think there's something else in Baghdad too...I can't quite remember what...it probably isn't important.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I know what you're saying. I thought I had added 'would have blown up a lot of people who weren't soldiers, and the hostages, if there were any left by that point.' Must have lost that in the 'refresh.'
Still, might have killed less people that way than the sanctions are supposed to have killed.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes. If you're going to declare war on a country (or go to war with them -- there is a difference), then one objective should be certainly be to get the leaders of your objective.
Of course, in the past, the American people haven't always liked the losses incurred (Somalia, anyone)?
Posted by SS Titanic (Member # 417) on :
You'd be suprised how much crap from WW2 is still around....
Now they've got LCAC, Landing Craft Air Cushioned, good for over the horizon landings. Plus there is stll a few LSTs, Landing Ship Tank, around, which carry pontoon bridges as portable harbours.
We have it, it is old, but would still work in a 'limited' war or regional conflict, depending on terminology....
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Then again, every conflict since WWII has been limited in scope and nature the casualties then depend on the cause and the objective.
Somolia was perhaps a good cause, but with an ill-defined objective, bad things happened.
Posted by SS Titanic (Member # 417) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)