James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 26, 2019 21:43:55 GMT
In 1994, the Americans initiated Operation Vigilant Warrior where Clinton sent troops to Kuwait to deter a possible second invasion. Saddam had been moving his army about. One of his two sons-in-law would later say that Saddam intended to repeat what he did in 1990 but only the rapid response from Clinton deterred this.
How does a repeat invasion go and does the - inevitable - US-led international response this time go all the way to Baghdad?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 28, 2019 10:53:05 GMT
In 1994, the Americans initiated Operation Vigilant Warrior where Clinton sent troops to Kuwait to deter a possible second invasion. Saddam had been moving his army about. One of his two sons-in-law would later say that Saddam intended to repeat what he did in 1990 but only the rapid response from Clinton deterred this.
How does a repeat invasion go and does the - inevitable - US-led international response this time go all the way to Baghdad? Does Iraq have the capability to launch a second invasion, they got hammered verry bad in the First Gulf War. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 28, 2019 17:31:40 GMT
In 1994, the Americans initiated Operation Vigilant Warrior where Clinton sent troops to Kuwait to deter a possible second invasion. Saddam had been moving his army about. One of his two sons-in-law would later say that Saddam intended to repeat what he did in 1990 but only the rapid response from Clinton deterred this.
How does a repeat invasion go and does the - inevitable - US-led international response this time go all the way to Baghdad? Does Iraq have the capability to launch a second invasion, they got hammered verry bad in the First Gulf War. The Americans thought so. Clinton sent troops there - airlifted in to meet pre-positioned equipment - and moved a carrier or two IIRC. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 28, 2019 17:38:14 GMT
Does Iraq have the capability to launch a second invasion, they got hammered verry bad in the First Gulf War. The Americans thought so. Clinton sent troops there - airlifted in to meet pre-positioned equipment - and moved a carrier or two IIRC. Found this YouTube clip, interesting to watch. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 3, 2019 18:09:06 GMT
I'm sure that the Iraqi army could still have taken an unsupported Kuwait. But with American troops already there, the only outcome I see is a period of defense (and massive air strikes) before an invasion force is gathered and the Americans and friends drive to Baghdad.
Of course, this would also ruin every last shred of Bush Senior's good name.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 3, 2019 18:13:29 GMT
I'm sure that the Iraqi army could still have taken an unsupported Kuwait. But with American troops already there, the only outcome I see is a period of defense (and massive air strikes) before an invasion force is gathered and the Americans and friends drive to Baghdad. Of course, this would also ruin every last shred of Bush Senior's good name. So a 1994 version of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 3, 2019 18:24:34 GMT
I'm sure that the Iraqi army could still have taken an unsupported Kuwait. But with American troops already there, the only outcome I see is a period of defense (and massive air strikes) before an invasion force is gathered and the Americans and friends drive to Baghdad. Of course, this would also ruin every last shred of Bush Senior's good name. So a 1994 version of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yes, but it would probably see an even greater collapse of the Iraqi army because many of them will have direct memories of what it means to go up against the West. And so soon after losing his first war, Saddam's position also was weaker and I could see him getting an accident very early on. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 3, 2019 18:27:06 GMT
So a 1994 version of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yes, but it would probably see an even greater collapse of the Iraqi army because many of them will have direct memories of what it means to go up against the West. And so soon after losing his first war, Saddam's position also was weaker and I could see him getting an accident very early on. You mean him falling down the stair when a couple of high ranking Iraq Army officers are watching perhaps. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 3, 2019 18:32:39 GMT
Yes, but it would probably see an even greater collapse of the Iraqi army because many of them will have direct memories of what it means to go up against the West. And so soon after losing his first war, Saddam's position also was weaker and I could see him getting an accident very early on. You mean him falling down the stair when a couple of high ranking Iraq Army officers are watching perhaps. Yes, or I would guess dying in his sleep from an accute open haemorrhage. But then again, the Iraqi army was selected for incompetence, so they might just fail. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 3, 2019 20:16:20 GMT
You mean him falling down the stair when a couple of high ranking Iraq Army officers are watching perhaps. Yes, or I would guess dying in his sleep from an accute open haemorrhage. But then again, the Iraqi army was selected for incompetence, so they might just fail.
I wouldn't necessarily say incompetence. Loyalty to Saddam and his clan, willingness to obey any order no matter how murderous and being intelligent/duplicitous enough to avoid upsetting the great leader by showing anything less than total happiness with all his orders.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 4, 2019 5:05:35 GMT
Yes, or I would guess dying in his sleep from an accute open haemorrhage. But then again, the Iraqi army was selected for incompetence, so they might just fail.
I wouldn't necessarily say incompetence. Loyalty to Saddam and his clan, willingness to obey any order no matter how murderous and being intelligent/duplicitous enough to avoid upsetting the great leader by showing anything less than total happiness with all his orders.
That,and a complete lack of independent thinking and initiative. |
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Apr 4, 2019 15:24:43 GMT
I second the idea that it's 2003 some nine years early. There would be definite desire to march to Baghdad, but I doubt that the US would have planned enough. There are, though, more Vietnam veterans in the government this time around so there'd be more influence on policy from them.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 4, 2019 15:31:46 GMT
I wouldn't necessarily say incompetence. Loyalty to Saddam and his clan, willingness to obey any order no matter how murderous and being intelligent/duplicitous enough to avoid upsetting the great leader by showing anything less than total happiness with all his orders.
That,and a complete lack of independent thinking and initiative.
Probably for most of them. A few are likely to be pretty capable of such activities because they have to work out what is the correct response to Saddam when this may be unclear. Since giving the wrong response is likely to be very unhealthy for them and their families. The latter is a reason why they are still unlikely to turn against him, unless their very sure it would work or that say an assassination would not be traced back to them. Most of the military and other officials will be indulging in group think and blind obedience but suspect there will be some exceptions.
Mind you unless his clan is also removed from power and its pretty entrenched any 'accident' for him would only mean him being replaced by one of his sons, probably with something of a bloodbath as suspected opponents are removed.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Apr 7, 2019 19:22:07 GMT
I second the idea that it's 2003 some nine years early. There would be definite desire to march to Baghdad, but I doubt that the US would have planned enough. There are, though, more Vietnam veterans in the government this time around so there'd be more influence on policy from them. Rummy did it on the cheap in 2003. William Perry doesn't appear to have been the type to make a similar mistake. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 8, 2019 12:25:17 GMT
That,and a complete lack of independent thinking and initiative.
Probably for most of them. A few are likely to be pretty capable of such activities because they have to work out what is the correct response to Saddam when this may be unclear. Since giving the wrong response is likely to be very unhealthy for them and their families. The latter is a reason why they are still unlikely to turn against him, unless their very sure it would work or that say an assassination would not be traced back to them. Most of the military and other officials will be indulging in group think and blind obedience but suspect there will be some exceptions.
Mind you unless his clan is also removed from power and its pretty entrenched any 'accident' for him would only mean him being replaced by one of his sons, probably with something of a bloodbath as suspected opponents are removed.
That's true. You would need an organised coup to also kill Saddam's sons. You can't depend on lucky airstrikes for that. Unfortunately, having to remove them means a real plot, and given the security apparatus, that will get found out and lead to torture and executions. |
|
