Will Iraq be a bloodless coup?

Y’know, the more I think about this, the more I think any war in Iraq will proceed without any actual blood being shed. I mean, think about it - the Iraqi army will surrender straight away. They would have to be insane not to, any resistance would surely mean certain death.

So, I seriously doubt that America will even bother to attack the Iraqi army (apart from the odd rebellious unit). In any case, the army will be needed after the war so America would have to be stupid to decimate them.

That just leaves the Republican Guard in Baghdad but once US/UK forces are surrounding Baghdad, the Iraqi people will turn on Saddam. In the end the Republican Guard will side with the Iraqi people not with Saddam.

So, if done properly, there may be no war after all, just a bloodless coup.

Well, not entirely bloodless, Saddam’s blood may get spilt, but as far as I’m concerned, that’s the only real drawback to this whole thing - we only get to kill him once.

I just hope they do it properly, coz I reckon they could pull this off without killing anybody if they do it right.

Uh, yeah. That’s what Bush 1 was hoping for, too. How many times did we hear them encouraging the troops to turn on Saddam. But here we are, all over again.

The war with Iraq will be anything but “bloodless.”

I wouldn’t rule out this possibility but it hardly solves all the problems.

What if the next regime is just as nasty as the previous one and continues to make WMD. With Saddam gone much of the causus belli for war will no longer be there and US won’t have a credible threat of war. Ironically Iraq may become more difficult to contain after Saddam is gone.

Here’s a good sign.

NO David,

You have a fundamental misunderstanding - Gulf War 1 was never intended to overthrow Saddam. It wasn’t allowed for in the UN resolutions of the time. None of the countries in the coalition had entered the coalition on the understanding that the aim was to overthrow Saddam. It was never the aim to overthrow Saddam and it was never going to happen.

This time however, things are different…

The Iraqi army know that the objective is to go all the way.

Does anyone here even really believe Saddam is in Bagdad? He’s probably in Syria or Iran. Or buried in a bunker in the desert. But the war will not be bloodless if it occurs. The only way it will be is if he goes into exile. I’m not holding my breath for that.

Unfortunately it will be far from bloodless. Although it would be nice. We can always dream right. :slight_smile: Saddam’s hench men will go to great extent to keep the Iraqi people on their side, even if it means killing a few hundred more as examples. Plus, Don’t forget about Bin Laden’s call to all of his followers to prepare to wage a holy war upon the U.S. and back Iraq if we do attack (hence th reason terror threat status has been so high for the past week.) The U.S. military said that Bin Laden’s men would put up a veryh ard fight, and there will be some casualties, but we will still conquer.

So, just remember those few words (because they are always true everytime we go into battl). “We will still conquer.”

Jojo said:

Jojo, if you honestly believe that this will be bloodless, it is you, not I, who has a fundamental misunderstanding. But you know what, arguing with you isn’t going to change the future. So I’ll tell ya what, if there is a bloodless war, you feel free to start a thread saying, “David B, I Told You So.” If not, though, I expect to see a thread saying, “I Had a Fundamental Misunderstanding and David B Was Right.” 'kay?

I’ll see ya then.


I don’t “honestly” believe this will be bloodless, I just think it could be if done right.

Not entirely bloodless of course, there will be a lot of revenge killings once Saddam has gone and US/UK forces will undoubtedly kill a few people in the process of removing Saddam.

But I just meant that if they do it right, it may be reasonably unwarlike (as wars go). All I meant was, it at least may not be quite as devastating as some would have you believe.

But I may be totally wrong, of course.

Iraq is a proud nation. They are part of othe cradle of civilization. The story of Gilgamesh takes place there. The hanging garders of Babylon were near Baghdad. Caliphs and sultans ruled over it as they kept civilization alive in the Middle Ages. They have a rich history, and a strong attachment to their very important role in the history of the world.

Somehow I just don’t think they are gonna throw up their hands when young invaders from half a world away come marching in.

even sven,

I agree with you about all the “Iraq has a proud history…” stuff. It is also the site of the Garden of Eden and Sumer. In fact a peaceful, democratic Iraq will make a fortune out of tourism, never mind the oil.

However, it all depends on whether they see themselves as defending Iraq itself or defending Saddam and his regime. If they believed they were defending Iraq then, yes, I’m sure they’d fight but if they think they are defending Saddam, then I don’t think they’ll have any problem with surrending.

In fact, I’m gonna make a bold prediction, right here and now (always dangerous I know) - I don’t think there will be any war at all, I think the Iraqis are just waiting for us to arrive so they can help us get rid of Saddam. I think we’ll just drive right up to Baghdad without encountering any resistance at all (ok maybe minimal resistance). Then once we get to Baghdad, we will just sit outside and let the Iraqis take care of Saddam. Then we’ll turn round and go home.

It’s not like Afghanistan where many ordinary taliban soldiers shared the extremist religious views of their political masters, and therefore put up a fight. A lot will depend on whether the Iraqis understand that we don’t intend to install a permanent government-of-occupation in Iraq, just a temporary one while some kind of democratic framework is set up.

I hope to God I’m right, maybe I’m being too optimistic, but if I’m wrong I’ll happily start a thread entitled “David B and even sven, you were right and I was wrong”.

Who can predict the future? I think that just because soldiers surrendered the last war we should not expect them to do the same this time, especially since we are attacking them without provocation. Too bad we can’t know the general attitude of the Iraqi population… it would be interesting to know how much they have been affected by Saddam’s insane tyranny… will they be glad when we ‘liberate’ them?

For a while now, I’ve increasingly leaned in the general direction alliterated by Jojo. I doubt very much it could be bloodless but I do think – I think Blair and maybe Bush think – it could be far more Ceausescu by way of Mad Milo in Serbia than GW1, which, as Jojo points out wasn’t about the removal of Saddam but the defeat of his armed forces. This is the reverse.

It’s curious to me that the protestors – who I’d normally join – have been so muddle-headed on this question; there won’t be a ‘war’ as we understand it and, it seems to me, they are fixated on the imagery they saw on their teevee’s in GW1, Serbia and Afghanistan. Not going to happen this time, not least as the absolute political imperative is speed (so as to avoid potentially growing civil unrest in our democracies) and the military imperative of the weather. The removal of Saddam is another game altogether from what has passed before.

For example, I have absolutely no doubt tax dollars are currently winging their way all over the Shiite and Kurdish regions of Iraq, as well as in the general direction of anyone who can add a little leverage, maybe pass a little information, etc, etc … Also no foubt US/UK flights over the no-fly zone are being beefed up and even augmented by … additional support. Saddam’s area of genuine control is seriously restricted already and I’d like to think - I’d put a sizable wager on it - his military will collapse with little pressure.

In fact, I’d go as far as to say, Blair’s careful language and support is for removal and absolutely not for a ‘war’. I’m far from sure he could support a ‘war’, on principle and (domestically) politically.

The goal will simply be Saddam, dead or at The Hague. And as quickly as possible and as ‘surgically’ as possible. IMHO.

Around the time of Operation Desert Storm, Dick Cheney was asked about why the Coalition had held off going into Baghdad and finding Saddam Hussein. At the time, he said,
“I think if we had done that we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time, with the real possibility we might not have succeeded. And then you’ve got to worry about what comes after. You’re going to take a lot more casualties if you’re going to muck around in Iraq for weeks on end trying to run Saddam to the ground, and capture Baghdad and so forth, and I don’t think it would have been worth it”.

And Cheney is one of those people in favor of this war. So I seriously doubt it will be bloodless.

Heck, Gulf War 1 ( “Exercise Desert Storm”) was quite bloody if you count the Iraqi casualties as well. Or do only good old red-blooded American casualties count?

I haven’t got a clue as to how long or short this war, if it happens, will be. But here is an article that may be of interest.

Nothingnobody wrote: “Too bad we can’t know the general attitude of the Iraqi population… it would be interesting to know how much they have been affected by Saddam’s insane tyranny… will they be glad when we ‘liberate’ them?”

Actually, coming from the mouth of an iraqi who fortunately did make it to America in one piece. I heard him speak on the talk radio network last week. He stated that if/when America does attack Iraq, he would not be surprised if some of them came running to enlist in the U.S. forces and fight against Iraq. The major majority only speak the way they do about America because of Saddam’s hench men, and his sadistic ways. The Iraqi people are probably wondering what the hold up is on the overthrow of Saddam :).

Last time I heard, military plans for Iraq were pushing to have the war over and done with in about a month’s time.

Though I am deeply opposed to this war, I think – perhaps ironically – there is a high likelihood it will be short, swift and relatively bloodless. (Or sanitized media coverage will make it appear bloodless.)

Then why am I opposed? For one thing, there’s a high enough chance that it won’t be a cakewalk to give me pause. The consequences of getting bogged down in a long ME war are frightful. I can’t see any way this makes the US safer – quite the opposite.

Second, the real struggle begins after Saddam is removed. Nation-building in this region is going to be costly and dangerous, and I have little confidence that the result will be a shining new beacon of democracy, as some suggest.

Third, short of Rwanda-style genocide, I don’t think one country has any business interfering in the internal affairs of another. Certainly, Saddam comes close to the line (and is guilty of this himself). I don’t know anyone that would be sorry to see him go. But he has been effectively contained for over a decade. The US has a long, sad history of meddling in other countries affairs – behavior US citizens would never accept if the tables were turned.

Fourth, our approach to Iraq vs N Korea is sending exactly the wrong message. It is now clear to any tinpot dictator – your only possible hope in standing up to the US is to acquire nukes.

Fifth, in terms of WMD, Pakistan and North Korea are far more dangerous. In Pakistan, the ISS is said to be renewing ties to Al Queda-linked extremists in the western provinces. This has gotten very little press. A war with Iraq is likely to strenghten the extremist elements in Pakistan (and elsewhere).

Finally, “preemptive” strikes (an Orwellian phrase if there ever was one) are not what I want my country to be about. I want to live in a country that is slow to anger, humble in its approach to foriegn policy. Ironically, this is exactly what GW Bush said during the 2000 campaign.

(Actually, there are more reasons I oppose the war, but I’m tired …)

Greetings Ace_Face. I always feel reluctant to weigh in on this kind of speculation. Partly b/c it is just speculation, but also because the prognosis of a short war seems to be a palliative. But you have encapsulated a lot of why it isn’t or shouldn’t be seen as a palliative. Short wars can and this case almost certainly would have long aftermaths and long-term consequences. And I also think people thousands of miles away from the fray, some of whom have never traveled outside of their home state, don’t really think about what thousands of tons of bombs do even for a short period of time.

(I also agree that the non-thought about Pakistan, or even India has been bizarre. Pakistanian response was discussed fairly responsibly during the pre-Afghanistan discourse, but now you’d think it was in a different hemisphere.)

I’m betting on short, swift, and “sanitized” myself.