question on military tactics

[laxx]

Hi, asking a purely academic question here on Russian tactics:

Is it possible for Iraq to adopt some of the Russian defensive strategies (Such as Defense in Depth and FIBUA (fighting in built-up areas))against the US ?

Since the outdated Iraq T-72/80 tanks are outgunned, and troops are poorly trained (mostly), what are the options available to Iraq against the impending US attack ?

hope this is not too off-topic.

[Jaws]

Well it is an off-topic but it is an interesting question. FIBUA is only interesting if the US is planning to take cities. I don't think that is an option because it will cost you a lot of people and you will get a lot of casualties.

One of the very less options Iraq has is to make QRF(s) (Quick Reaction Force(s)). And a good screening force so that the can react on the US tactics rather than defending. I don't think the US is going to fight a second gulf war but an Afghanistan like scenario with the main aim to destroy the republican guards the chemical and/or nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussain with or without his political friends.

On the other hand it seems to me that this is a personal war between the family Bush and Hussain. The rest of the world is going to pay for this.

If you want to control the weapons in Iraq there are smarter ways than to start a complete war. I think they have to invest in intelligence and precision attacks with airplanes, missiles and/or Special Forces.

Bin Laden is still a free man and there is a big chance Sadam Hussain will also be after a new war.

[ January 04, 2003, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: Jaws ]

[Tigrii]

Also, the U.S doesn't need to take cities, they can just land an airborne force and seize Iraq's oilfields, effectively shutting down it's economy and forcing it to the negotiating table.

[laxx]

Interesing, but I would suppose it would be Iraq's best interest to lure the US into the cities and fight a protracted unpopular war, supposing they have enough resources to hold out for 3 months, 6 months ? Oil fields are long term objectives which I believe Iraq will rather destroy than let it fall into the enemy hands (of coss they can always blame the US for it).

Well, Iraq is not WWII Russia, it is unclear how tightly the internal security has a grip on the masses.

One thing is for sure, Russia in WWII did not engage in biological / chemical warfare.

[Hans]

Strategy wise

Iraq must delay and delay some more while inflicting casualties while awaiting the media to defeat the US. unfortunately I see no conventional way to do that.

I suspect the US will go for a "Afghan/special forces" type war and not try to take cities.

If I were Saddam I would threaten to hit my OWN people with chemicals and bio, I would see if the Western powers and the US could stomach 2-3 million Iraqi civilian casualties.

[Hans]

Strategy wise

Iraq must delay and delay some more while inflicting casualties while awaiting the media to defeat the US. unfortunately I see no conventional way to do that.

I suspect the US will go for a "Afghan/special forces" type war and not try to take cities.

If I were Saddam I would threaten to hit my OWN people with chemicals and bio, I would see if the Western powers and the US could stomach 2-3 million Iraqi civilian casualties.

[Hans]

Strategy wise

Iraq must delay and delay some more while inflicting casualties while awaiting the media to defeat the US. unfortunately I see no conventional way to do that.

I suspect the US will go for a "Afghan/special forces" type war and not try to take cities.

If I were Saddam I would threaten to hit my OWN people with chemicals and bio, I would see if the Western powers and the US could stomach 2-3 million Iraqi civilian casualties.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hans:

Strategy wise

If I were Saddam I would threaten to hit my OWN people with chemicals and bio, I would see if the Western powers and the US could stomach 2-3 million Iraqi civilian casualties.

Think the US and ALLIES have thought of that and that might be one reason why they are trying to get the UN weapons inspectors to find all the weapons of mass destruction first. I doubt they will find them all before the war starts but that is a whole other story. :confused:

I thought there were reports already suggesting that Saddam will hit his OWN people with chemicals and bio, just to see if the Western powers and the US could stomach 2-3 million Iraqi civilian casualties :eek: :eek:

Now that is a NEW kind of war....

-tom w

[Cogust]

Well I think that tactic is bound to fail for several reasons. Who is going to carry out that order for starters? They also lack the means to distribute their chemical and biological weapons (if they still have them) as their air force is gounded and they have very few SCUDs left.

And the western powers have been sitting on their hands happily while half a million Iraqi children have died due to the UN embargo, so I don't think that threat will work very well either...

[SgtMuhammed]

But remember, the embargo is so much more humane than a war . As much as we may not like to admit it there are still times where you have to be willing to beat those plowshears back into swords.

[vbfg]

Saddam is a dictator, and dictators want two things: their own lives and power. For a dictator loss of one almost invariably involves loss of the other. To lose power and not lose your life is in many cases much worse, and for Saddam I suspect that is the case. Not that if he is captured he will necessarily be treated badly, even if it's by vengeful countrymen of his, but because he has been shown to lose power by the actions of the US.

I think much of what Saddam does isn't because he 'hates the US'. I'm sure he does, but he was the same guy when he was an ally of the US and Britain as he is now. I think he does what he does to play the strong man amongst Arab leaders. When he speaks to the US he isn't speaking to the US, he's speaking to the rest of the Arab world. Not the governments either, the people.

If that's the case, here's what I'd do if I was him. Pull back to the cities and fight there. I reckon he can remember the early nineties and knows if he fights in good tank country and open spaces susceptible to large bombing campaigns that he's screwed. If to comes to war he's lost and the power and position are gone anyway.

By fighting in the cities he puts the US and allies in a position where they either have a siege of Baghdad which would cause great hardship in Baghdad and consequently great anger across the rest of the Arab world, or they go in and try and get him which would have much the same effect. He'll be hoping for the latter since irrespective of how accurate the weapons are there *will be* mistakes and innocent people *will* die.

He has to persuade his troops to fight for him of course, which is the only down side of such a tactic for him I can see. Since he is likely to have calculated that he is screwed once the shooting starts I think he'll go for the option that will hurt his enemy the most. In the current political climate making the US look as much like an ogre as possible amongst the Arab world is the best he can hope for.

Going for the oil to wreck the economy makes sense but is a misnomer. Oil leaves Iraq via a pipeline into NATO member Turkey or via ships through the gulf. One you turn both off with a switch and the other is already swarming with US ships.

[John Malcolm]

Perhaps someone who supports Bush, would be kind enough to inform us why we're going to war with Iraq. Yes, he's a ruthless dictator. But why single this one regime out from the multitude of others in the world. He poses no threat to the USA itself, only to American interests in the middle east. There are less links between Saddam's Iraq and Al Queda than there are between Saudi and Osama's organisation. The whole 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' issue seems like a lame excuse for war. The USA is planning to go to war with a country who claims not to have WMD or a proven WMD programme, while not going to war with the DPRK who have WMD and have restarted their nuclear developments. Mmmmhhh?

[jdmorse]

Originally posted by Hans:

If I were Saddam I would threaten to hit my OWN people with chemicals and bio, I would see if the Western powers and the US could stomach 2-3 million Iraqi civilian casualties.

Reading this I flashed on the scene in Blazing Saddles. Where Cleavon Little takes himself captive "Okay no one move or the N_____'s gonna get it"

[Louie the Toad]

I paraphrase Sun Tzu --- " The greatest victory is to subdue the enemy without fighting"

I certainly hope that is our strategy.

Saber rattling ..... Toad

[Cogust]

The only thing that sets Saddam Hussein and Iraq apart from any other country with a ruthless dictator is the large amount of oil there.

Why did everyone get upset about the invasion of Kuwait? OIL!

How do the western powers think they will benefit by replacing Saddam with a marionette of their own? Oil of course.

Why did the US support Saddam earlier? Because of the oil, not because he's such a nice chap.

Saddam is a bad guy, no doubt about that, but he's not much worse than most of the other dictators in the world. He just happens to be sitting on one of the world's largest oil reserves.

The only thing that can be done to solve the conflicts in the middle east and the only way to pull the teeth from Usama and his friends is to end the conflict btween Israel and the Palestinians but USA doesn't seem willing to do this as that would focre them to be pretty hard in the Israelis.

[Fionn]

As re: whether the US will enter into MOUT or not...

You all should really read your history of Colonial England from roughly 1840 to 1890 IMO ( probably best to concentrate on the middle and North African regions and India and its environs since those featured:

1. the most advanced exploitation of indigent forces for military strength at that time,

2. a thoroughly conceived and ruthlessly implemented doctrine of political and religious manipulation ( both of which are essential to the "war on (Islamic) terror" and

3. the utilisation of mostly succesful governance by proxy ( which is what the US will , of course, do once it has taken Iraq).

From the conduct of the war in Afghanistan it is clear that the American military has learnt to use indigents... it is still learning exactly how much they need to be stiffened by SF and light US forces etc but the basic doctrine is there.

Anyways, MOUT operations won't have to be extensive at all since the US will achieve most of its aims ( quick initial campaign etc) through Psyops ... much of which is already going on. What little MOUT and exposure to Iraqi anti-infantry weapons there has to be can be done by well-trained SF and the indigents they will "officer".

As to some of the other declarations of "fact" made herein:

1. " They also lack the means to distribute their chemical and biological weapons (if they still have them) as their air force is gounded and they have very few SCUDs left. "

*Cough* Artillery shells * cough* land mines *cough* command-detonated shells etc. Not that much of that will matter if the vast majority of ground troops exposed to said attacks are indigents since the deaths of a few thousand Iraqi opposition members to gas attacks will merely strengthen civilian support for the war since it will "prove" that the grounds given for war are correct...

The deaths of those Iraqi opposition members will be deaths of non-Westerners and therefore won't turn the majority of the people in the West against the war ( not in the same way that even 1/10th of those total casualties inflicted on Western troops might). Hell, stratego-politically speaking it'd be a GREAT idea to have Saddam kill a few thousand Iraqi opposition members by gassing them. It would help ease much of the Western problems in justifying the war.

[Cortes]

Just my brief two cents.

I was listening to a speaker a few months ago who'd spent a lot of time in Iraq with the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), and he told me, upon my asking how the Arab world would react to an American assault on Iraq, was as follows:

"A meeting was called up of the Arab League and change, ah, they said they'd treat an attack on Iraq just as they would on themselves."

'Course, this could just be bragging to protect themselves towards Iraqi aggression, but then again, when you view American belligerancy in foreign (especially in Arab) affairs, one cannot help but be a little frightened by the amount of hatred levelled at America presently. An attack on Iraq could be countered by the feared and almost omnipresent (I hasten to add rarely spoken about) 'second terror attack', which has a good deal of Americans quaking in their boots. Rightly so.

Add the fact that America still shares a tic when it comes to imperalist wars in foreign countries, due to 'Nam, and you've got one helluva convincing argument NOT to attack Iraq. However, knowing the present administration, I expect war in January, Febuary at the latest.

Regards.

[Cpt Kernow]

Lets not forget how strongly the American administratation is invested in OIL.

I dont want you to look at the the economic/geopolitical fortunes of the American Nation State as an hypothetical construct, but rather the very simple personal agendas of those governing said nation state. Condoliza Rice has an oil tanker named after her for christs sake.

Basicaly an illigitmate american hegemony based on familial and corporate affilliations is seeking to drag the western world into war just to further its own base ambitions.

As far as the inspectors go.

Show me a weapon. Have they found anything yet. have they fxxk.

What realy makes me sick is the fantasticaly cynical exploitation of sep 11 for personal and economic gain by the american administration.

[aka_tom_w]

this is the page link:

http://thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035776001998&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinio n

sorry for the long link I can't fix it :confused:

Dec. 29, 2002. 01:00 AM

Sticking to the main issue on Iraq

RICK ANDERSON

It's easy to blur the central point in the confrontation with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

snip.. (there's more in the article just click the link above)

Certainly, it is chilling to contemplate nuclear or biological weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein,

or any other dictator with malicious intent, or in

the hands of any terrorist organization. Perhaps the accusation that Saddam is indeed hiding weapons of mass destruction will be proven, by U.N. inspectors and/or the CIA. Perhaps not.

More central is whether Saddam sponsors, supports, or subsidizes terrorist attacks on civilians around the world, regardless of whether the chosen weapons are nuclear, biological, suicide bombs or civilian aircraft.

The issue is not simply whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. It is whether he is prepared to live by civilized rules, to respect other nations' security, to respect the lives of civilians, and to repudiate terrorism.

On these scores, the evidence seems clear. Which is why, barring a credible last-minute conversion, today's issue remains centred on the best means of achieving regime change in Iraq.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick Anderson is an Ottawa consultant who served as campaign director for Preston Manning and the Reform party.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Notice:- Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form.

[ December 30, 2002, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[laxx]

In my opinion (IMO), Iraq has been active in several front in Political, Diplomacy, and Military build-up.

On Diplomacy, it is clear that Saddam wants to stall and obfuscate the UN process (the UN disarmament declaration comes to mind), playing the Russians and French against the US. Also, as someone earlier pointed out, play the leadership role of the arab world (ala Nasser) which was recently rebuffed when Saddam did a televised apology to Kuwait.

Politically. I believe Saddam has "secured" rights of abode in Libya for the families of Generals and selected Baath and other loyal party members. I do believe he has successfully held on to his position thru terror via his security apparatus. It is unclear whether the masses will support Saddam when the great satan attacks their own country; I am thinking of how Stalin evoked the emotions of the populus to protect the Rodina (motherland), of coss, the pysche of the Russia and Iraq people are different, Iraq might be more forgiving to "liberators".

Military - I think the above messages sum up the general consensus, draw the US into a urban city fighting with a toll on civilian casualties and like CNN of 1991, get the alleged atrocities beamed world-wide.

[ December 30, 2002, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[Robert Isenberg]

Hi All

Ok I've been reading all these posts

some are saying it's only for the oil or revenge for daddy

well you might be right

But do you want to find out the hard way if Saddam has Biological/Chemical/Nuclear capabilities

We know for sure he has Chemical(just ask the Iranians and Kurds)

he has had 4 years to hide what was not found up until 1998

yes most likely oil is the answer and while Saddam said he only wanted to get back a renegade province back what would have stopped him from taking the whole Arabian penninsula if we hadn't gone in

The Big question is what would happen if we just got out of there and said to heck with the whole damn place

Everything would just be hunky dory(NOT)

Pretty much since the end of WWII the USA has been looked upon as the big guy on campus helping those that might have benifitted us in 1 way or another

what I would love to see would be more demand for other fuel sources and mean it

[laxx]

Robert said "Pretty much since the end of WWII the USA has been looked upon as the big guy on campus helping those that might have benifitted us in 1 way or another."

I think we must qualify what the "us" who might have benefitted from the USA.

Imagine, my island country of Singapore (who incidentally is friendly to everybody, heck, we even invited chiam herzog to train our conscription army), smack in the midst of 250 million people who is sympathetic to Iraq.It does not help us when the USA takes an unitary stand against real or perceived threats.

[Cogust]

Fionn,

Artillery shells and land mines might be able to carry chemical and biological weapons, but they will hardly be able to cause any significant mayhem on their own. Landmines are a pain to deploy and artillery won't be able to launch that many rounds before being hit by CB fire I imagine.

And as you say, killing some thousands of civilians will only increase the resolve of the western powers to put and end to Saddam's regime.

[Fionn]

Cogust,

Umm, your point re: the relative efficacies of arty, mines vis a vis rockets is a bit misguided IMO.

1. The effectiveness of a biological or chemical weapon is generally proportional to:

a) the concentration of the agent in the air,

the closeness of the source of the agent and

c) the ability to maintain the concentration of the agent in the air ( related to the ability to pound more shells onto the target).

I therefore propose that artillery shells and mines ( and command'detonated gas traps) would actually be MORE effective than single rockets which "get through". Certainly all military FMs re: gas usage would state that an arty barrage on a pinpoint target would be a hell of a lot more effective than a single Scud aimed at that point target.

Mines would also be more effective than the single scud you propose since they would detonate only when the enemy soldier or vehicle was in extremely close proximity and there would be a relatively high concentration and initial scatter of the chemical or biological agent which would ensure that enemy soldiers within let's say twenty metres would have a significant chance of becoming casualties.

Most Scuds would, to put it bluntly, simply fall into the middle of the desert so far away from Allied troops that no-one would be at immediate risk from any agents carried therein.

As to my point re: thousands of "civilian" deaths. No, I didn't say that actually. I spoke of Iraqi opposition members, IOW, francs tirreurs or "rebel" troops. It is "interesting" that you misinterpreted my comments re: opponents of Saddam Hussein to equal "civilian" since the US administration would love us to think along those lines ( since it is a lot easier to generate moral outrage about the massacre of thousands of civies than it is to generate it about the gassing of opposition guerillas and the family members who choose to be camped out with them).

[Cogust]

Oh I see.

My original message was a reply to the proposed tactic by threatening to kill a large number of Iraqi civilians and i have argued along these lines all the time, but you seem to be focusing on the most effective way to cause casualties (they can indeed be large, but not as large as initially proposed).

My point is that Saddam does not have the option to kill a million civilians even if he wanted to, but he can definitely kill several thousands as you say, I'm not arguing against that. To cause the MASSIVE amount of casualties suggested at the start of the thread, Saddam would need a LARGE amount of SCUDs or something similar to carry a big payload of gas to intoxicate a million civilians.

I completely agree with what you say, we're just not discussing the same thing.