Suppose, hypothetically, that China had led the coalition into Iraq 5 years ago. What would Iraq look like today?
First, to answer your question: I think it’d look pretty much the same, but perhaps bloodier. I don’t think Iraqis are very interested in having any foreign power occupy the country. But the ethnic segregation of the country probably would have happened more at the hands of the Chinese military as opposed to Iraqi militias, I’d bet. Al Qaeda in Iraq would probably have taken advantage of the chaos in Iraq no matter who invaded, but my guess is that the Chinese would have had a tougher time attacking the organization, since the US uses so much hi-tech gizmos to do that job.
Second, I can only wonder: that seems like a really, really bizarre question. For many reasons, I can’t imagine the Chinese military ever being used outside of China’s immediate borders.
Going by the recent history of Tibet, it would be much more populous.
Well, I was wondering about it because China would probably not have a problem getting brutal. With their human rights record, a place like Abu Gharaib would merit nary an eyeblink. And I was wondering if a sterner occupier would result in faster improvements or if being nice yields the better result.
Whatever the case, the plastic bags would not be able to hold a dozen eggs and the lead in mechanical pencils will break if you so much as sneeze at it. There would be much anger!
The Chinese had the open opportunity for years, but they weren’t fool enough to do so.
There would be no attempt at nation building. They’d garrison the resources and shoot the locals who tried to resist.
On the other hand, China wouldn’t have invaded, they don’t care about other countries, only their resources.
Frankly China doesn’t have today the capability to invade some place like Iraq…certainly not 5 years ago. Leaving that aside I guess the Chinese would have probably taken a hell of a lot more casualties…and the death toll of Iraqis would probably be about what the Lancet report THINKS it is…but it actually would be.
As Ravenman said I think the Iraqis would have reacted badly to ANY outside invasion…and AQ would have taken advantage and used the resulting chaos in Iraq regardless of who actually invaded. Iraq was a powder cage waiting for a spark…and it wouldn’t have mattered who provided that spark to set off the explosion.
The difference would have been that the Chinese would have been far less squeamish about civilian casualties…or here, even their own casualties…than the US. Also, their weapons are far less precise and accurate. They would have had to use the big hammer approach (well, assuming that Iraq was moved to somewhere along China’s border so that this could have actually happened even in theory). Assuming they COULD do it they probably wouldn’t done it by half measures…they would have had LOTS of boots on the ground.
-XT
There would be so much bloodshed of innocent Iraqis that we would be using words like “ethnic cleansing”… As Tibet clearly shows us, human rights takes the back seat to “order” and total control according to communist China.
I rather like what Machiavelli said in The Prince - love and fear are both essential to success. But since only one or the other may be sought upon the taking of territory, either be all good or all bad. As the middle course gives the population all the reasons to dislike you - and the room to show it.
In some respects I wonder if they wouldn’t be more “successful” but I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
From my experience with China, and bear in mind I lived there for close to a year, on the odd days Baghdad would be crowded with half the people in town selling things to the other half, and on the even days it would be crowded with people selling it back, and somehow all of those sons of bitches would make money. It’s a Chinese communist miracle.
I don’t think they would have been more successful, no matter how big the body count. Think about Afghanistan and during the Soviet invasion. Far from being squeamish the Soviets were also proponents of the Bigger Hammer approach to military takeovers. And they actually had a relatively sophisticated military (which the Chinese really still lack) machine and at least nominally more concern for their own casualties (even if they weren’t to stoked about enemy or civilian causalities). I believe China would have gone exactly the same way as the Soviets did in Afghanistan (which WE may go as well in both Afghanistan AND Iraq I hasten to add)…they wouldn’t have even sought the nominal political solutions we have but instead attempted to put a REAL puppet government in place and then tried to pound the Iraqi’s (and AQ and everyone else involved) into line. However, as we have seen the Iraqis (and all the rest) don’t pound to easily.
Of course, another angle to look at here is…how could/would China have actually invaded. They would have had to use the big hammer approach instead of the surgical lightning methods we used…which would have meant a LOT more death and destruction in fighting their way to Baghdad. It would have taken them a lot longer as well (hell, they actually could never have done it in fact but lets play with this)…so maybe the Iraqi’s would have been weary of the fight by the time they finally folded.
-XT
It depends on their political will. If they were willing to throw enough bodies at it… they’d do alright. And Saddam did quite nicely by being arbitrarily harsh. Of course he was an Arab, but… his government was a secular one.
I actually think the Chinese could have pulled off a successful invasion of Iraq, the more I think about it. Suppose an insane Chinese version of Bush rose to power and decided for the good of the nation, China must secure a source of cheap oil. The plan is to annex Iraq under the guise of removing a dangerous dictator who has weapons of mass destruction.
They trump up some charges, get UN backing, and go in with a coalition of allies (including North! Korea!) But instead of playing nice, they pull out all the stops.
A giant force masses in Kuwait and a 30 day ultimatum is given to Saddam to leave. (he doesn’t) In the first two days, Chinese tanks roll into the desert and face off against the fodder troops that Saddam puts out in the first wave. It’s a slaughter as those first waves are easily annihilated by the Chinese.
But now, there are entrenched Republican Guard divisions on the way to Baghdad. At this point, the strategy diverges. The Chinese don’t care about a blitzkreig to Baghdad with a well-planned logistical supply chain, because they don’t care about nation building or securing drawn-out lucrative Halliburton contracts.
They also don’t care about surgical missile strikes to take out military-only targets. They care about the oil, which doesn’t sit in Baghdad.
A massive 48 hour non-stop carpet-bombing run on Baghdad raises a deadly firestorm and catches Saddam with his pants down. The majority of the Baath party is killed, including Saddam and sons, plus millions of Iraqi casualties. A followup on other major Iraqi cities yields similar results.
The ground forces slowly sweep through and take out any remaining large military pieces left, which are in disarray thanks to the successful decapitation of Baath leadership. When Iraqis are left with only small-arms and civilian vehicles, the Chinese disengage and begin Phase Two.
The oil fields are immediately secured and protected by significant ground forces. Fences and bunkers go up and any Iraqi nationals in the vicinity are forcibly deported to elsewhere in Iraq.
Large numbers of Chinese workers, settlers, immigrants, and resources are poured in and small towns spring up overnight. Protected by walls and tank divisions, they set out to put out any well fires, and start pumping oil, bound directly to Hong Kong.
The Iraqis are left to their own devices in the desert, but devoid of major cities and infrastructures, they quickly devolve into in-fighting and factional warfare. They are too busy with that to mount any serious offensive against the Chinese. The West may cluck their collective tongues when no WMDs are found, but ultimately do not intervene.
It is not hard to invade a country like Iraq. It is very difficult to keep it. Russia in Afghanistan,US in Viet Nam ,France in Nam…all examples of how easy it is to walk through the door but you can not shut it. The Chinese would be bogged down by insurgents just like we are and Russia was in Afghanistan. Countries that dislike China would be funding and providing soldiers. It would likely look like it does now. But,they don’t have all the bombers and cool weapons we have ,so the buildings and infrastructure would be more intact
:dubious:
How do they get there? How do they move troops and tanks to Iraq? How do they move supplies there? Where are they going to get the over head surveillance from? How are they going to move enough tactical air into theater? How do they convince Kuwait to allow them to stage such a large body of troops there? What’s in it for Kuwait? How do they convince Kuwait that they will leave again after?
What do they use to carpet-bomb Baghdad with? Where did this come from? Where is it stationed? How did they get the logistics in place to allow it? Are you supposing they have the ability to fly non-stop from China (with what exactly?) to carpet bomb Baghdad and they fly home. If not, exactly where are they supposedly flying from and back to…and how did they get all that supply for 48 straight hours of carpet bombing to occur? (This of course leaves aside the insurmountable challenge to the Chinese of GETTING there, of navigating there, of having intel of Baghdad that allows them to attack anything specific…unless you figure they actually have enough air assets to just bomb the entire city conventionally into scrap at once. If so…where is this massive Chinese bomber force exactly that can do all this?)
Uhuh. Where did China get these capabilities from exactly? What leads you to think they could do this TODAY…let alone years ago? Again, how exactly do they get all the beans and bullets, the tanks, tactical and strategic air assets, helicopters and all the logistics vehicles over there in the first place. Who would LET them simply move all that stuff over there and stage it up in their country?
It’s not hard to beat the New York Yankees or the Chicago Bulls either…if you happen to be another profession sports team. If you are a highschool or weak college team however it would be a bit more of a challenge. Invading a country like Iraq is NOT easy. The US made it LOOK easy because we have all of those things I asked The Controvert about up post. We HAVE the logistics capabilities. We HAVE relationships with other nations in the region to allow us to stage out of. We HAVE a Navy to provide both tactical and strategic air and conventional sea to ground missile strikes on specific targets. We HAVE a military that is actually capable of doing the mission The Controvert laid out…and to make it look easy.
China does not have any of that stuff. They don’t have the military capability to invade Taiwan (successfully and conventionally)…let alone Iraq. And last time I checked Taiwan was RIGHT OFF THEIR OWN COAST.
There is not country on earth today (or 7 years ago) who could do what the US did in Iraq…unless Iraq happened to be right on their border. The Soviets could have done it…though it would have put a huge strain on their logistics system unless the country was linked to them by rail.
-XT
That is so Civ 4 
Kuwait doesn’t like Iraq, so it isn’t hard to convince them to help. As for how, China has already researched the following items on the tech tree:
Boats, Planes, Tanks, Spy Satellites
Maybe if you buy them off or send in your assassins…
Unfortunately for China’s big plans, while they may have researched the tech they haven’t spent the money on developing them yet. Besides, those old wooden boats and propeller powered planes never do well…and I’ve used those old Sherman looking tanks and they only do well against musket men or less. Hell, I’ve lost those things trying to take a city defended by archers!
Back in the real world, China doesn’t have the capabilities to move even a fraction of its army to Kuwait (assuming for a moment that the US let them do so…or that Kuwait would let them stage out of their country :dubious: !!), let alone keep it supplied in the field. Something you have to do in real life but don’t have to do in Civ IV unfortunately…
-XT
xtisme has an excellent point; you pretty much have to assume either an alternate-universe China that has built it’s military and foreign alliances the right way to do this sort of foreign campaign, OR a China that drastically retools it’s military and alliances in that direction. Which would be very, very expensive, not to mention time consuming.
Which leads to another issue; could China even afford the invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq ? How long could they sustain it ? Modern wars are expensive; a war like China-Iraq even more so than average.
So, the answer to the OP could be, “Iraq is in general civil war, after the people who proposed the invasion were shot, and the Chinese Army brought home to keep order due to the destabilization cause by the massive economic problems caused by war expenses.”