So how could the US (and Allies) lose the war in Iraq?

Almost all the coverage of the, surely inevitable, war with Iraq sems to take a victory for granted. Is this right?

Surely it depends on what would count as a “victory”.

What could the Iraqis do that would make any victory at best pyrrhic? Launching a devastating attack on Israel springs to mind as does using chemical weapons agains allied forces.

So what could the Iraqi forces do that would prevent allied victory.

I can’t find a cite but I beleive that in a recent American war game the general who was commanding the thinly disguised “Iraqi” forces actually won by using very unexpected tactics.

I think that if a war is to break out, it will be very very unconventional. We (America) will proceed with our normal tactics of continual strategical bombings, but Iraq (as well as the entire Middle East, who will be upset by the attacks) will attack all our allies, especially Israel. There will most likely be an unbelieveable increase in the rate of terrorist attacks, and Iraq would probably simply try to destroy as many people as possible (other country’s people or even their own) in order to force the US into stopping the war out of sheer humanity.

There are a couple things that could easily happen that would make a war a catastrophic defeat for the US.

1)Saddam could pass along any biological/chemical weapons to terrorists. Saddam is unlikely to do this now because
a)he’s afraid of American retaliation if caught
b)he’s afraid of the terrorists themselves

But if his regime is toast anyway Saddam might well reason that he has nothing to lose and might as well do everything to hurt the US as much as possible. So war increases the chances of weapons being given to terrorists who are then more likely to use them on the US.

Incidentally there was a letter by the CIA director which more or less said this and Bill Clinton and Carl Levin have also repeatedly made the point.

2)There could be a proliferation disaster in post-war Iraq as the US struggles to find the weapons supposedly hidden all over the place whereas various rogue elements grab them and run out of the country.

There will be a period of anarcy between the moment the regime falls and the US is in complete control of the country. In that period (and even later) the US will have trouble controlling all the weapons . You could easily have some enterprising rogue within the Iraqi regime grabbing some weapons, escaping the country and selling them. You could easily have teams of terrorists and local warlords doing the same. All of them are more likely to know the location of weapons than the US. US forces might stop a few but it’s unlikely to stop all of them.
The bottom line is that there is little reason to believe that regime change through war will produce disarmament properly defined. It will disarm Saddam at the cost of indirectly arming the terrorists who are much more likely to use those weapons in the first place.

Not a good bargain.

Paul Van Riper was the man:

He used plenty of “suicide boats”, guerilla tactics and eg. motorbike courier communications.

I’ve only joined the boards recently but I’d be surprised if this hasn’t been dealt with before.

Or then again, maybe not…

Only one thread, in the Pit of all places:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135305

General congratulation (sorry, crap pun) followed by rather hasty hand-washing suggestion that he be brought out of retirement and given Tommy Franks’ job.

So it seems the debate is very much in order: Could the Allies lose the war?

Further to some of the posts in the earlier thread, I do think that if Saddam had wind of this episode and passed it on to his best (ie. least stupid) general, the Allied Navy could face serious problems in the Gulf.

The Persian Gulf is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. If you start blasting away at any old trawler or tug within a silkworm-launcher’s range, or any private aircraft which looks like it might suddenly start heading straight towards you from 10,000ft, you are going to kill a lot of innocents very quickly.

I don’t think this is particularly telegraphing any information to a potential enemy, unless the Iraqi military leadership really is a bunch of clownish buffoons, which I rather doubt.

In the last Gulf War, the Coalition won an astounding victory because Iraq was impaled on a classic strategic fork. In order to retain their military gains (Kuwait), Iraq was forced into a far-forward deployment in desert conditions. The disposition of their troops was perfect for the use of modern mobile warfare tactics against them. They were fixed, flanked, and surrounded in short order.

Iraq can’t do that this time, for a lot of good reasons. Their own mobile forces are severely degraded both by the losses of the previous war and the lack of spare parts. It would be suicidal to try to deploy those mobile forces they do have in the no-fly zones already established–they would have little to no protection from air attack. The Iraqis probably well remember the material and qualitative advantages the Americans have over their own forces.

Instead, they’re almost certain to concentrate their defense in the strategic zone located between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers–the same ground that Alexander the Great and Darius fought over. Hussein is no humanitarian and it seems likely that he’ll go a step further and concentrate his best troops within the city of Baghdad itself, where he has at least a chance of strategic and political equalization. Most of the advantages that the American military holds over the Iraqis are largely negated once they have to start fighting street-to-street.

Urban warfare is a bitch. According to the CSIS’s observations on the battle of Jenin (.pdf document), there are only three major ways to fight an urban battle, which can be described as “light,” “medium,” and “heavy.”

The first option involves the use of a lot of stand-off precision weapons and high-finesse small raids, something which won’t work if there are two divisions of Republican Guards holed up in Baghdad.

The second option is fighting on near-equal terms with small arms in order to reduce civilian casualties and material damage. This can mean high casualties for both attacker and defender because of the close-range nature of the combat.

The third option, the “heavy” option, is unpalateable to contemplate, but is probably the least costly in the long run for the side which can employ the tactic. It basically means one side makes the battlefield unequal by bringing enormous and disproportionate firepower to bear against the enemy, blowing up the very buildings in which they are holed up. At the same time, it also takes out any civilians who have not evacuated, and it creates enormous swathes of destruction. Think Stalingrad or Berlin.

If there is a war, and if Hussein chooses to make a fight of it in Baghdad, America will have to choose between a medium or a heavy response there, with of course an infinite gray area between them. Appallingly high civilian casualties are a near-certitude, as are casualties among U.S. troops and their allies, if we have any left when it comes to that. The less America is willing to sacrifice either its own troops or Iraqi civilians, the longer it’s going to take to reduce the Iraqi forces. As the Washington Times pointed out, American public opinion will necessarily play a role in how the battle is conducted. (That editorial also ignores the “light” option and instead debates the pros and cons of the “medium” and “heavy” ones.)

That’s some very dodgy territory politically and militarily, and I don’t think it’s a given that the Americans have the stomach to see it all the way through to a clear victory. As we have already seen, Hussein has a remarkable ability to retain power in the face of near-total defeat. If he walks out of the next war unscathed as he did the last time, he wins.

Nice analysis Sofa King.

My uninformed guess for the coventional war is that it won’t be very difficult for the simple reason that I doubt the Iraqi army will have much of a stomach for a fight even in urban conditions. That’s why I am much more worried about what happens to all the unconventional weapons supposedly lying all over the place. The unpleasant reality is that even if the US wins the coventional war easily it could end up losing in terms of its long-run national security if Iraqi unconventional weapons end up in the hands of terrorists.

Errm, I wasn’t talking about * this * thread - I meant the report of the war game which the US Armed Forces changed the course of because “Saddam” was winning.

Apologies for the mix-up - here’s the cite again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/…,786992,00.html

I don’t think Saddam Hussein is going to find many people willing to pilot suicide boats. Iraq is not Iran, the Republican Guard is not Al Qaida. Saddam is a secular leader who rules by fear. He doesn’t have legions of people willing to die for him. I don’t worry very much about suicide attacks. There may be a few, but Saddam can’t use this as a standard tactic. Troops ordered to suicide will simply surrender instead.

As far as holing up in Baghdad and forcing the US to either move in house to house and take heavy casualties or to bomb the city into oblivion and cause massive civilian casualties. Again, I don’t think it will come to that. The US can simply beseige the city. Cut off food, electricity, water. My prediction is that the Iraqi soldiers will simply give up and somebody is going to bring us Saddam’s head on a pike.

Now, while that’s the most likely scenario, of course we can’t count on it…we need backup plans that assume the Iraqis will fight. But Saddam can’t simply retreat to Baghdad and dare us to come in. If he does that he’s not the ruler of the country any more. He needs to maintain his control over the country. The Iraqis will fight if they think Saddam will win, they’ll surrender if they think he’ll lose. And if Saddam doesn’t control the countryside, how can he win the war? If the rest of the country is surrendering why would the people in Baghdad continue to fight?

It won’t be a situation where US troops only control the territory they occupy. In fact, it’s the exact opposite…Saddam only controls the territory he occupies. He can’t play a waiting game, he can’t rely on guerilla tactics. He somehow has to win quickly.

And chemical or biological weapon attacks aren’t the answer either. US troops are much better prepared for the chemical battlefield. If Saddam’s troops are vulnerable to chemical weapons and US troops aren’t, then using chemical weapons is going to harm Iraqi troops much more than US troops. Using a weapon that hurts your side more than the enemy isn’t a good tactic.

I’m sure Saddam will TRY something, but once it comes down to shooting he has very little chance. So, Saddam is going to focus his energies, not on winning the war once it starts, but on preventing the war in the first place. And that means trying to peel off US allies, preventing UN action, and enlisting the other Arabs.

I don’t mean to say that occupying Iraq will be a cakewalk. Just that defeating the Iraqi army and Saddam Hussein will be the easy part. The hard part is what happens next. How long are the troops going to stay there? Exactly what kind of government are we going to install in Iraq? How much more terrorist activity will there be? If we have a long occupation, are anti-american guerilla groups going to form?

One thing that bothers us in Britain is how much stomach America has for a real fight. We feel (rightly or wrongly) that when the going gets tough the Americans get going…home.

Would US public opinion accept large scale casualties?

Also whilst Iraq is a secular dictatorship, surely the senior figures in all parts of the dictatorship would not expect to survive a defeat? This supplies quite a motive to fight.

I don’t forsee a loss where the US sues Iraq for peace, and UN troops occupy the US.

Could be a phyrric victory though. Sofa King is pretty spot on.

Bring back actor Victor McLaughlin as Provost Marshall of Baghdad! Anyone who could go toe-to-toe with John Wayne is certainly tough enough to take on Saddam.

IANAME, but it seems paradoxical to argue that this war will be harder to win because the enemy forces are severely degraded. Furthermore, our forces are dramatically improved due to various technological advances, which helped us win so rapidly in Afghanistan.

FEARLESS PREDICTION: War with Iraq (if it comes) will be won within a week.

I guess I agree that Saddam has only a limited capacity to become the completely “free player” Van Riper did. However, I note that he only required “scores” of suicide attacks, not thousands, and I’m sure almost * any * army has a few tens of nutcases who can be brainwashed into it, promising their families riches or death depending on the outcome of their mission. Plus, if he can get even a couple of those Silkworms disguised as fishing boats, I think at least one Allied flagship might be lost.

Van Riper himself seemed genuinely concerned that second Pearl Harbour was genuinely possible. Further, while I also agree that ** Sofa King’s ** assessment provides very useful insight, it still illustrates the “march straight to Baghdad” mentality that Rumsfeld seems worried about relying on.

Four or five weeks of intensive Bombing of the cities and potential military sites, followed by a swift move in with mechanized infantry and a sweep to the rear with the armour to cut off any possible retreat. Sorry But Iraq doesn’t have the real muscle to stop a US invasion. I predict Iraq Falls within six weeks. Allied casualties will be light while Iraqi casualties will be frightenly large.

Another Turkey shoot which makes me wonder what the real international threat is from this lightweight.

In the broadest military sense you’re probably right december, but I think you need to define winning. Death of Saddam? Total destruction of all military units? Total destruction of all those willing to fight for Saddam? Winning the hearts and minds?

Boy, could that take a long time…

Well, that’s not exactly what I’m arguing. I’m trying to say that it’s almost certain that Iraq won’t make the mistake of trying to go toe-to-toe with the Big Red One, because they can’t. It’s unlikely that we will be able to draw the Iraqis out to fight on our terms. We’ll probably have to go after them, on ground of their own choosing, which I think is likely to be amongst the soldiers’ own homes and where they are far more likely to put up a real fight.

Block to block fighting, with all the collateral damage and suffering that it entails, plays both politically and militarily into the Iraqis’ hands. Remember, Jenin is still being held up as an atrocity. A battle several orders of magnitude larger than that could be disastrous on the public stage.

And it’s not as if their inferior equipment is useless, so long as another use can be found for it. It’s sort of like what happened to the Japanese between the invasion of Saipan and the invasion of Iwo Jima. The Japanese carefully husbanded some of their light tanks on Saipan, then sent them in against unsuspecting American troops. It didn’t work out very well for them.

So by the time the Americans got to Iwo Jima, the Japanese changed their tactics, and turned their tanks into pillboxes instead. They proved to be quite effective.

Imagine what a rickety old T-55 could do to a column of Humvees if it were concealed in the lobby of an occupied apartment building at the end of a long street. Then, before the heavies can be brought in, you roll it through the back of the building and park it somewhere on the next block. Or let the Americans kill two hundred civilians by bringing the building down on top of the tank. Or both.

And what if Hussein cordons off Baghdad himself, so that the civillians cannot evacuate? Then how are you going to starve out the Republican Guard? It’s a political nightmare that’s difficult to crack, and I think it’s dangerous to think it’s going to be a cake-walk.

Bolding mine. This is the kind of thinking that may get your colective ass kicked (though not defeated).