Using WMD on American forces is going to invite response in kind by the US.
Second Iraq War Ends With Iraq Victory
- Thread starter Rillium
- Start date
Saddam. Incase anyone is wondering, no, I am not serious about this stuff.
I have to agree that it’s ASB. If the Iraqis used WMDs and killed so many allied troops doing so, the US would respond in kind.
The interesting part was the position of Brown. As Chancellor, up to and after the time, he wasn’t vocal in support/against the war - he continued his role but carefully avoided being drawn on the subject - likely this was to try and avoid fallout either way, knowing that he was going to go for the top job after Blair. In an ‘Allies lose’ situation, he might be damaged by association, but probably no more so than other neutral (whipped) ministers.
The interesting part was the position of Brown. As Chancellor, up to and after the time, he wasn’t vocal in support/against the war - he continued his role but carefully avoided being drawn on the subject - likely this was to try and avoid fallout either way, knowing that he was going to go for the top job after Blair. In an ‘Allies lose’ situation, he might be damaged by association, but probably no more so than other neutral (whipped) ministers.
Much as it would be an interesting scenario to write, there is absolutely no way Iraq can beat back the Coalition. Vietnam was a scenario where the US could not declare a full-scale war against the Vietnamese government, and kept trying to find ways around that, effectively hamstringing its participation within the war until the Vietnamese basically outlasted them. I can't see Iraq in 2003 having the patience or the resources for a long-scale insurgency the way the VC managed it.
Furthermore, North Vietnam had a large amount of backers and suppliers, starting with the Soviet Union, to keep bleeding the Americans out. Iraq under Saddam burned all its bridges, and whatever allies it had left were unwilling or unable to help it against the US-lead coalition, especially since the USA was fresh off the Sept 11 attacks (or was still riding high on the excuse and desire for revenge).
To top it all off, you can't just "give" the Iraqis space weapons and expect them to be good at them. You can toss the Wehrmacht enough M1A2s and F-22s to theoretically crush the USSR in six months, but without proper training, supplies, logistics, spare parts and maintenance, the whole thing would basically pointless as equipment breaks down, and some specialized equipment needs special handling to get whatever benefits you need from it. Especially since the Iraqi army was just masses of warm bodies lead by complete morons and 'modern major generals' who got their ranks through connections and nepotism, who couldn't fight a decent war if their lives depended on it (and it did IOTL).
So yeah, basically ASB.
The only way Iraq wins is if a meteor hits the US East Coast as the US forces are invading and the surviving government orders their forces to return home to keep order. In which case, President Dubya would have much bigger problems than losing the war (such as the fact he probably got killed via meteor impact or is buried deep underground in the White House bunker).
Furthermore, North Vietnam had a large amount of backers and suppliers, starting with the Soviet Union, to keep bleeding the Americans out. Iraq under Saddam burned all its bridges, and whatever allies it had left were unwilling or unable to help it against the US-lead coalition, especially since the USA was fresh off the Sept 11 attacks (or was still riding high on the excuse and desire for revenge).
To top it all off, you can't just "give" the Iraqis space weapons and expect them to be good at them. You can toss the Wehrmacht enough M1A2s and F-22s to theoretically crush the USSR in six months, but without proper training, supplies, logistics, spare parts and maintenance, the whole thing would basically pointless as equipment breaks down, and some specialized equipment needs special handling to get whatever benefits you need from it. Especially since the Iraqi army was just masses of warm bodies lead by complete morons and 'modern major generals' who got their ranks through connections and nepotism, who couldn't fight a decent war if their lives depended on it (and it did IOTL).
So yeah, basically ASB.
The only way Iraq wins is if a meteor hits the US East Coast as the US forces are invading and the surviving government orders their forces to return home to keep order. In which case, President Dubya would have much bigger problems than losing the war (such as the fact he probably got killed via meteor impact or is buried deep underground in the White House bunker).
Then they either try a risky counterforce strike (less likely) or don't do anything except deterrence and fighting off small provocations (more likely).
Iraq was a perfect storm (and, in my opinion, a lot more likely regardless of political leadership in the US than many think, to the point where you can make a legitimate case it was inevitable, particularly after 9/11). There was a understandable, however incorrect in hindsight, feeling of being backed into a corner. On one hand, a decade of airstrikes and sanctions hadn't budged Saddam. On the other, as mentioned above, he had no serious allies left and his army, already easily defeated in 1991, had become even more of a shattered wreck.
Compare this with say, North Korea, which did have a big power patron and undeniable WMDs and, for all its weakness, a military that was still stronger and more coherent than the Iraq's of the time period. The paradigm was just different. And with genuine WMDs, Iraq would be different too.
On this question no the Baath Party couldn't have won the war, but they could have won the peace if they worked in the system and set themselves up to take over the state again. Winning as an insurgency is hard as they really didn't know how to fight that way. But, Zarqawi's veterans of Afghanistan knew quite well from their Soviet/Afghan war days which was why his insurgent group now called the Islamic State came to dominate and crush the Baathists who in time teamed up with the US to fight them.
Its not WMDs that kept and still keeps America from finishing off North Korea and reunifying the country. Its their savior next door which if they had not acted in 1950 would have meant they cease to exist. They are starting to finally develop enough of their own arsenal to not need China for deterrence, but in the past nerve gasses and a few bombs wasn't on its own all important in staying America's hand.
But, overall I agree that the history leading up to the Iraq War has been pretty much forgotten and re-written. Though I do think Saddam had a chance to save his regime for a couple months after 911 if he went the Iran/Gaddafi route of candle light vigils and allowing in the CIA and weapons inspectors. Though an America that still feels like a hyperpower and with 911 in the background will eventually step in as we did in Libya when some kind of revolt happens or Saddam overreaches again.
Its not WMDs that kept and still keeps America from finishing off North Korea and reunifying the country. Its their savior next door which if they had not acted in 1950 would have meant they cease to exist. They are starting to finally develop enough of their own arsenal to not need China for deterrence, but in the past nerve gasses and a few bombs wasn't on its own all important in staying America's hand.
But, overall I agree that the history leading up to the Iraq War has been pretty much forgotten and re-written. Though I do think Saddam had a chance to save his regime for a couple months after 911 if he went the Iran/Gaddafi route of candle light vigils and allowing in the CIA and weapons inspectors. Though an America that still feels like a hyperpower and with 911 in the background will eventually step in as we did in Libya when some kind of revolt happens or Saddam overreaches again.
Last edited: