Why is there no talk about a US-Iraq war?

There will be American loses, no question. But my thoughts on the amount aren't that high, although one lost is too many. I think the Republican Guard will turn on Saddam. Watching PBS's Frontline episode the other night on the Gulf War, they showed how after the defeat of Iraq the Kurds in the north became active and took over one of the cities and thought the USA would back them on their attempt to overthrow Saddam. Only to have the USA turn and say they didn't want to get involved in an internal dispute. Having signed the peace agreement which allowed Iraq to fly their helicopters loaded with weapons in their northern parts meant they could kill the Kurds opposing the Iraqi regime. They also mentioned how the Republican Guard or some Iraqi military personnel were sitting on the fence waiting to see what the USA did to help the Kurds.

I think there will be heavy Iraqi loses to civilians. Bombs which don't hit their targets, Saddam's human shields, oil fields blown up causing environmental problems leading to more deaths.

I suspect the total length of the war campaign will last two to three weeks, with the USA or internal Iraqi's knocking off Saddam. However, we will be involved there afterwards for years to come.

 

Some slightly-educated estimates:

A few dozen

Under a thousand, not including those killed by Saddam or forcibly used by him as human shields.

Probably about 2 weeks, not including mop-up efforts during the aftermath.

I don't think so. I can't see Iraq putting up any more of a fight now than they did 12 years ago.


Alex

 

Originally posted by TeamUSA
I think there will be heavy Iraqi loses to civilians. Bombs which don't hit their targets, Saddam's human shields, oil fields blown up causing environmental problems leading to more deaths.

It really depends on what you mean by "heavy Iraqi loses" and the strategy used by the UN/US forces. I would expect civilian loses (assuming Saddam doesn't use WMDs and the civilians don't turn on our troops) to be fairly low compared to nearly all previous wars of this type (invasion, conquest, new regime).

Let's assume that some of the options being discussed are true or close to the actual strategy we use. In all but a very rapid and successful coup d'etat scenario we'd see initial cruise missle strikes on AA and key command sites. This would likely kill few civilians (low 100s max, assuming some over/under shoot and hit high-density civilian bldgs). We would also imploy non-destructive methods for taking down power supplies, communications, etc. Then we would follow up with PGM attacks on units in the field, fortifications, remaining AA-related locations. I would also expect a fair number of dumb bombs dropped in "safe" areas away from civilians. If Iraqi troops are in the open they're dead fairly quickly so I expect most to hide. Any Iraqi aircraft taking off is doomed and not really a factor. Now that Iraq is basically open to our aircraft, we have some alternative possiblities.

1) Assume that we have no internal assistance outside of the Northern Kurds and a small group in the south. Assume that we don't have good intel on WMD, SCUD, or Saddam's location. We'd be forced into a somewhat typical invasion situation. I don't see a really long bombing campaign this time. There is too much risk of WMD and scud attacks on our troops, important infrastructure, and allies(especially Israel). It would also be a waste since we really bombed their forces too much last time. Plus the increased use of PGMs makes being thrify more important.

We'll probably take quick control of important sites using helicopter and parachute deployment of troops and the specwar guys already in country. I'd expect us to have complete control over half of the suspected WMD sites in the first day especially those located further from Baghdad. Getting the rest is going to be more risky. We'll be able to use air deployment and our guys on the ground to take some of the closer in targets quickly but the ones that matter most are likely to be well defended and nearly impossible to bomb. We may opt to just isolate them and keep them contained while we take out the regime. Armor and masses of anti-tank helos would enter Iraq.

I don't see a need for having the marines hit the beaches so I'd assume that we stick to air and land invasion. Depending on resistance from Iraqi forces, I'd expect these units to converge on Baghdad fairly quickly with possible problems remaining near tikrit and Basra. Oilfields set on fire by Iraqis.

Once we get to Baghdad, which will have already been the site of numerous PGM bombings and early deployments of air mobile troops, the situation will be difficult. I'm assuming that we've cut off any Iraqi forces not initially positioned near the capital since we don't want to push extra enemy units into the city. If the Iraqis put up a determined house to house style fight then the Iraqi civilian casualties will rise along with losses to both militaries. I'm betting that most of the Iraqi army will begin to fold by the time our main forces reach Baghdad. We'll still have a difficult time prying the republican guards and saddams loyalists but that is unavoidable given the assumption made above about little internal assistance and poor intel.

I'm assuming limited use of WMDs by Iraqi forces. I bet that most Iraqi military don't get access (Saddam doesn't trust them) and that our quick strikes and their limited tactical utility during city fighting means only a few WMD munitions fired. However, I bet that this group will contain a few scuds aimed at Israel and Kuwait. Assume that new Patriots and Arrow get a couple and only one hits each target. I think that the rapid conquest and diplomacy will allow us to hold off Israeli counterattacks.

Total time: 2 weeks to 1 month
Americans KIA/WIA: 500 (no WMD hits, massive # of Iraqi surrenders) to 5000 (tough city fight and one WMD artillery hits unprepared troops)
Iraqi soldiers:25k (if they surrender in the field in similar numbers to last war and we keep the bombing campaign short) to 80k.
Iraqi civilians: 10k (mostly in Baghdad. assumes no evacuation, and Iraqi use human shields, and PGM errors. Assume no WMD attacks in cities. Not included: long term health effects of oilfields or WMD contamination)
Israeli civilians: Unknown
Kuwait civilians: Unknown
Cost to Allies: $100b (just to cover war not aftermath). Does not include effect of war on oil prices or other indirect costs.
Cost to Iraq: $200b (lost infrastructure, extensive Baghdad damage, and destroyed military equipment. Assumes Iraq pays with no outside assistance other than loans. Note: Does not include oilfield losses, environmental cleanup, etc.) to $500b.

2)Assume instead that we have more extensive internal assistance but that Saddam retains a substantial core around Baghdad and Tikrit. We may know where some but not all WMD and scud sites are but still can't locate Saddam. I'd expec this campaing to be shorter, less deadly for soldiers and civilians. I assume that Iraq never gets to use its WMD in this scenario. It would follow the general outline of the first except for less fighting beyond baghdad, quicker seizure of important sites, and more surrenders of Iraqi troops.

Total time: 1 to 3 weeks
Americans KIA/WIA: 500 (no WMD hits, massive # of Iraqi surrenders) to 3000 (tough city fight)
Iraqi soldiers:20k (if they surrender in the field in similar numbers to last war and we keep the bombing campaign short) to 60k.
Iraqi civilians: 8k (mostly in Baghdad. assumes no evacuation, and Iraqi use human shields, and PGM errors. Not included: long term health effects of oilfields)
Cost to Allies: $90b (just to cover war not aftermath). Does not include effect of war on oil prices or other indirect costs.
Cost to Iraq: $150b (lost infrastructure, extensive Baghdad damage, and destroyed military equipment. Assumes Iraq pays with no outside assistance other than loans. Note: Does not include oilfield losses, environmental cleanup, etc.) to $400b.

3)Finally, assume that we've gotten help from higher ups in the Iraqi military. We have good info on many WMD sites, some scud sites, and some likely Saddam locations. Assume we learn location of remaining WMD sites during first day or so and can pinpoint Saddam by second day. In this one, I'd expect a very different strategy. We would still do the airstrikes but our focus would be more on the WMD sites and Anti-air than on infrastructure and command and control. We probably only do minimal damage to communications since we'll use them after Saddam gone. I'd expect us to use bombing to pin down the army and then use a large air invasion to support a coup d'etat in baghdad. Focus would be to eliminate remaining forces loyal to Saddam. We'd have assistance of some parts of Iraqi military. If the source is high enough, we could have very little resistance from Iraqi troops once the situation is made clear to them. We might not even see oilfields destroyed.

Total time: 1 week
Americans KIA/WIA: 200 to 500 (tough city fight with loyal troops)
Iraqi soldiers:5k to 25k.
Iraqi civilians: 2k (almost all in Baghdad. assumes no evacuation, and Iraqi use human shields, and PGM errors. Not included: long term health effects of oilfields, if they are set on fire)
Cost to Allies: $50b (just to cover war not aftermath). Does not include effect of war on oil prices or other indirect costs.
Cost to Iraq: $60b (lost infrastructure, moderate Baghdad damage, and destroyed military equipment. Assumes Iraq pays with no outside assistance other than loans. Note: Does not include any oilfield losses, environmental cleanup, etc.) to $200b (if oilfields on fire)

Note: I based my numbers of a variety of public documents. I usually split the difference or take the one that makes sense given the assumptions I'm using. When in doubt I make my best guess. If Iraq can use more WMD including nukes than obviously some of my figures will be off by an order of magnitude or two. If Israel gets involved than a variety of bad things can happen that are beyond my ability to estimate quickly.

 

Who knows what will happen ?

One thing for sure old Bin Laden won't be disappointed as he'll recruit thousands of converts to the ranks of the suicide bombers. They'll be coming out of the rafters to revenge "a Christian attack on an Islamic country".

I hate to think what the repercussions will be and fear that we will begin to experience what the Israelis have been going through except on a larger scale.

This business of "Homeland Security" will suddenly become a reality after these Islamic fanatics start visiting our shopping centers etc.

We are not going to feel as secure as we once did!

 

Re: Re: Why is there no talk about a US-Iraq war?

Who did you have to ask?

 

I think you guys are missing the point of the thread (or maybe I am - please correct me if I'm wrong). I think BenReilly wants to know why there isn't more real discussion of the possible consequences for war in the mass media.

I'm sure he appreciates the responses to the more specific questions (I certainly do) but he is not the only one who is a little uncomfortable with the lack of discussion about the actual substance of war. I am not sure if the general public (beyond us internet message board types) know what they're getting into.

Another cause for worry is the possiblity of terrorist acts as retaliation. If Iraq does indeed have ties to terrorist groups, it is not beyond the realm of possibilities for those groups to launch attacks in the US and its allied nations. Or even if there are no such connections, there are groups that would sympathize with the Iraqi cause.

I understand that a real analysis of the war's substance would have to get into war plans - which is kept under wraps for a good reason, and that caution and pessimism are not good business for mass media outlets. I just hope the nation is prepared for the possiblity of a long, costly war.

 

Well, if you belive Butters - I mean Dr. Chaos - it's just the liberal media covering up the truth to avoid a mass panic.

 

It is most likely that there will be retaliation and it won't depend on whether or not Saddam has ties with Bin Laden or any fanatical Islamic group. It will be an excuse for Bin Laden to turn it into a so called "Holy War".

He will use it as propaganda to recruit suicide bombers on the pretext of Christian attacking Islam. For every suicide bomber now available it will multiply 100 fold following an invasion.

The USA is not a small country like Israel (which would fit into a county in Texas). We are much more vulnerable here in the US in terms of easy access, territorial size etc.

These fanatics can hit anywhere in this large continent of ours, create havoc and instill terror among our citizens. "Homeland Security" will become the major issue in our political agenda!

 

They're already pissed because we're infidels who dare to breathe. It's a non-factor, IMHO.

 

I disagree. Terrorists themselves do not need an excuse but they still operate in the court of public opinions. It would be much easier for the Al Qaeda and the like to attack the west if they can label it "retaliation".

 

Bin Laden is most likely dead for over a year (since Dec 2001 in Tora Bora). He will never be seen again.

As for the consequences of a war in Iraq, I think the possible benefits far outweigh the potential catastrophe. I feel it is more likely that we will see a spark of democracy spread thru the region, beginning in Iraq and Iran, than it is that we will see a movement of retribution. Oh sure, you'll have your renegades of disenfranchised young Muslims take up against the USA, but I feel the larger majority of Arabs are tired of the instability and would welcome democratic change in the region. We shall see.

 

It really doesn't make any difference whether Bin Laden is dead or not! History shows that others who follow are just as committed to their fanatic causes.

Our Achilles heel is our complacency as many never thought that we were as vulnerable as we are. My fear is that we still haven't learned from 9/11 and that's a sad commentary.

I'm sorry, but it's a pipe dream if one thinks that Iraq will suddenly revert to a democracy following an invasion. Rome wasn't built in a day and democracies are not born overnight.

Look at Afghanistan! Sure we got rid of the Taliban but now we're left with the war lords who represent anything but democracy. I have a friend over there and he tells me the situation has vastly improved but most unpredictable!

 

You're the one who keeps mentioning Bin Laden by name.

There are already seeds of democratic movement in Iran. Events in Iraq could push that burgeoning movement out of the underground and into the open. The people need to feel strength behind them before acting in a manner (i.e. in search of freedom) that is possibly deadly. The US troops in the region moving out a madman like Hussein might be just the impudence they need.

The key words being "vastly improved". I'm sure the formerly oppressed people welcome unpredictability as a tolerable byproduct of "vast improvement".

 

As for Bin Laden, dead or alive, the name has become a symbol in the world of Islamic fanaticism. By the way, I don't believe he's dead but however that's irrelevant when one views the overall picture.

As for US troops in the region following an invasion it would be very naive to believe that the majority of the people would look on them benevolently but more likely would regard them as hostile troops of a foreign power which invaded their Islamiic country.

In Afghanistan anything would be a vast improvement on the Taliban. But they are far removed from democracy. Their native war lords will see to that!

 

[/B]
I'm sorry, but it's a pipe dream if one thinks that Iraq will suddenly revert to a democracy following an invasion. Rome wasn't built in a day and democracies are not born overnight. [/B]

Much of Eastern Europe turned it around pretty quickly. (Admittedly, some countries have not)



[/B]
Look at Afghanistan! Sure we got rid of the Taliban but now we're left with the war lords who represent anything but democracy. I have a friend over there and he tells me the situation has vastly improved but most unpredictable! [/B]

I don't think we leave Iraq in the same situation as Afganistan. Different wars, different objectives.

 

Glad you brought that up. What is the objective again? The one that requires the use of a large part of our military to do what a sniper and a couple of bullets should be able to accomplish.

 

Has it occurred to anyone that the Iraqis are going to fight tooth and nail, street by street in Bagdad?

 

One thing we shouldn't make a mistake about is that this is going to be totally different than the Gulf War. Gulf war was not fought in the heartland of Iraq. But this war is going to be fought there. Iraqis will be fighting for their country no matter how much they hate Saddam. They are not going to see the Americans as liberator instead as invaders. They are not going to fight for Saddam they are going to fight for their homeland. So there is a great chance that they will fight till the bitter end. No question that Iraq will be invaded but how long is it going to take?

 

It occured to me that they might but there is also a chance that they will just give up. So half empty or half full?

 

It's important to note that unlike 1991 when it was simply enough to overpower the Iraqi forces, urban combat will be a neccessity if the object of the war is indeed to take Saddam out of power. Even if this operation turns out to be a success, use of ground troops will most likely result in much heavier casulaties than 12 years ago.

 

Re: Re: Re: Why is there no talk about a US-Iraq war?

I said "a few dozen", not "a dozen". Probably more will die in Iraq than died in Afghanistan (in combat), but not many more.

And Iraq's military capability is estimated at about a fourth of what it was during the Gulf War, whereas our military is far more technologically advanced than it was then (it is weaker in terms of sheer numbers, but this war will be won by technology, not overwhelming manpower).


Alex

 

I don't think the Iraqi's will be street fighting tooth and nail to "protect" their homeland. They know by now that we aren't there to take over and make it a USA in the middle east. The leaflets have been throughout Baghdad explaining things. They know what Saddam has done to the people in the past. They want peace too. They want Saddam out, it's just that they can't do. They know it's about oil and so do we.

 

I fail to understand who is the other who wants peace.

I guess you don't mean those who will attack and start a war.

Anyway I hope iraqis won't fight, there'll be less victims.