ah challenge: succesful iraq war

what does it take to get the USA to succesfully gain control over Iraq and not let it end in the current status?
 
I seem to remember before the Iraq war. A general named Yamazaki (it was something along those lines) said that at least 250000 ground troops would be needed to control iraq. Soon after he got fired and replaced with someone who advised only 100000 were needed.
That might help.
 
At the risk of sounding flippant actually having a clear plan for the occupation might have helped as would not having Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, for a start just ignore all the bull from the Anti-Saddam groups about how the Iraqi Army and police would defect en masse, also not immediately disbanding just about every institution in the country and throwing thousands of police and soldiers out of workcausing them to join the insurgency.

As tonsofun said above have more boots on the ground, so dont waste time sending 4th Infantry Division to Turkey only for permission for its use to be denied. Instead move it to Kuwait with the rest of the invasion force and use paratroops or airmobile forces to secure the North. Also make the restoration of power and sanitation you're main priority in the early days so as to keep the ordinary Iraqis onside.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I seem to remember before the Iraq war. A general named Yamazaki (it was something along those lines) said that at least 250000 ground troops would be needed to control iraq. Soon after he got fired and replaced with someone who advised only 100000 were needed.
That might help.

I also remember this firing. He was Chief of Staff of USA army, Scheski (sic). I remember him say at least 300,000 occupation troops would be needed.

Choices for Bush (Best to Worse):

1) Don't start war.

2) Invade Iraq with OTL forces. We then kill off Sadam, and give power to whichever Iraqi General will be pro-USA. Leave country within 12 months.

3) Invade with 300,000 to 500,000 troops. Then we will have the forces necessary to "nation build" and "create democracy". Even with the full USA army, and all the reserves, the USA army was too small. Assuming only 1/3 of USA troops in Iraq, we will need a full time Army of about 1.5 million. Rough rule of thumb is 1/3 of time training, 1/3 of time at front, and 1/3 of time in administrative status. In Korea, we kept one Brigade at front, one in unit training, one was in administrative status. Over a 3 year period, a soldier will have 3 months of leave, and there is a need for individual training schools for soldiers, and overhead.

4) OTL.
 
Avoid Neocon Utopianism. They thought Iraq would fall quickly, we'd be greeted as liberators, this woulds spread throughout the Middle East, and everything would go wonderfully and all those Left wing naysayers would eat their words.
 

Kissinger

Banned
I just believe that 40 to 50 years are needed for everything to happen since I am using Turkey as a model. We need to wait a long time for Iraq to be a Republic.
 
The US could have done what its doing now, and wait for the people to rebel and then support that rebellion. It could instigate that rebellion with the promise that it would militarily back it. Then the US could invade and do all that.

The problem with Iraq is that it was not a mandate from the Iraqi people, it was a mandate from America. Again, Neocon Utopianism.
 
The US could have done what its doing now, and wait for the people to rebel and then support that rebellion. It could instigate that rebellion with the promise that it would militarily back it. Then the US could invade and do all that.

But such a rebellion will immediately be accused of being a Zinoist Imperialist Plot by you-know-who, and Saddam will gain instant propaganda points by attracting thousands of foreign Jihadis to suppress the rebellion. It's bad enough that the Libyan revolt is accused of being western lackeys.
 
Top