What if Syria allies with Iraq in 2003?

Pretry unlikely for Assad to wish national suicide, but let's say he has a death wish and the Baathists go all in against the U.S. and Bush's Coalition.

How would the war go? How would the occupation go? What are the repercussions for the rest of the Middle East?
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Pretry unlikely for Assad to wish national suicide, but let's say he has a death wish and the Baathists go all in against the U.S. and Bush's Coalition.

How would the war go? How would the occupation go? What are the repercussions for the rest of the Middle East?

That would mean ignoring a quarter of a century of Baathist-v-Baathist hostility. It would ignore Syria's links to Iran and Syrian participation in the '91 war against Iraq by the West. A different Iraqi leader in '03 rather than Saddam might mean an Iraq-Syria alliance, but then I doubt there would have been a war against Saddam.
 
Pretry unlikely for Assad to wish national suicide, but let's say he has a death wish and the Baathists go all in against the U.S. and Bush's Coalition.

How would the war go?

Assad would get his death wish....Syria wouldn't stand a chance.

How would the occupation go?

Here's where real problems begin for the US. The insurgencies would require more troops to suppress so US money poured down a rathole.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Thousands of US casualties in a few weeks; and Assad is well and truly dead, while Syria is properly fucked.
Now take Iraq insurgency of OTL and multiply that by about oh 350.

And the past 15 years of war, condensed into 15 months.

Then again, maybe the professionals are listened to and the US sends the 500,000 men that the professionals recommended in OTL. Maybe there are enough troops to quell an inurgency.

You are basically requiring Bush to institute mass and simultaneous callup of reservists/Nat G. That's going to politically very unpopular. And if the Battle with the Syrians do see some reverses (which basically is a given) thats going to be even worse. Imagine an Ohio Nat G Unit gets destroyed with large casulaties, whats Bush going to do in the 2004 Election there, the State decided the election in OTL.

USN Ships filmed burning after being hit by AShM's;
American Aviators paraded on TV after being shot down.
Casualties filling hospitals in Germany and the US to the breaking point.

In OTL, the Bush II gp thpught they would avoid such visuals (and they for the most part did)., if they went into Iraq. Might deter them?
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
Thousands of US casualties in a few weeks; and Assad is well and truly dead, while Syria is properly fucked.
Now take Iraq insurgency of OTL and multiply that by about oh 350.

And the past 15 years of war, condensed into 15 months.

I was in Iraq when we invaded in 03, and I can tell you flat out that your "thousands of US casualties in a few weeks" is an absolutely ridiculous estimate. Coalition forces would take, at most, a few hundred to a thousand total during initial combat operations. Even if the Syrians used chemical weapons, we were prepared for that, and would not have taken significant causalities from it.

The insurgency would certainly have been worse, no argument there. But I doubt to the extent you're saying. 1.5 to 2 times as bad, at worst. However, you have to balance this against the fact that, if we are invading both Iraq and Syria, more troops are going to be committed to the fight initially. So the insurgency would initially be hit much harder and not allowed to gain as much traction as in OTL. I hesitate to say it may not have been as bad, simply for the fact that I'm a grunt, not a strategist. But that would certainly be a possibility with more boots on the ground.
 
This likely butterflies the war altogether, at least temporarily. If the Syrian government is somehow to fight with Iraq it will announce this intention beforehand, this means that there's no unaminous vote on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 and probably no goodwill trip to Europe by Assad. Some neo-cons in the states will no doubt be happy that the Syrians have voluntarily become Axis of Evil Member No. 4, but ultimately it would signal that American attempts to internationally isolate Iraq have failed and that hopes of containing the war will have been dashed prior to the outset of the conflict. At this point, even Cheney and Rumsfeld would realise that they would be heading towards a disaster.
 

SsgtC

Banned
@Ak-84 you've edited your post since I responded initially to include even more AmeriScrew into it. You're making SYRIA sound like the USSR at the height of their power. You're beyond dreaming here. In a full out war, the US would have curbstommped Assad's military. They are not a modern, first line Military. Look at the 91 Gulf War. Iraq had the 4th largest military IN THE WORLD at that point. And the US and our allies utterly destroyed it in a several week air campaign and a 72 hour ground war. You're not going to see entire units wiped out by the Syrians, or shot down American pilots paraded through the streets. And you're most definitely not going to see burning American warships. The only video you're going to see is Syrians surrendering en mase to American forces and burning Syrian Military hardware.
 

Ak-84

Banned
I was in Iraq when we invaded in 03, and I can tell you flat out that your "thousands of US casualties in a few weeks" is an absolutely ridiculous estimate. Coalition forces would take, at most, a few hundred to a thousand total during initial combat operations. Even if the Syrians used chemical weapons, we were prepared for that, and would not have taken significant causalities from it.

The insurgency would certainly have been worse, no argument there. But I doubt to the extent you're saying. 1.5 to 2 times as bad, at worst. However, you have to balance this against the fact that, if we are invading both Iraq and Syria, more troops are going to be committed to the fight initially. So the insurgency would initially be hit much harder and not allowed to gain as much traction as in OTL. I hesitate to say it may not have been as bad, simply for the fact that I'm a grunt, not a strategist. But that would certainly be a possibility with more boots on the ground.
You fought Iraq. Which was in 2003 debilitated by years of sanctions and bombings. Which had no Air Force. Or much by the way of an ability to organize large scale resistance. Even then, they managed to cause the occasional reversal.

Now compare with Syria, which would have an intact military as well as a modern Air Force and Air Defence and some significant Anti Ship capability. Meaning the carrier Groups in the Med have to either risk exposure to enemy fire or operate from well away. Unlike the free ride they got in OTL. You also have to commit some forces to the defence of Southern Europe which is in range of Su-24's as well as Syrian Missile Boats which might slip out of a blockade.. As well as an actual guided missile force, which they used OTL to good effect versus rebels unlike the Iraqis when they employed in. So you have a military which is relatively well trained and able to hit hard at the enemy.

In OTL the initial casualties were (from memory) about 100-120 KIA and about 1000 wounded from all causes. Very minor casualties for a total force nearing 300,000. Negligible almost.

There is no doubt that Syria would have been defeated. And fairly quickly. The question is how much hurt they could inflict on the attackers. And how much the attackers were willing to risk to attain said quick victory. However, a few thousand KIA+ WIA is not out of the question. Or in excess of historical experience. (IDF casualties in Leb fighting against Syria were about 3000 out of 80,000)
 

Ak-84

Banned
@SSGT, with respect, you sound like a pre-2003 Clancy novel. You remind me of what US Grant wrote about casualty rates. That if the all of your shots hit and all of the enemies miss, of course, you will win. AmeriScrew? Seriously? It is an "AmeriScrew" to point out that the Syrians do have a military and would probably inflict casualties. They are not stupid after all. A few thousand killed wounded injured is par for the course in modern warfare. Especially while you are attempting to destroy the enemy's own ability. I am not suggesting at any point they would win, merely that they would cause some significant losses. No lost ships? They have a Navy much better armed then the Argentines had in the Falklands, operating in narrow waters far less conducive for ships and yet you seem to think that they will not score any hits?

No pilots shot down at all? Iraqis got a several in OTL. No units destroyed? Again in OTL Iraqis got a whole Apache squadron cut to ribbons and a battalion was mauled at Nasirya. No chance of that happening v Syria?
 
Last edited:
@SSGT, with respect, you sound like a pre-2003 Clancy novel. You remind me of what US Grant wrote about casualty rates. That if the all of your shots hit and all of the enemies miss, of course, you will win. AmeriScrew? Seriously? It is an "AmeriScrew" to point out that the Syrians do have a military and would probably inflict casualties. They are not stupid after all. A few thousand killed wounded injured is par for the course in modern warfare. Especially while you are attempting to destroy the enemy's own ability. I am not suggesting at any point they would win, merely that they would cause some significant losses. No lost ships? They have a Navy much better armed then the Argentines had in the Falklands, operating in narrow waters far less conducive for ships and yet you seem to think that they will not score any hits?
Well on the Naval side of things, the US has Aegis, an excellent fleet defense interceptor, fixed wing AEW and lessons from the Falklands, none of which the UK had, the US defenses were built on the assumption of beating off Regiment+ level attacks from Soviet long range aviation, which is far more than what Syria could manage at its best. Also the only Argentine Naval forces that achieved anything but being sunk was their naval air forces. The Syrian Navy in 2003 is rather proportionally worse armed than the Argentine Navy in 1982 was, the Argentines had an actual aircraft carrier, an upgraded light cruiser, 2 brand new destroyers (the same type the UK had), 3 brand new corvettes, 2 modern SSK (albeit only one operational), one upgraded 40 year old sub and 2 upgraded 40 year old destroyers, Syria by contrast had in 2003 3 40-50 year old subs, 2 40 year old light frigates, 13 30+ year old missile boats, and some light coastal forces and no fixed wing Naval air. Yeah they have more missile armed combatants and coastal missile batteries, but missile boats don't survive under hostile skies and fixed defenses are fixed

Not gonna comment on the ground side of things, but the Syrian Navy doing anything but dying is unlikely
 

SsgtC

Banned
No pilots shot down at all? Iraqis got a several in OTL. No units destroyed? Again in OTL Iraqis got a whole Apache squadron cut to ribbons and a battalion was mauled at Nasirya. No chance of that happening v Syria?
Ramscoop already handled the naval side of your answer, so I'm just gonna respond to the last bit. I was at Al Nasiriyah. Saying 2/2 was mauled is a massive overstatement. You're also ignoring the fact that that single Marine Battalion wiped out an Iraqi force that was 3 to 4 times their size. You are hugely overestimating Syrian Military ability.
 

Ak-84

Banned
The Argentines had 6 Excoets. The Syrians will have many more AsHMs. The Argentines were fighting an enemy force in open Ocean. The Syrians in narrow closed waters, with less room ta maneuver, and where likely position of the enemy os obvious, and where previous experience suggests that Naval forces have a difficult time avoiding being hit by land-based aircraft.


The nearest Argentine AF base to the Falklands was nearly 800 km away. In the Med, that takes you almost to Greece from Latakia. The Syrians also have much more capable aircraft than the Argues did, Su-24 versus the Super Entrands and A4's. Of course the USN is much better equipped the RN taskfoce.

All in all, I expect a similar level of losses. You will have a picket of destroyers ahead with the carriers held back. The Destroyers will probably bear the brunt of attacks. Most of which they will intercept. But even a 90% kill rate means a few leakers and losses.
 
Last edited:

Ak-84

Banned
Ramscoop already handled the naval side of your answer, so I'm just gonna respond to the last bit. I was at Al Nasiriyah. Saying 2/2 was mauled is a massive overstatement. You're also ignoring the fact that that single Marine Battalion wiped out an Iraqi force that was 3 to 4 times their size. You are hugely overestimating Syrian Military ability.
(You were with Lynch per any chance?)

It was what? 30 KIA and 60 WIA from memory. A battalion is 800 or so men so thats quite a big loss for them. Plus you are forgetting that the USMC had absolutely uncontested air support, something which won't be guaranteed versus Syria, for the first few days at any rate. The Syrians are not going to sit and let the USAF hit them before launching a ground war, everyone learned the inadvisability of that in 1991.

Your problem is that you seem to think that when I say that the US would suffer proportionally greater losses in a war with Syria, I am somehow comparing the Syrians to the Red Army in Europe. Its as if an experienced if limited bantamweight versus a heavyweight. You expect the heavyweight to win easily. I agree. I say that I do expect the bantamweight to be ab;e to get a few punches, perhaps a few hard ones before going down, fairly quickly. You use that to claim that I am saying that, the bantamweight was like Mike Tyson in his prime.

And thats an "AmeriScrew"?:(
 

SsgtC

Banned
(You were with Lynch per any chance?)

It was what? 30 KIA and 60 WIA from memory. A battalion is 800 or so men so thats quite a big loss for them. Plus you are forgetting that the USMC had absolutely uncontested air support, something which won't be guaranteed versus Syria, for the first few days at any rate. The Syrians are not going to sit and let the USAF hit them before launching a ground war, everyone learned the inadvisability of that in 1991.

Your problem is that you seem to think that when I say that the US would suffer proportionally greater losses in a war with Syria, I am somehow comparing the Syrians to the Red Army in Europe. Its as if an experienced if limited bantamweight versus a heavyweight. You expect the heavyweight to win easily. I agree. I say that I do expect the bantamweight to be ab;e to get a few punches, perhaps a few hard ones before going down, fairly quickly. You use that to claim that I am saying that, the bantamweight was like Mike Tyson in his prime.

And thats an "AmeriScrew"?:(
No, I was not with Lynch's supply convoy. I was Marine Recon. And just FYI, you're hugely overstating the casualties 2/2 took. It was 19 KIA and about the same wounded. The 32 KIA and 60 WIA are across all of RCT 2 (basically two entire Marine Regiments) and Lynch's supply company.

Also, the SU-24 isn't that great a fighter. Besides, the min they leave the ground, they'll be engaged by F-15s, -16s, -14s, -18s and European fighters.
 
The Argentines had 6 Excoets. The Syrians will have many more AsHMs. The Argentines were fighting an enemy force in open Ocean. The Syrians in narrow closed waters, with less room ta maneuver, and where likely position of the enemy os obvious, and where previous experience suggests that Naval forces have a difficult time avoiding being hit by land-based aircraft.


The nearest Argentine AF base to the Falklands was nearly 800 km away. In the Med, that takes you almost to Greece from Latakia. The Syrians also have much more capable aircraft than the Argues did, Su-24 versus the Super Entrands and A4's. Of course the USN is much better equipped the RN taskfoce.

All in all, I expect a similar level of losses. You will have a picket of destroyers ahead with the carriers held back. The Destroyers will probably bear the brunt of attacks.
Whole different deployment in actuality, USN has fixed wing AEW, E-2's off the carriers or E-3s off land bases, so that means they get a 300+ mile warning of anything coming in and don't need to have destroyers on Radar picket duty, Sonar Picket yes but that is much closer in and not exposed. Plus of course, use geography right and British Radar on Cyprus can add extra warning. Because of this warning, they can vector in patrolling F-14s to do the interceptions at long range, given that they also have tankers to allow the F-14s to not worry about fuel, and a single carrier has more F-14s than the Syrians have Su-24s. This is contrasted to the Falklands where the British had no AEW, Harriers had very limited endurance and had to stay close by the fleet, and warning times could be well under a minute. Past that each carrier has 3-4 Aegis ships, that with VLS can ripple fire missiles, guide multiple missiles at the same time and have at least 30 miles more range than the British missiles. Past that each carrier has another 24 Hornets with AMRAAM that is far more reliable and longer ranged than the Sparrow used in the Falklands, and may have help from land based F-15's also with AMRAAM

US Naval Planners expected to have to deal with 120+ incoming anti ship missiles at one time and stop almost all of them out of just the Carrier groups resources
 
Top