From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Saddam planning a new invasion (bye bye Kuwait?)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:15:33 GMT

In article <1581esINN3hp@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>
>Anyways, does anyone else have the uneasy feeling that our friend
>Saddam has his greedy eyes focused on Kuwait again? Rumor is his
>forces are massed in the south (to "supress the Shiites" :-)

	Saddam and his pre-Baathist predecessors were never too happy
	with the existence of Kuwait.  Although there has been a short
	term release from the threat, it cannot be ruled out that future
	Iraqi governments of any stripe will be interested in "recovering"
	Kuwait.

>
>Let's see, what interesting topics are there for discussion here?
>
>1). What happens in case of an all out Iraqi armored blitz with
>    his remaining tanks?

	Depends what's in the area.  If there are M1s or Challengers
	about in any numbers with reasonable air cover they will be
	eaten alive.  Even the best tank/gun combination the Iraqis
	had (their T72s) failed to kill a single M1 even with two direct
	hits at short range.  The armour of these tanks has been found
	to be much less effective than thought.  They will fall to anti-tank
	weapons such as the MILAN.
>
>2). Does he stop at Kuwait, or go for the throat this time?
>    (Saudi)

	Attacking the people who are the protectors of the two holiest
	sites in Islam could be asking for real trouble.  I do realize that
	you'll get a lot of arguments on that one.  The Saudis have a
	good air force that could control the air over the advance and
	leave their own ground forces free to concentrate on engaging
	the armoured thrust.
>
>3). What allies does he have who can help out militarily or
>    by making a distraction elsewhere?

	Not many.  The only political soul-mates they have are the
	Syrian Baathists who sided with the U.N.  Gaddafi has had his
	bell rung often enough.  Maybe the North Koreans would want to
	go for the big one.  Various terrorists groups can be nothing
	more than an annoyance.
>
>4). Do we have the forces to stop him in place, or are we
>    forced to bluff?

	Don't know.  I think they could be bluffed.
>
>5). How does his timing depend on domestic (USA) politics?

	I don't think it will play a role.  An attack would polarize
	opinion almost instantaneously.  I think that Reps and Dems
	would both support an armed response.
>
>6). When this all shakes down, do we get to try my pre-Desert Storm
>    plan? :-)
>
>    (which was: armored thrust on Baghdad aimed at driving Saddam
>     from power, killing him if possible.

      I think that the only thing that will stop Saddam continuing his
      mischief is to remove him from power.  Forty days and forty
      nights of hard rain hasn't stopped him.  Either a popular uprising
      is brought about (difficult for a variety of reasons) or someone
      kills him.

       Using our planes to kill
>     any Iraqi armored forces that try to move during the drive,
>     somewhat inspired by Rommel's tactics of decoying enemy tanks
>     into range of his anti-tank guns, our planes being the modern
>     equivalent, serving as mobile anti-tank artillery.

	Sounds good.  After action analyses indicate that Iraqi tanks are
	weak and could be taken out by a lot of other weapons too.

       Splitting Iraq
>     into 3 zones, Kurdistan in the north as our good ally, greater
>     Kuwait in the south, US temporary occupation zone in the center,
>     later converted to a democracy run by whatever Iraqi military we
>     can find to serve as our surrogates during an interim period.)
>
>
       I'm not too keen on this part of the plan.  The Iraqi Kurds are
       mainly interested in a federation with Iraq (I don't understand
       it either) and probably wouldn't be viable as an economic entity.

       The Kuwaiti royal family rules by the traditional Arab method of
       family and clan loyalties.  I doubt that they have the loyalties
       in Southern Iraq to rule effectively.  Also, Southern Iraq is
       predominantly Shi'ite.   Shi'ites are heavily persecuted in Kuwait as
       it is.  Would they want the oil fields? YES!  Would this cause
       problems?  BIG ONES!

       I don't think the US as such should get directly involved in
       governing the area.  Ruling under an Arab League or UN mandate
       would be preferable.  There are a lot of Iraqi dissident exiles
       who would be willing and able to form a government.  I would
       prefer them to a military or quasi-military government.

       Baathism is a form of Pan-Arabism where loyalty is to a state rather
       than to a family, which is traditional in Arab societies.  The
       social engineering involved in changing these patterns has been
       brutal.  It would be good for the Iraqis to have a benevolent
       or benign government that left them alone except for the essentials
       of running the country.

	Excuse the length,

	Alec Chambers
Newsgroups: alt.war