Saddam Holds Out

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Considering what we had against Saddam and what we now know he had to fight with this might be ASB, but maybe not.

Lets say the US invasion is bungled terribly, untrained people mess things up and the level of US generalship is worse than the beginning of the Civil War. At the same time, some of Saddam's people are worthy successors to Nebuchadnezzar, his EQ is better than in OTL and his people are loyal and well trained with the home advantage (Boy, this IS ASB).

While this doesn't give him victory it certainly slows us down. We begin to take heavy casualties and Baghdad stands up under the bombing. Days become weeks, then months. More troops are sent in and more casualties. Support begins to erode, at home and abroad.

What happens, do we look at Somalia squared and begin to withdraw? and how do we do that if we do? Does Bush keep going, as another Vietnam looms, and his reelection becomes remote?

Do we up the ante? as Bush said was not ruled out, and launch tactical, maybe even strategic, nuclear weapons?
 

Valamyr

Banned
"Our initial assessment is that they will all die."

It would be sad if the Iraqi minister of information became a credible figure and we couldnt laugh at him.

But, if the americans got hurt so badly that they didnt risk another military adventure for five or six decades, it would probably largely be a POD for the better. A MOABed Bagdhad (more likely than nukes... and two were deployed to the gulf) would on the other hand certainly not go a long way toward appeasing muslim hostility towards the western world.
 
While I'm no fan of our military adventuring either (other than Afghanistan), having us get away from it by losing a war badly isn't the best solution. Saddam successfully holding out would just hearten despots around the world and would likely encourage Iran and N. Korea to do foolish things. I really don't see how Iraq could hold out indefinitely... our equipment was much better, supply much better, and big parts of the country hated Saddam with a passion. Iraq is one of those situations where it would have been better not to do it at all, but once you start, you have to go to the bitter end. Iraq simply couldn't hold up militarily... standing in place and fighting would simply expose them to our airpower. The best they could hope for is a larger version of the guerilla activity that we see there today, but to get that, you need more people on Saddam's side; still, it's a possibility...
 
I think what would happen can be summed up in a statement made by GEN Patton during WW2. He was at a meeting with Ike, Bradley, Monty, and all the other heavyweights. One of the generals noted all the Allied military leaders were in one room and wondered out loud what would happen if a bomb went off and all were killed. Patton said something to the effect that there would be lots of promotions and everything would go forward with little delay.

President Bush fires all the generals and replaces them with better officers (even if it means promoting people ahead of others). The war would resume after a very brief intermission........
 
Top