A leaner, meaner Iraqi Army in 1990

It seems to have passed into common lore that the Iraqi Army of the 1990 Gulf War was totally, fucking usless. Lead by a paranoid dictator who sent it into Kuwait and let it just sit there and be pounded into the sand by Western airpower the Iraqi Army was more or less inactive.

But what if Sadam was still as badshit insane as in OTL but not quite so paranoid?

Suppose the Iraqi Army, (and air force and navy), were a bit closer to the image presented in the news media of the time. What if Iraq's generals and soldiers had come out of the First Gulf War, (the one with Iran), with an edge of experience and combat leadership to it?

In short what if the Iraqis had made the Cohalition really fight to take back Kuwait, showing courage, skill and tencity? I don't suppose for a minute that they'd have won but they could have put up a better fight than in OTL.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Well, my thought was always that if they'd stopped in Kuwait just long enough to reorder themselves then headed south into Saudi Arabia, the Coalition would've been screwed.

They'd have been running into the very openning stages of Desert Shield. Basically, you're talking about half a wing of A-10s and F-16s, the French 7th Armoured, and the 101st against the entire Iraqi army.

They weren't a terrible army, it was just that by the time we went at them we'd bombed them into the Stone Age and they just wanted it to end. I totally think a TL about the Iraqi Army deciding to just keep going to Riyadh would be great.

I don't know if I actually stayed in the bounds of what you said or not, though...
 
The Iraqis did come out with an edge of experience and combat leadership. It was the wrong experience for the fight they would be facing, however, and invading Saudi Arabia would be an extremely difficult task. There are only a few roads, which the USMC would (and historically did) find it easy to block, especially with the aid of naval air power interdicting and mining the roads.
 
I'd always thought it's have been more interesting if they'd just plundered Kuwait, then left before the Coalition invaded, with the implicit threat that they'd do it again if and when the Coalition forces disappated. Keeping 500,000 Soldiers in Saudi Arabia forever would have been prohibatively expensive.

If they'd wanted to be more aggressive, they could have brought their tanks and planes back, and left a bunch of infantry in the cities, and rigged them with explosives, mines excetera. Eventually they would have run out of supplies, but that's more looting time, and afterwards you can just say 'Yep, you win," and walk of with more goods, and / or try to create a firestorm in a few major population centers before disbanding into the populace if the coalition comes in. (And hope they don't go all the way to Baghdad in response.)
 
Schwartzkopf predicted 5000 Casualties, and they had 13000 hospital beds prepared before the invasion started.

So that is what would happen if things were "closer to the image presented".

If you take "edge of experience" to mean they are at least as good as the coalition troops, then there have been computer simulations done after the war showing this has the potential for a humiliating loss by the coalition, despite any equipment edge, and even if you assume coalition still has air supremacy.

My guess is that there is no invasion in 2003, especially if there is hard urban combat in 1991.
 
My guess is we don't let them back up so easily if there's hard fighting in 1991, negating the need for an invasion in 2003.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I'd always thought it's have been more interesting if they'd just plundered Kuwait, then left before the Coalition invaded

This was actually the nightmare scenario right before the start of the war. If Iraq had pulled back from the bulk of Kuwait, but continued to occupy the Kuwaiti portion of the disputed oil fields and the islands, there was no way the Coalition would have launched the war.
 

Tellus

Banned
This was actually the nightmare scenario right before the start of the war. If Iraq had pulled back from the bulk of Kuwait, but continued to occupy the Kuwaiti portion of the disputed oil fields and the islands, there was no way the Coalition would have launched the war.

What percentage of Kuwaiti oil fields would have that left in the hands of Iraq?
 
The Iraqi army was not that bad. They knew what they were doing. It's just that they were totally out matched by an army built to beat the Soviets.

There were several ways the Iraqis could've done better at the strategic level. First it has been mentioned they could've left Kuwait and took what they needed. This would result in a negotiated settlement and Saddam could come out ahead.

If they wanted to fight the nightmare scenario was blitzing the Saudi oil fields before the Coalition arrived in force. I knew a 82nd paratrooper. His order was "if you see enemy tanks, fire your anti-tank weapons and run for the coast." Instead Saddam had his forces sit around for months while the opposition prepared themselves. This dependence on long build ups worried the Pentagon greatly and was a focus of post war reforms.

If they wanted to play a defensive game, they could've pulled their forces into Kuwait City and threaten a Stalingrad fight. US forces were not trained for that kind of war at the time and there was huge fear post war that they would have to fight giant urban battles in the future. Strangely Saddam did nothing to fortify his cities in the second Iraq war.

None of these two measures would win the war for Iraq, but it would have been a nasty war for all sides.
 
Gents,

The Iraqi army under Saddam had two primary uses; suppress internal dissent and act as a vehicle for political patronage. Both of those uses were absolutely central to keeping Saddam in power. We must keep those two uses in mind whenever discussing how and what that army could be used for.

Even during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam was more interested in any given commander's political loyalty than his military prowess. Iraq's best army commander was "lost" in a helicopter "accident" after Iran's last offensive was repulsed and once his services were no longer needed.

The idea that the Iraqi army could have been used much more effectively in a strategic sense is a given, however all strategic decisions were made by Saddam. If want to change those decisions you'll need to change Saddam. Changing the army simply isn't enough.


Bill
 

The Sandman

Banned
Just have somebody whisper into his ear "You know, if you have the Saudi oil fields around Dhofar to use as a bargaining chip, you've got a much better chance of getting to keep Kuwait."

Alternatively, have the Saudis decide to do something really stupid and actively intervene before we got there. They almost certainly get turned into paste, and the Iraqi troops pursue them back across the border. Presented with a fait accompli, Saddam authorizes the seizure of the Saudi bit of the Gulf Coast.
 
The idea that the Iraqi army could have been used much more effectively in a strategic sense is a given, however all strategic decisions were made by Saddam. If want to change those decisions you'll need to change Saddam. Changing the army simply isn't enough.

Which I mention in the OP.
 

burmafrd

Banned
AS was pointed out the leadership of the Iraqi army was LITTERED with political appointees and you know how that ALWAYS turns out.

The US army of that period had been honed to an edge to fight a tank heavy opponent- the Iraqi army was meat on the table for our army at that time.

Air power- nuff said.

Swartskoff was a very cautious guy when it came to being prepared- he ordered in 60 day supply of ammo- a huge amount (and one hell of a pain to send back afterwards). He had hospitals ready for a lot of casualties- but he expected most of them to be Iraqi.

To this day people do not realize the HUGE edge we had in equipment- every single weapon we had was superior to anything the Iraqis had (except of course the Mattel Tinker Toy-also known as that plastic piece of crap the M16). And our people had been trained to a much higher level overall and particularly in taking care of our weapons-another big failure in the Iraqi army was their attitude towards maintenance.

In reality there really was no way the Iraqi army could have done much better once the war started. Of course Saddam could have made some betterr decisions but once again we are talking about a common street thug who was better at being a bully and not much else.
 
AS was pointed out the leadership of the Iraqi army was LITTERED with political appointees and you know how that ALWAYS turns out.

The US army of that period had been honed to an edge to fight a tank heavy opponent- the Iraqi army was meat on the table for our army at that time.

Air power- nuff said.

Swartskoff was a very cautious guy when it came to being prepared- he ordered in 60 day supply of ammo- a huge amount (and one hell of a pain to send back afterwards). He had hospitals ready for a lot of casualties- but he expected most of them to be Iraqi.

To this day people do not realize the HUGE edge we had in equipment- every single weapon we had was superior to anything the Iraqis had (except of course the Mattel Tinker Toy-also known as that plastic piece of crap the M16). And our people had been trained to a much higher level overall and particularly in taking care of our weapons-another big failure in the Iraqi army was their attitude towards maintenance.

In reality there really was no way the Iraqi army could have done much better once the war started. Of course Saddam could have made some betterr decisions but once again we are talking about a common street thug who was better at being a bully and not much else.

Eh, I do hope you realize the difference between an Iraqi tank heavy forces and a Russian/Soviet one. The latter means tens of thousands of MBTt, APC’s and SP artillery coming at ya with full towed artillery air support and millions of troops,

The problem with the Soviet way of fighting is the same as the US one it only works if the nation doing it is a superpower.:D


Iraq had a pretty good army and they had been fighting for 8 years against Iran, problem was they had no anti-air, the war against Iran was a ground one with little air-power used by either side.

The US bombed the Iraqi's for weeks on end, and they were forced to just sit there and take it,there goes your morale right there...
 
Top