War Questions

[Mike B.]

Hello all,

I have some questions about the late war with Iraq.

1. Where did the regular Iraqi Army go? Did they just stay home or desert? Most of the troops fought appear to be the Iraq version of the NKVD or paramilitaries. Iraq's regular army on paper was in the hundreds of thousands, were they in the fight?

2. Was there a coherent Iraqi strategy? If the idea was to get the coalition troops bogged down, why did the Republican Guard allow itself to stand in place and be annhilated by airpower? Why did the Iraqis make that charge out of Basra with their tanks only to be chewed up in a few minutes by the British Crusader tanks? Was the idea use them or lose them? Wasn't the idea to have urban combat?

3. What were the Iraqis doing with all those chemical weapons suits? Was it a psychological thing, a scare tactic?

Any thoughts?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Mike B.
3. What were the Iraqis doing with all those chemical weapons suits? Was it a psychological thing, a scare tactic?


I said it during the war, and I'll say it again now: the reason they had chemical weapons suits was probably the same reason that the US had chemical weapons suits. To protect themselves in the event of a chemical weapon attack by the enemy.

It is naive to think that the Iraqis would trust the US to not use chemical weapons. You don't trust your enemy durng war time.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Hello all,
2. Was there a coherent Iraqi strategy? If the idea was to get the coalition troops bogged down, why did the Republican Guard allow itself to stand in place and be annhilated by airpower? Why did the Iraqis make that charge out of Basra with their tanks only to be chewed up in a few minutes by the British Crusader tanks? Was the idea use them or lose them? Wasn't the idea to have urban combat?


They are Challengers, btw. Crusaders were WWII era.

I dont think there was any coherent strategy. I think they thought they would have around 1 month of airstrikes before the ground war kicked off and were caught totally off guard.

Some regulars did fight though- but not very committed really. I thin k they just buggered off rather than get killed.

[Crossbow]

Most of the Iraq army was made up of conscripts who were not too keen on dying for Saddam.

So I expect that when the shooting and confusion started, many took advantage of the communication and control breakdowns to shed their uniforms and weapons, and run back home.

[aerocontrols]

1) They ran away.

2) There was no coherent strategy. Leadership/Officers/Men - no one trusted anyone else.

3) If you believe that the Iraqi regime had no chemical weapons, then the likely reason to distribute chem weapons suits would be to attempt by Saddam to convince the Iraqi soldiers that he had an 'ace in the hole' to give them courage. Also perhaps as a scare tactic against US forces, which could only make them go more slowly, and could not be counted on to stop them.

MattJ

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


They are Challengers, btw. Crusaders were WWII era.

I dont think there was any coherent strategy. I think they thought they would have around 1 month of airstrikes before the ground war kicked off and were caught totally off guard.

Some regulars did fight though- but not very committed really. I thin k they just buggered off rather than get killed.

D'oh

Read to much World War II books and it seeps through. I suppose the American tanks were Shermans. ;)

[Richard G]

We killed aproximately 100,000. That was the last CIA estimate that was released. The rest took off their uniforms and went home after their officers were killed and/or deserted.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Richard G
We killed aproximately 100,000. That was the last CIA estimate that was released. The rest took off their uniforms and went home after their officers were killed and/or deserted.

100,000 according to the CIA?

Where did you read this? It seems like a lot more than any other estimates I've seen.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Richard G
We killed aproximately 100,000. That was the last CIA estimate that was released. The rest took off their uniforms and went home after their officers were killed and/or deserted.

100,000!

:eek:

Do you have a source on that?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I said it during the war, and I'll say it again now: the reason they had chemical weapons suits was probably the same reason that the US had chemical weapons suits. To protect themselves in the event of a chemical weapon attack by the enemy.

It is naive to think that the Iraqis would trust the US to not use chemical weapons. You don't trust your enemy durng war time. Anything is possible, but how many times in the past has the US used chemical weapons?

What does the US have to lose by using chemical weapons compared to what they might have to gain?

What is the likelyhood of the US using chemical weapons?

I can't imagine how any Iraqi military leader could conclude that there was a reasonalbe chance that the US was going to use chemical weapons.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
Anything is possible, but how many times in the past has the US used chemical weapons?

What does the US have to lose by using chemical weapons compared to what they might have to gain?

What is the likelyhood of the US using chemical weapons?

I can't imagine how any Iraqi military leader could conclude that there was a reasonalbe chance that the US was going to use chemical weapons.

Given the extent to which we talked about chemical weapons, it would be dumb to not consider it possible. Clearly our administration is fixated on chemical weapons. And, if it from an Iraqi perspective, it is our lying, barbaric administration that is fixated on chemical weapons. How big of a chance does it have to be before you prepare for it?

The Iraqi government had as much reason to trust us as we had to trust them. Trusting your enemy is a bad strategy in war.

Consider the following scenerio: US uses a chemical warhead. News gets out that a chemical warhead has been launched. US denies it is theirs, and blames it on an Iraqi missile that misfired, proving that Iraq was a threat to the world.

Could it happen? We of course say no. But from an Iraqi perspective? Heck, the US had a missile go off course and kill a bunch of civilians and tried to blame it on Iraq, indicating that they will try to lie their way out of anything. Who knows if they wouldn't try to use a chemical weapon attack to justify the claim that Iraq has WMD. That's an Iraqi perspective, of course.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Given the extent to which we talked about chemical weapons, it would be dumb to not consider it possible. That does not follow. We did not threaten them with chemical weapons. That we talked about chemical weapons is not reason to think we might using them

Clearly our administration is fixated on chemical weapons. And, if it from an Iraqi perspective, it is our lying, barbaric administration that is fixated on chemical weapons. How big of a chance does it have to be before you prepare for it? Again it doesn't follow. We did not use chemical weapons in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Falklands, Panama or in the 1991 Gulf War.

The Iraqi government had as much reason to trust us as we had to trust them. This is not accurate. Iraq has used chemical weapons in recent history. We have not.

Trusting your enemy is a bad strategy in war. No one has suggested otherwise. Trust is not an issue. What is at issue is the likelyhood of a chemical attack from the United States. If the United States were to use chemical weapons and we were not provoked then it would be the best thing that could happen to Saddam and he knows it. World attention would be completely against us and we would be forever condemned. Saddam is not stupid. He might have had fantasies about the US using chemical weapons but he knew it wouldn't happen.

Consider the following scenerio: US uses a chemical warhead. News gets out that a chemical warhead has been launched. US denies it is theirs, and blames it on an Iraqi missile that misfired, proving that Iraq was a threat to the world. Again, anything is possible. The risk that the United States would be taking are just too high for the US or Saddam to consider as likely. And besides, you are talking about a single missle, Saddam doesn't care about his soldiers. Why go to the expense of protecting a few expendable troops when he has so much to gain.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan

That does not follow. We did not threaten them with chemical weapons. That we talked about chemical weapons is not reason to think we might using them

Again it doesn't follow. We did not use chemical weapons in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Falklands, Panama or in the 1991 Gulf War.

This is not accurate. Iraq has used chemical weapons in recent history. We have not.


In all these cases, you presume logic in a madman's thinking...?


No one has suggested otherwise. Trust is not an issue. What is at issue is the likelyhood of a chemical attack from the United States. If the United States were to use chemical weapons and we were not provoked then it would be the best thing that could happen to Saddam and he knows it. World attention would be completely against us and we would be forever condemned. Saddam is not stupid. He might have had fantasies about the US using chemical weapons but he knew it wouldn't happen.


I presume you would also give Saddam credit for realizing the reverse...?


Again, anything is possible. The risk that the United States would be taking are just too high for the US or Saddam to consider as likely. And besides, you are talking about a single missile, Saddam doesn't care about his soldiers. Why go to the expense of protecting a few expendable troops when he has so much to gain.


Since he would need an armed force of some kind to repulse the invaders, he would have to protect some of his force. Now, if it later came out that he protected himself (and a few of his top people), but failed to protect some portion of the brave fighters on the front-lines, what would his credibility be with both his army and his people? A dictator that alienates all of his people is much more likely to be overthrown.

:p

About the chemsuits... let's remember that the Iraqis were probably told all sorts of unprintable things about what coalition forces would do, or resort to. Speculation on my part, but seems likely. They certainly weren't under the impression that the coalition forces were benevolent goodguys... that was our PR, for us.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mike B.
3. What were the Iraqis doing with all those chemical weapons suits? Was it a psychological thing, a scare tactic?

Any thoughts?
Go to any petro-chemical plant and you will find chemical suits of some sort. Perhaps the ones found were more of a distinctly military sort, but how old were the suits? They could have gone back to the time of the Iraq-Iran war.

What's the big deal about finding 300 chemical suits? Better questions would be: If Iraq had WMD, then why didn't they use them? If Iraq had WMD and intended to use them, then why were those chemical suits sittting in storage? Why weren't any Iraqi soldiers in possession of chemical suits? (If they were, I missed that part of the story.)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Richard G
We killed aproximately 100,000. That was the last CIA estimate that was released. The rest took off their uniforms and went home after their officers were killed and/or deserted.

Hmmm... I thought the government was being very tight-lipped about the war casualties, due to the public relations S.N.A.F.U. with the Vietnam war. They would release sometimes daily casualty reports during that war.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
That does not follow. We did not threaten them with chemical weapons. That we talked about chemical weapons is not reason to think we might using them


Says who? An American? Or an Iraqi?


Again it doesn't follow. We did not use chemical weapons in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Falklands, Panama or in the 1991 Gulf War.

OTOH, we actually _have_ chemical weapons, and do not deny that we have them. The Iraqi government claims it does not have any chemical weapons. Who is more likely to use chemical weapons? The country that has them or the country that doesn't?

You are arguing this from a totally US-centric point-of-view, selecting evidence to support your case. This is a mistake.

Look at it from an Iraqi POV, and look for reasons to the contrary. The US is the aggressor who is fixated on this concept of chemical weapons, has huge stockpiles on them, is making groundless accusations against the Iraqi government, and is willing to lie about their missiles if it would make them look bad. Is that enough for them not to trust us re: chemical weapons during war?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
OTOH, we actually _have_ chemical weapons, and do not deny that we have them. The Iraqi government claims it does not have any chemical weapons. Who is more likely to use chemical weapons? The country that has them or the country that doesn't? Iraq CLAIMED they did not have chemical/biological weapons when we found the anthrax so what they say is meaningless. And irrelevant since we really are talking about not who is more likely to use chemical weapons but what is in the mind of Saddam.

You are arguing this from a totally US-centric point-of-view, selecting evidence to support your case. This is a mistake. It's possible that Saddam thought that we would use chemical weapons but I can't imagine why. It's true that he has made major tactical and strategical errors in the past but he does have some grasp of strategy. He understood the ramifications for bringing Israel into the war. He understands what our using of such weapons would do to us. I think it very unlikely that Saddam considered it a significant threat.

Look at it from an Iraqi POV, and look for reasons to the contrary. The US is the aggressor who is fixated on this concept of chemical weapons, has huge stockpiles on them, is making groundless accusations against the Iraqi government, and is willing to lie about their missiles if it would make them look bad. Is that enough for them not to trust us re: chemical weapons during war? ???? Groundless accusations?

Look, the US gave Saddam every opportunity to cooperate. We had told him for 12 years that if he did not cooperate he would suffer consequences. He has been caught over and over again lying.

We told him that we would force him out of Kuwait and he refused to cooperate and leave. We kept our word and forced him out.

We told him that we would disarm him of his WMD and gave him 12 years to complete the task. When the day of reckoning came we asked for a report and he was unable to document that he had destroyed the weapons he admitted to having.

You talk about trust. We have been up front with the Saddam from the beginning. We told him what would be the consequences for his actions. He chose not to comply. He chose to lie and obfuscate. If we were fixated on anything it was for Saddam to keep his agreements. If he had done that he would still be in power.

Saddam's biggest mistake was thinking that we would not or could not keep our promise and disarm him militarily.

He was wrong.

[Mike B.]

Another point I would make about the late war:

American News Coverage:

Fox News
For all its cartoonish way of presenting the news:
i.e.
"The Shiites have hit the fan."

Still the FoxNews military analysts were right on the money on many points. MSNBC had a lot of doom and gloom predictions. I recall (can't remember his name) they had a man on from the Brooklings Institute say early on, the war was bogged down and would end in a truce between the Coalition and Saddam. They even gave a lot of creedence to Scott Ritter's contention that there were far too few troops on the ground and Saddam would win.

Does anyone have any comments about the analysts?
The best overall take I read was from John Keegan, the famed miltary historian.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan

Look, the US gave Saddam every opportunity to cooperate. We had told him for 12 years that if he did not cooperate he would suffer consequences. He has been caught over and over again lying.


According to whom?

How many Iraqis think Saddam is a lier and that Bush is trustworthy?

Everything you said is perfectly true from an American standpoint, but totally useless for trying to understand Iraqi motivations.

It's possible that Saddam thought that we would use chemical weapons but I can't imagine why.

You are also making the mistake that Saddam himself ordered the chemical weapons outfits. That's silly. Although Saddam is much more of a military leader than Bush, things like "preparing for potential chemical attack" is not something done at the Commander-in-chief level, is it? Generals can also order these things. Thus, it doesn't need to be Saddam that thinks there will be chemical attack, just the military in general.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Everything you said is perfectly true from an American standpoint, but totally useless for trying to understand Iraqi motivations.

You are also making the mistake that Saddam himself ordered the chemical weapons outfits. That's silly. Although Saddam is much more of a military leader than Bush, things like "preparing for potential chemical attack" is not something done at the Commander-in-chief level, is it? Generals can also order these things. Thus, it doesn't need to be Saddam that thinks there will be chemical attack, just the military in general. I understand your point. I just really disagree. Those who make decisions counter to Saddam's wishes are quickly disposed of. Saddam is a micromanager for a reason. Remember that the main republican guard were not even allowed to enter Bhagdad.

No, I would not expect any military leader to much more than take a crap without Saddam's approval. And yes, in this case it is very much a commander-in-chief level thing. One of his top aides who took an initiative was delivired to his wife in butchers paper drawn and quartered.

If you were a military leader under Saddam would you spend his (Saddam's) money on chemical suits without checking with him first?

I sure as hell wouldn't.