 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
Tanks SpencerH for a very good link. I recommend everyone read it: it is highly informative.
I took a class with a prof. that the US air force had hired to teach USAF officers about air war theory. IN our class, he showed us the estimaes of bombing damage the US had done right after the gulf war, and the revised estimates a few years later. In many categories the US had overestimated the damage it had done by 20 percent, though 10 percent was more common.
I do think US casualties will be light, perhaps 1% fatalities, which should run about 1,000 men to 1,200 overall, highest estmate. The thing is, yes, the Shi'ites might not fight for Saddam, but what about the 20% of the pop. that might not want a democracy that much because that means more power to the Shia and the Kurds? It is from their ranks that Saddam's officals, the Republican guard, and his stanchest supporters come from. If, lets say, 40,000 men dugg themselves in Baghdad to fight to the death, the last battles of this war might be very messy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Tanks SpencerH for a very good link. I recommend everyone read it: it is highly informative.
I took a class with a prof. that the US air force had hired to teach USAF officers about air war theory. IN our class, he showed us the estimaes of bombing damage the US had done right after the gulf war, and the revised estimates a few years later. In many categories the US had overestimated the damage it had done by 20 percent, though 10 percent was more common.
I do think US casualties will be light, perhaps 1% fatalities, which should run about 1,000 men to 1,200 overall, highest estmate. The thing is, yes, the Shi'ites might not fight for Saddam, but what about the 20% of the pop. that might not want a democracy that much because that means more power to the Shia and the Kurds? It is from their ranks that Saddam's officals, the Republican guard, and his stanchest supporters come from. If, lets say, 40,000 men dugg themselves in Baghdad to fight to the death, the last battles of this war might be very messy. |
you raise 2 questions - 1. what about the Sunni arabs - i dont think all of them are pro-Saddam - most of his staunch supporters are from his own Tikriti clan - plenty of sunni arabs have experienced the regimes oppression - i suspect it will go something like in Afganistan with the Pashtun - they will stand aside as coalition forces win, but with more wariness then the other ethnic groups - and will then push for maximal influence psot-war - with the difference that the Sunni arabs are less numerous proportionately than the Pashtun, but have MUCH more powerful friends outside (IE most of the Arab world)
2. What do we do about 40,000 or so special republican guards??? Depends. Are they sitting amidst rubble without civilians nearby, with pro-Saddam civilians around or with anti-Saddam civilians around?? Are there chemicals on the battlefield?? How well supplied are they?? How well trained???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
you raise 2 questions - 1. what about the Sunni arabs - i dont think all of them are pro-Saddam - most of his staunch supporters are from his own Tikriti clan - plenty of sunni arabs have experienced the regimes oppression - i suspect it will go something like in Afganistan with the Pashtun - they will stand aside as coalition forces win, but with more wariness then the other ethnic groups - and will then push for maximal influence psot-war - with the difference that the Sunni arabs are less numerous proportionately than the Pashtun, but have MUCH more powerful friends outside (IE most of the Arab world)
2. What do we do about 40,000 or so special republican guards??? Depends. Are they sitting amidst rubble without civilians nearby, with pro-Saddam civilians around or with anti-Saddam civilians around?? Are there chemicals on the battlefield?? How well supplied are they?? How well trained??? |
But here are very great difference between Iraq and Afghanistan:
First, our enmies in Afghanistan were very weak: at most, 50,000 men armed with very few heavy weapons at all, no means to challenge, even for one day, our control of the air, minimal military training and cohesion, and they fought out in the open, were US control of the air matered most. There was minimal city fighting in Afghanistan.
Second: while many Sunni have been oppresed, the qestion is, would they like to give up power to the Shia majority? In Afghanistan we made heavy used of internal forces waging a civil war. Among the Arab parts opf Iraq infighting ended with a Sunni victory back in 1991.
As for the Republican guard, estimate put them at about 100,000 men. They are the best equiped, best trained men of the Iraqi army, and really the only bit we worry anything about. What kind of future can they see for themselves wth Saddam gone? and many of the officers have city fighting experience, and close fighting experience built during the war with Iran. As for civvilias: their political stripes matters not to figthing: thy will simply want to put their heads down: even if they are anti-Saddam, they won't want to die in the battle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
But here are very great difference between Iraq and Afghanistan:
First, our enmies in Afghanistan were very weak: at most, 50,000 men armed with very few heavy weapons at all, no means to challenge, even for one day, our control of the air, minimal military training and cohesion,
|
I remember being told there were at least 75000 taliban. Also that there lack of heavy wepaons was a challenge, becuase there would be no good targets for our Air force. So the Iraqia have some air defence, and some heavy weapons - that means good targets, no ?? Not that them having heavy weapons is good for us (pace above) but the heavy weapons and air defense are the easiest for us to hit - if their going to hurt us in Bagdad it has to be an infantry battle.
quote:
and they fought out in the open, were US control of the air matered most. There was minimal city fighting in Afghanistan.
|
afghanistan was goin to be a quagmire because of the mountains, poor roads, etc. Iraq is falt and open. Now urban terrain does unique present challenges, i dont dispute that, but its an open question whether and how we can overcome them.
quote:
Second: while many Sunni have been oppresed, the qestion is, would they like to give up power to the Shia majority?
|
Other than a handful of Tikrities, the Sunni Arabs dont HAVE power in Iraq today. They certainly wont like a Shiite-Kurdish majority regime, but I doubt many will fight for Saddam.
quote:
In Afghanistan we made heavy used of internal forces waging a civil war. Among the Arab parts opf Iraq infighting ended with a Sunni victory back in 1991.
As for the Republican guard, estimate put them at about 100,000 men. They are the best equiped, best trained men of the Iraqi army, and really the only bit we worry anything about. What kind of future can they see for themselves wth Saddam gone? |
And yet Saddam wont let them the main Republican Guard into Bagdad, apparently for fear of a coup. Now with US troops in Iraq he will likely take the gamble and let them in, but I dont think all of them are completely reliable.
quote:
and many of the officers have city fighting experience, and close fighting experience built during the war with Iran. |
IIUC the iran - iraq war had very little sophisticated combined arms tactics - if they think that the US troops will fight like the Iranian Revolutionary Guards theyre in for some rude shocks.
quote:
As for civvilias: their political stripes matters not to figthing: thy will simply want to put their heads down: even if they are anti-Saddam, they won't want to die in the battle. |
If the civilians just want to be safe, their best bet is to flee Bagdad, which coalition forces will certainly encourage - that should make the goin much easier in Bagdad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
What about the Russians early in ww2?
Many fo them fought to the death for a system I can't see them loving.
|
Knowing what the Germans would do to their country when they occupied it. Which makes the case for conquering the area outside bagdad first, then setting up a provisional govt, and letting them see what the fate of occupied Iraq.
quote:
Many young Iraqis know nothing before Saddam, and thier only source of information is the Saddam run press. A boy who might hate Saddam, but love his country might think this is about oil and another country coming to take what his country has: thta boy might then fight the US, even if he doesn't crae one bit about Saddam.
|
well theres the BBC, radio sawa, etc. There should be loads of leaflefts and other psy ops. May not work, we'll see.
quote:
If the leevl of nationalism in Iraq is so low that no one will fight for thier country, then what's the future of the country going to look like?
|
I dont see them failing to fight coalition forces as a sign of lack of nationalism.
quote:
The best estimates I saw were 50,000. Also, the Taliban for the most part did not go to the mountains: they fought out in the open, were US bombers pulverized them. The Iraqi's have ad years of studying the effects of the 1991 air war, and they have sent delegates to Serbia to figure out the efefcts of our bombing there. I find it hard to believe that the evel of tactical sophistication between a bunch of guys who think TV is evil and a bunch of guys who watch CNN or the BBC would be the same. |
Touche. But the taliban were supposed to be heirs of the pashto fighting tradition, everyones a warrior all their lives, etc. and the iraqis may at least realize they need to learn tactical lessons, but this isnt the Prussian general staff we're dealing with. Yeah theyve learned not sit out in the open and to go hide (the troops they can trust) in the cities. Doesnt mean they know how to fight effectively against our troops in the cities. This isnt going to be a repeat of GW1 or Kosovo. It will be harder than either of those (or afganistan) but i really doubt the outcome will be as dire as you think. The israelis have managed to take cities against smaller but much more motivated forces, with considerably less resources on thier side, and in a much more difficult political environment. .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You're not using this as a serious example, are you? |
Why not? its as equally valid as all other "historical" examples.
LoTM:
Radio Sawa is a joke: people do listen, for the music. I don't think they give a damn about its news. There are also other arab news netwoks as well, if we are going to include outside media.
As for city fighting: we lost 18 men in a single firefight with soldiers far less effective than trained Iraqi forces in mogadishu, and those soldiers were much less effectively armed. And Baghdad is a much bigger target and a more complex one. We also lost 25 men in Panama in 1989, again, against much weaker forces. After all, the US Army is not run by the Prussian General Staff either, now is it?
As for the Israelis, they lost 23 men in the fighting for Jenin, which is tiny compared to Baghdad, against forces with far less firepower. The Israelis have not gone into Gaza in part for fear of what would develop.
1000 dead Americans in an operation of such scale with such aims is still a tiny number. To think that we will only loose as many men as we lost in Afghanistan is the view I find trully ridicolous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Saddam isn't superman Ned:
A man like him stays in power for 30 years only because there are many, many other complicit in his crimes. As Che said, there is no future for many Iraqis in an Iraq without Saddam. Saddam has family members as well. Kill Saddam and leave Udday, tha's not much better really.
THe worst mistakes to make are to underestimate the enemy and overestimate oneself. Those that think Saddams Iraq will fall lke some flimsy house of cards are those that open themselves to the worst possibe disappointment. |
a few months ago their was talk of using an "afghan strategy" - only air and special forces working with locals, or of an inside out strategy - using about 50,000 coalition troops.
We're going in with, it looks like, about 200,000 grund troops (US 1st, 3rd and 4th inf, 1st arm, 1st cav - which is armour, 101st airborne, a marine task force,and a UK armor div) at least 4 carriers (probably more) lots of land based air PLUS special forces and whatever locals we can manage to sway. The cautious folks at the Pentagon have won, we're goin in like the Iraqi army is a major threat and there will be little help from inside.
That said, the number of "war criminals" who have no choice but to fight on is probably no more than a few hundred - we didnf imprison every nazi party member after ww2, and wont imprison every baathist - we didnt imprison every waffen SS and wont imprison ever special republican guard (though i hope no US presidents go to visit rep. guard cemeteries
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Why not? its as equally valid as all other "historical" examples.
LoTM:
Radio Sawa is a joke: people do listen, for the music. I don't think they give a damn about its news. There are also other arab news netwoks as well, if we are going to include outside media.
As for city fighting: we lost 18 men in a single firefight with soldiers far less effective than trained Iraqi forces in mogadishu, and those soldiers were much less effectively armed. And Baghdad is a much bigger target and a more complex one. We also lost 25 men in Panama in 1989, again, against much weaker forces. After all, the US Army is not run by the Prussian General Staff either, now is it?
As for the Israelis, they lost 23 men in the fighting for Jenin, which is tiny compared to Baghdad, against forces with far less firepower. The Israelis have not gone into Gaza in part for fear of what would develop.
1000 dead Americans in an operation of such scale with such aims is still a tiny number. To think that we will only loose as many men as we lost in Afghanistan is the view I find trully ridicolous. |
My point on outside media was that yes, iraqis do have some idea of whats going on outside.
Mogadishu - IIUC that was a small isolated group sent in with too little support, against a poorly armed but very large force, etc. Hopefully we've been learning some lessons too.
the israelis fought in environment where they could not use heavy firepower because of the political consequences of a largescale civilian deaths, and the civilians stayed put precisely to make it difficult for the israelis.
im not saying this will be as few casualties as afghan - and your estimate of 1000 to 1200 is certainly possible - but i think its on the high side, and COULD be lower.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Why not? its as equally valid as all other "historical" examples. |
No it isn't. The Nazis were commiting genocide against the Russians as they advanced; Stalin was by far the better choice in that equation. How exactly does this situation bear any resemblence to an American invasion of Iraq? 
Your comparison is absurd; I expect better from you GePap... |
Actually, it is quite valid: after all, many, many Ukranians (also slated for extermination) welcomed the Germans as liberators, as did many of the Baltic peoples (also slated for extermination). The first victims of the Nazi's in the east, Jews and gypsies were not very popular with the common folk. No, a Russian soldier in June and August 1941 had no freakin idea what the German would start doing a few months later (remember, I said Russian, not Ukranian, Balt) to them. At that point, facing an oncoming enemy, what held them there? Love for the Party? Fear of what their political minders migth do to them if they moved and fled, or surrendered? (after all, at least 2 million Russian troops surrendered in the first few months, since they had no clue at that point that their fate was very likely death. If the Russians knew so far in advance what their fate under German rule would be, why would millons sign their own death warrants?) Or love of Russia?
So again, it is quite valid.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
This war will be so boring:
I wish something interesting would happen. Like what, you ask?
Wouldn't it be fun if the Iraqis reached some strange backrool deal with Iran, so that the day the US invaded th south, Iranian forces would also invade Iraq, stating that they are there as well, to liberate Iraqis from the evil Saddam regime, and head straight to Baghdad.. then the Iraqis surrender to Iranian forces, who give amnesty to all, exept saddam and his buddies, who somehow get away. Then a new Iraqi government takes place before the US and UK have even made it to Baghdad.
That would be fun...... to see, now wouldn't it?
Too bad it won't happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
We're going in with, it looks like, about 200,000 grund troops (US 1st, 3rd and 4th inf, 1st arm, 1st cav - which is armour, 101st airborne, a marine task force,and a UK armor div) |
The deployment you found (8 divisions) appears heavier than the one I found earlier (5 divisions). Even with your deployment numbers it doesnt come anywhere near 200,000 ground troops. I havent looked at these issues for quite a while, but a better number would be 15-20K/div so around 120-160K. In addition our divisions carry a lot of support units so the number of actual troops with rifles who know how to use em is probably half that number. I've little doubt that the Iraqis are not gonna hold in the desert but Baghdad is a city of 5M people! If they oppose the 'coalition' forces or if even half do so, we will have big problems in the city.
Saddam Hussein has had lots of time to learn from his mistakes. Hopefully he hasnt done so but it's stupid to underestimate the Iraqis as soldiers because of western prejudice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You don't understand. A local TV station have sent reporters to Baghdad. The common Iraqis hate Dubya - they will fight him. They do not trust the US, not when they still want to have weddings in peace. |
You have to remember that the common people are afraid to speak their minds because Saddam's secret police have the habit of jail/torturing/killing just about anyone who makes even a sideways comment that doesn't whole heartedly support the regime.
Thus when asked political questions by a foreign reporter whom they do not know, of course, they are going to spout the party line. Especially since Iraq censors get to "escort" journalists and review their tapes.
I'm sure a bunch of them do hate Bush but the question is do they hate Saddam more and what will they gain by continueing to stay on a sinking ship? I contend that in the end they will be pragmatic.
Last edited by Oerdin on 25-01-2003 at 08:37
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-01-2003 00:44
Even in the NWFP and Baluchastan, the fundies didn't have majority control of the provinces until the last election, when their support shot up incredibly (they were pretty much insignificant before the election), I suppose cooincidentally after the US started using Pakistani bases. You can't honestly believe that their sudden power is due entirely to a renewed desire for sharia (although it's true that part of their support is due to the corruption and oppression of the secular parties)...
|