Arab Corps vs. Iraqi Army, 1991

MacCaulay

Banned
Let's just suppose that the Saudi regime, when faced with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, decides to not take the offered American aid or Bin Ladin's plan to Muj the hell out of the place.

Instead, the call goes out to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and any other Arab countries to put together a coalition to push the Iraqis out.

In 1991, could the Arabs have put together a coalition to do it, and just what would the political and military makeup have been?

I've got my own ideas, but I wanted to know what everyone else thought...
 
Didn't the Arab leaders try to organise a peace summit at the time, but then have the Iraqis bail due to the Saudis accepting US aid?
 
The Arabs do not stand a chance of pushing Saddam out of Kuwait if they do not accept international help.
They did not have the numbers,the equipment, the tactics and the experience to do this. They would need a lot more time, than the Coalition needed in OTL to put a respectable force together, meaning that Saddam has even more time to dig his troops in Kuwait and along the Iraqi-Saudi border. I expect this whole "war" then to turn into a tanker war, with both sides attacking the other's financial assets.

Furthermore if the Saudis decided to decline US aid, then Saddam may decide to go for the "big money" and invade Saudi Arabia itself.
 
Mac,

Aside from limited prospect of various Arab nations actually forming a workable coalition (talk about herding cats...), how many forces can Jordon and Syria redeploy from their own borders with Iraq to help Saudi Arabia?


Bill
 
Instead, the call goes out to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and any other Arab countries to put together a coalition to push the Iraqis out.


Although the Syrians were part of the coalition OTL, wouldn't they be more inclined to support their fellow Baathists in Iraq especially if it looked like Saddam was getting the upper hand ?

IF such a coalition could be succesfully forged however, the Arabs would have the Iraqis hemmed in on 2 sides. Despite how large or battle hardened they might be I don't think the Iraqi army could sustain such a fight for very long.
 
IF such a coalition could be succesfully forged however, the Arabs would have the Iraqis hemmed in on 2 sides. Despite how large or battle hardened they might be I don't think the Iraqi army could sustain such a fight for very long.

The Iraqis had a lot of combat experience vs. the Iranians, while I don't think the other Arab states had a lot vs. anyone (the Syrians from suppressing the Hama rising and the Saudis from the Grand Mosque, but that's small stuff).

Don't underestimate this.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Although the Syrians were part of the coalition OTL, wouldn't they be more inclined to support their fellow Baathists in Iraq especially if it looked like Saddam was getting the upper hand
Hell no. The two branches differed over idealogy and which branch was the leading one, splitting apart. They'd join in, methinks, but only if they see everyone else doing so.
 
Well the Gulf War would earn its name, Iraq would put up a hell of a fight if the West isn't directly involved, it be far bloodier and longer
 
Syria and possibly Iran as well might join if it is looking like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt will come out victorious. I also want to know what the Israeli government would do in a situation like this. If America is not involved will anyone be able to restrain Israel from retaliating if Iraq still fires scuds like they did IOTL?
 
I'm not convinced Saddam would have gone into Arabia. The Kuwait thing had to do with debts from the Iran-Iraq War and claiming Kuwait to be a long lost province. And if Iraq did, the battle-hardened Iraqi Army would probably have beat the Sauds. Iraq was beaten by superior America tactics and technology, as we all know... I wonder what the Soviets thought when they saw how easily Iraq was defeated using Soviet equipment and some of their centralized structure. Maybe something like "it's a good thing we never invaded West Germany..."
 
I wonder what the Soviets thought when they saw how easily Iraq was defeated using Soviet equipment and some of their centralized structure. Maybe something like "it's a good thing we never invaded West Germany..."


Kiat,

It was more like "We didn't sell them the good stuff and they didn't follow the manuals anyway."

As a field engineer, I can tell you that technical missions to certain cultures are always difficult. There's the incident reported by US Army trainers in Egypt after the M1A1 tank manuals were finally translated in Arabic and shipped to them. The Us trainers went around passing the manuals out to the Egyptian tanks crews only to have the Egyptian officers come right along behind taking the manuals back. It seems the crews couldn't be trusted with the manuals and, if they could, there wouldn't be anything for the officers to do.


Bill
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Syria and possibly Iran as well might join if it is looking like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt will come out victorious. I also want to know what the Israeli government would do in a situation like this.

Well, there was a fear since the Islamic Revolution that Shi'ite extremism would be exported from Iran to Saudi Arabia. In 1979, Shi'ite radicals actually took guns into Grand Mosque in Mecca forcing a battle inside the walls.
Then Shi'ites on the country's western rim rebelled. The thought of Iran joining in seems a bit beyond what would be politically palatable to the Saudi government.

If America is not involved will anyone be able to restrain Israel from retaliating if Iraq still fires scuds like they did IOTL?

Remember that those Scud attacks on Tel Aviv and Haifa were made to drive a wedge between the Arab and Western members of the Coalition: if the Israelis retaliated, then the Iraqis would say that it was all some Western trick.
If there's no Western troops on the ground, then that's a threat that's been pretty much removed.
 

Thande

Donor
Well, there was a fear since the Islamic Revolution that Shi'ite extremism would be exported from Iran to Saudi Arabia. In 1979, Shi'ite radicals actually took guns into Grand Mosque in Mecca forcing a battle inside the walls.
Then Shi'ites on the country's western rim rebelled. The thought of Iran joining in seems a bit beyond what would be politically palatable to the Saudi government.

I think he meant Iran might get involved out of opportunism as a cobelligerent, not as part of a Saudi-led coalition.
 
Well, there was a fear since the Islamic Revolution that Shi'ite extremism would be exported from Iran to Saudi Arabia. In 1979, Shi'ite radicals actually took guns into Grand Mosque in Mecca forcing a battle inside the walls.
Then Shi'ites on the country's western rim rebelled. The thought of Iran joining in seems a bit beyond what would be politically palatable to the Saudi government.

Thande nailed it. sorry for not articulating it as well as he did.

Remember that those Scud attacks on Tel Aviv and Haifa were made to drive a wedge between the Arab and Western members of the Coalition: if the Israelis retaliated, then the Iraqis would say that it was all some Western trick.
If there's no Western troops on the ground, then that's a threat that's been pretty much removed.

So the Iraqi government will refrain from targeting Israel in the first place. Interesting.

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone have a guess about which side might come out ahead in the air war?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I don't think Jordan would. Join thecArab Corps.

Well, they joined every other pan-Arab war effort, and all those had much less moral and diplomatic heft behind them.

Many times Jordan was caught in the akward wedge of keeping some sort of relationship with Israel, like in '67 and '73. There's no need to think of Israel here. It's just an Arab war, and if one looks at the training and equipment the Jordan has the best in the Middle East.

Well, we all thought Iraq had the best in the Middle East, until they got chewed up. But Jordan undoubtedly would have the best in reality once it came down to actual tank-to-tank combat.
 
Hell no. The two branches differed over idealogy and which branch was the leading one, splitting apart. They'd join in, methinks, but only if they see everyone else doing so.

They got along about as well as Trotskyists and Stalinists, which is to say not at all. from the outside they appear to be one ideological force but in truth they are divergent and would probably rather fight each other than anyone else
 

Hashasheen

Banned
They got along about as well as Trotskyists and Stalinists, which is to say not at all. from the outside they appear to be one ideological force but in truth they are divergent and would probably rather fight each other than anyone else
I continually toy with an Iraqi-Syrian war in lieu of a Iranian-Iraqi ar, with the basis being no Iranian revolution. Still just in the beta stage, though.
 

Thande

Donor
So Iraq-Syria is like the Sino-Soviet split then? Those following a slightly deviationist form of your ideology are far worse blood enemies than those who don't follow it at all ;)
 
Top