From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:23:46 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo


From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>

In article <BxGrMw.6wq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, mclno@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeffery Capt. Shue) writes...
>>>while talking about desert storm, i somehow feel it is not as huge a victory
>>>as it sounds,  iraq. though armed to teeth, isn't a first class military
>>>power.  their training and tactics are primative, never mind their logistical
>>>support.
>>
>It looks like a cakewalk now but at the time it didn't look like it
>would be that easy. Remember that Iraq had just fought a war with Iran
>so their troops were supposed to be veterans. 

I would venture to say that what the Iraqi armed forces learned in their 
war with Iran didn't contribute much to their ability to take on a military 
superpower and its allies.  While Iran has a larger population than Iraq, 
due to Khomani's (sp?) ignorance, they had vastly inferior weapons and most 
of their leaders were more religious than military.

>The United States hadn't
>fought a major war since Viet Nam and most of the junior officers and
>troops had no combat experience. 

True.  But man for man I don't think there is a better trained or more 
educated fighting force in the world.  I don't know if combat experience 
really means much in modern warfare any more.

>The intelligence guys with the satellites
>simply counted noses, tanks, APCs, aircraft and other hardware. (Which
>points out the problem with relying solely on electronic means of gathering
>intel.) 

Its true that the intelligence community at least publically overestimated 
the stregnth and abilities of the Iraqi armed forces, but I know they don't 
rely solely on electronic means for intelligence gathering.  I think some 
of the overestimates were intentional for reasons of a measure of safety 
and a bit of propaganda.  I saw an interview where someone said that the 
counts from photos and the like where wrong, and I just don't believe it.
I have a inkling that the high command had a very good estimate of Iraq's 
actual ability.  Swartzcoffs (sp?) might have been suicide if Iraq was a 
good as they said.

>With the combination of alot of 1st class hardware and supposedly
>veteran troops it looked (on paper) like the coalition forces were in
>for a fight. The fact that Iraqi forces simply collapsed and their will
>was broken is extremely difficult to predict.  

Converely, many thought we would blow Iraq out of the water much sooner 
than we did.  One obstical that the DS Coalition had to deal with that Irqa 
ignored was avoiding loss of civillian life and keeping combat casualties 
to a minimum.  In my opinion we didnot use any of our very best resources 
simply as to not give any secrets or military intelligence away.  Had we 
fought with less concern for civillian life and brought in things like the 
B-1 I think it would have been over with even quicker.

>The rapid destruction
>of Iraqi forces  was due to a combination of factors including the technologica
>l edge and the doctrinal edge (also the fact that the majority of Iraqis
>in Kuwait thought it was wrong for them to be there).

Plus, the front line in Kuwait was a rag-tag force.  Some didn't even have 
amunition.    I think the original poster has a good point in that this was 
a third world country with a few neat toys (which a majority of are either 
destroyed, in need of parts or sitting in Iran).  This was not a battle 
against someone akin to the Warsaw Pact(Ex) or China.  I think the greatest 
accomplishment for the US was the sucess in keeping casualties to a minimum 
and the concern they showed for not hitting Iraqi civillian targets.  True 
that the Bush administration played up the victory for all it was worth, 
but that is to be expected.


SJRD
Newsgroups: sci.military