Certainly the Iraqi defense is stronger than anyone expected. However, they have really made a number of mistakes that are costing them dearly. Whoever was in charge of their strategic decisions was smart. They have a good communication network, strong pre-positioning of weapons and a decent strategy. However, carrying out that strategy has not been successful. They have not destroyed ports, railroads, bridges or roads. Their mining operations, on land and on water, are weak. The weapons were often not distributed or issued. Training is lax - their troops engage at extreme ranges and miss, which only serves to slow the US forces down a short while. And the oil wells are still mostly sitting pretty. I can't imagine that they did not think of these things before the war. Some of these could not be helped - Saddam could not train the army because he does not and never did trust them. Some of the problems might be from internal dissension in the ranks - troops not correctly carrying out orders under the impression that Iraq would be better off after the US takes over and they still have an infrastructure. Some of it might even be the actions of US special forces. But it really seems to me that Iraq was not prepared of this war at this time - for all the interminable delay in the UN and before, Iraq has still been caught off-guard. And after the war started, it does not seem like there is anyone really in charge of anything - after the first few days Iraqi movement stopped and they have lost all initiative. Could Saddam be the problem? If he is killed/hurt/in a Stalin-style catatonic state it could explain this. Not that Saddam is a great military leader, but he at least would mediate between power struggles between underlings. Or could it be that Saddam actually thinks there is still a chance for a settlement where the US leaves, and he would not want to rule a nation smashed for no good reason?
I think they actually believe they are going to win. You know, get pounded from the air, but inflict enough casualties to make it too "costly" for us. They are terrible at gauging our resovle. Saddam didn't believe we would fight him over Kuwait! I honestly think they believe we don't mean business. That will be the death of them.
I was thinking the same thing, especially re: the issue of bridges. It makes no sense whatsoever for a military facing overwhelming technological and firepower superiority to leave certain infrastructure intact. In hearing about our securing of bridges across the Euphrates, I was shocked to not hear much about their having been wired to blow, except fot eh few reports a couple days ago about bridges in/near Baghdad. It could be possible that they are getting ready to flood the Euprates by blowing dams on the three lakes west of Baghdad and cutting supply/reinforcement lines to forces caught east of the river. Still, I'd imagine that we've taken that into account and have forces securing or ready to secure those dams. Also, the decision to move Republican Guard units where they face destruction from the air is a questionable move, as well. I can't imagine Saddam would be so naive as to think he might possibly be left in power, especially now that the war is on. I still expect a sort of Gotterdammerung, at least in Baghdad, carried out by those forces and individuals with nothing to lose. In all, I thinkk this is more likely caused by the verypossible internal dissention and desire to save one's own hides that you mentioned, spejic
> Saddam didn't believe we would fight him over Kuwait! Well, we did tell him that we wouldn't. But certainly any world leader should know better than to take us at our word. After all, we did tell Saddam a decade before that attacking Iran would be a great idea.
Saddam was going to that regardless of whether we told him to orn not though. C'mon Spejic, the man is bent on conquering his perceived "Arab World." The year Saddam came to power, Iraq just got into a territorial debate with Iran over some land and a waterway. War was inevitable between Iraq and Iran.
I won't dispute the fact that he wants to be a regional leader, but in all the years he's been in power, he's only attacked other countries twice, once with our support, and once with our pledge of ignorance (which we reneged on). You do the math.
Close, but not close enough. We knew Iraq was having diplomatic problems with Kuwait over oil production, and our ambassador to Baghdad said we would not get involved in the diplomatic wrangling.However, we never said we would remain on the side if Iraq invaded.
Who knows how his mind works? Hitler's psyche was such that he didn't want Germany to exist if he didn't exist. But megalomaniacal leaders aren't always like that. He may (emphasize "may") have planned to win. I mean, if you're Saddam, and you decide that your goal is to hang on until the US is forced to negotiate a settlement, isn't this pretty much what you'd do? Or if you believed you were a great national leader, isn't this what you'd do? Try to win, but don't destroy the nation. He's not a young man in any event, maybe he's thinking, hey, in 15 years, after I'm gone, I'd rather my people curse the Americans than curse me. I want people to name their sons after me. I speculated on this before. Nothing since has changed my mind. The Hail Mary pass isn't a high percentage play, but if there are 4 seconds left, and you have the ball on your own 40 yard line, what other choice do you have? I think he's following the only vaguely possible path to victory. As an aside...talkingpointsmemo.com had a post a few days back, where Josh put up an e-mail from an anonymous retired ambassador to a Muslim country, speculating on 3 possible outcomes. The one that person thought was most likely was that the carnage would get so horrific that Bush would negotiate a "inspections +++" settlement with Saddam. I don't buy it, but then, I'm not the guy who is a retired ambassador.
Days before the invasion of Kuwait, when it was very clear that Saddam was threatening to invade, ambassador April Glaspie said to Saddam: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait." A few days later, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly told Congress that the United States was not bound by any treaty to come to Kuwait's defense. How could Saddam not see that as a green light to invade?
Re: Re: What is the Iraqi command doing? The first sentence is possible. To the second, I thought that he would run the "I'm taking the ball, have fun on an empty field!" play.
When a military is run by professionals, guys who made their careers as soldiers, and a successful military career is determined by mostly a meritocratic system, and the ethos is one of sensible actions on the battlefield and independent flexible thinking to adjust to circumstances... ...well, that's a military that's going to give its opponents some real problems. That describes the WWII German Wehrmacht -- which, despite the cause in which in was enlisted, was arguably THE most professional military in the first half of the 20th century. Needless to say, this does NOT describe the Iraqi military "machine." From the reports I have heard, the Republican Guard is itself rampant with political cronyism and discipline by terror... To me what is interesting is you have the Iraqi information minister, and Tariq Aziz, being the point men. These guys are shrewd media types, expert in progaganda and media/public opinion manipulation. They know how to yank the chains. This is an area where they have been, and continue to be, highly effective. But the propaganda operation is one that can be controlled and managed by a few people. Remember, even at the end, Joseph Goebbels was very effective. Expect the Iraqis to still be spewing out their disinformation, even as the M1s roll into downtown Baghdad. In contrast, to have a successful military requires a solid institutional grounding, and lots of smart guys of independent thought running the day to day operations at all levels. Of course, you can go the Stalinist route -- lots of men, lots of equipment, and few ruthless commissars driving them forward as cannon fodder. But that only works if (a) you can keep churning out equipment and (b) you have a huge population than you can afford to throw into the maws of battle. That's the model that appeals to Saddam, except he doesn't have the tanks, and he doesn't have the men. So defeat -- TOTAL defeat -- is inevitable.
Crapping their pants while claiming that victory is near. p.s. - Saddam is badly injured or dead and not just hiding out. Not that it matters in the big picture.
Oh, I forgot something. Iraq has yet to launch any anti-aircraft missiles. This is very strange. It isn't out of fear of them being hit back - they have some very new systems with passive sensors and there are techniques you can use to minimize ability to retaliate on active systems, which they have perfected during years of no-fly-zone attacks. Very strange. Another possibility is this: the south has held better than even the Iraqi's expected. They have held back their better troops and weapons (like advanced anti-tank systems) for the fight for Baghdad, and have not yet started their war.
Yeah, but how successful have they been in knocking down aircraft in the "no-fly zone" era?? Not very. Meanwhile, I think the probability of your possibility is soooooo low as to be...well, highly improbable. The regular army, such as it was to begin with, has melted away. What remains in the far south are pocket of localized guerillas. They're toast. Meanwhile, His 4 Republican guard divisions, which started the war with 100,000 guys and 600 tanks, on the southern side of Baghdad, are getting pounded. He has maybe 300 tanks left. Half of those 300 probably don't have engines that work. Half of those probably can't even traverse their turrets. The minute we run into any sizable force, we pin them down, and bring in the air strikes and artillery. In the next 10 days, those who don't surrender will be maimed or killed. It will be a methodical meat grinder. In the end, Saddam's got 15,000 of his most loyal troops in Baghdad. They'll sit and wait, and they still might put up a heckuva fight inside the city. But in the end, it's wasted motion. This thing was over the minute the M1s rolled across the Kuwaiti border. Too bad so many of them will have to die before it ends, when it could end now.
> Yeah, but how successful have they been in > knocking down aircraft in the "no-fly zone" era?? > Not very. From the tactics used by Iraq against airplanes in the no-fly-zone, bringing down American planes seems like a secondary goal. It was a great way to learn capabilities and responses of American aircraft. Besides, you don't want to piss the Americans off too much - they won't lift the sanctions and might even invade. > The regular army, such as it was to begin with, > has melted away. Great. Lets take a walk down the peaceful and scenic Basra waterfront together. > He has maybe 300 tanks left. Battle damage assessment during war is very poor. I would not trust these numbers at all. During the Kosovo conflict, we claimed to have destroyed the Serbian army. After the war we saw what was there on the ground - no more than 3 actual tanks destroyed. We spend billions of dollars and risked peoples lives to blow up Yugos with logs sticking out the front windshield.
Please provide a source for this statement, because I think it is wrong. It is my understanding that they have been launching SAMs, but without radar guidance.
> It is my understanding that they have been > launching SAMs, but without radar guidance. I'm sure they have been launching SAMs, but only a couple. It isn't even close to the rate that they launched during some no-fly-zone operations. As a system, it has been unusually quiet. Iraq has many passive systems available. SA-2 and SA-6s have always had ground command guidance as well as radar guidance. Newer SA-2s have infrared terminal guidance. Iraq is rumored to have the "Colchuga" Ukranian passive air-defense radar system as well. And of course, the man and small vehicle portable systems are infrared.
Announcement today from CENTCOM that the Baghdad division of the Republican Guard has been "destroyed." The "meat grinder" now is in motion.
where did you see this reported? i have seen numerous reports from pilots interviewed after bombing runs and reporters in baghdad of anti-aircraft missles being launched at aircraft in the sky, it i just that none have been effective.
Having troops on the ground to make these assessments and see the "fruits" of the air power's labor is what makes these cituations different. I can't imagine we'd have pushed through Karbala and taken the bridge in Kut without much opposition if very few tanks/amored vehicles/troops had actually been destroyed in this area. Of course, if they pulled back, then that could be the case, but I think we'd have had some sort inclination of it had this happened.