Iraq's Response to U.S. War Plans

STRATFOR ^ | 16 September 2002 | Staff

[The Great Satan]

Logic also argues that he does not yet have such weapons.

180 degrees from the truth.

Contradicting Some U.S. Officials, 3 Scientists Call Anthrax Powder High-Grade

[The Great Satan]

Hussein also is quite aware that the United States should not be taken lightly and that its military has a tendency to produce unexpected successes.

Unexpected only to the Grade Z morons at STRATFOR.

[mhking]

It is difficult to conceive of such a weapon, but one scenario might be:
1. To demonstrate by some means that he has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
2. To announce that those weapons have been deployed in some American cities.
3. To announce that they will be used if the U.S. commences a war but not otherwise.

If that's where we're headed, then this'll get real ugly, real quick...

[BulletBrasDotNet]

Nothing new in this article.

[Magnum44]

His premise is that the United States will begin operations at a time of its choosing and that the opening phase of that war will focus on air attacks.

StratFor, and Saddam, will make the mistake, again, that we are fighting the "last" war. Standby for a surprise....

[madvlad]

You mean, Baghdad will hold out much like
Berlin held out in WWII?

Hussein is underestimating again.

MV

[Grut]

Too sanguine. Hussein invades Jordan to 'save' it from 'an Israeli-backed US coup'. Because we have only a few thousand troops in country they are rolled up; at least until Israeli forces intervene, which they surely will.

This leaves Hussein with partial control of Jordan, American POWs in hand and a war which has been transmuted from US-Iraq to Arab-Israeli. It leaves the US with Iraqi-held hostages, NO access to the theater of operations except through Israel, and a whole lot of surrounding countries which will be undependably neutral at best.

At that point, it's hard to see how the US could prosecute the war further, short of nukes.

[Sam's Army]

"Nevertheless, if Hussein could be convinced that the choice is between death and abdication, something might be worked out. Who would be the lucky winner of the Saddam Hussein sweepstake is unclear."

France seems to come to mind....

[joeyman]

You mean, Baghdad will hold out much like Berlin held out in WWII?

We could not sustain the casualty rate the Russians did in order to take Berlin (I believe it was a qtr of a million men).

[riri]

I fully believe he has sleeper agents with bio weapons within our borders.

[The Great Satan]

[M. T. Cicero II]

Any invasion of Jordan would stretch his supply lines too thin. Those troops would be demoslished from the air, assuming that they don't surrender en masse to helicopters and the press corps. Remember his armor is marginal at best and his ability to fuel it is almost non-existant.

[Magnum44]

I am not making predictions. Merely speculating on what we (the public) and Saddam do not know about the plans against him. StratFor, and according to them, Saddam expects weeks of air attacks before a ground assault.

IMO, there will be extensive use of air power, but also a very quick initial ground campaign as well to at least secure the waterways and oil fields in the south (to prevent him torching the fields as in 91), and the route to Jordan and the SCUD launch sites to the west (to keep Israel from coming under fire). This initial campaign completely isolates his forces and Bagdad becomes a city under siege.

There will then be LOTS of SOF activities in facilities located all over the country looking for WMD and terrorist activities in both areas he did and did not exercise control over.

In and around Bagdad, precision airstrikes, SOF, and bunker busters will continue to take out his resisting forces, palaces, govt buildings, bunkers, command structures, etc, until he is either dropped in one of the attacks or someone puts a bullet in his head for him. And yes, eventually we (and some Northern Alliance equivalent) roll downtown, but only after the Iraqis would be ashamed to ever admit to wearing a uniform for Saddam.

[wretchard]

It is difficult to conceive of such a weapon, but one scenario might be:
1. To demonstrate by some means that he has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
2. To announce that those weapons have been deployed in some American cities.
3. To announce that they will be used if the U.S. commences a war but not otherwise.

The above, and not diplomacy, is the most likely scenario we shall face in the coming weeks. All of Saddam's energies in the past 8 years must have been devoted to precisely this end. All of the UN Inspections have been devoted to preventing precisely this outcome. The entire premise of President Bush's decision to attack Iraq is that the scenario described above is imminent, if not actual.

Will a failed Iraqui diplomacy be supplanted by Iraqui deterrence? No, because of September 11. The events of September and the succeeding anthrax attacks showed that American deterrence has failed. Saddam dares attack, despite our nuclear weapons. It is axiomatic that when deterrence fails, it fails symmetrically; that is, in both directions.

Weapons of mass destruction possess a deterrent effect, paradoxically, when there is a chance that they will not be used. Saddam's behavior, his consorting with Al-Qaeda, the lack of a stable command and control in Baghdad, the certain loss of these weapons to terrorists when Saddam, who is mortal, finally dies, means that the Iraqui devices have been virtually fired. Good as gone, without a regime chance. Good as gone, in flight toward us, unless we seize them.

The world has lived under stable deterrence for so long that we have forgotten what a world witout deterrence looks like. It is a world which an American general, never having known it, understood intuitively. It is a world under which there is no substitute for victory.

[Grut]

Any invasion of Jordan would stretch his supply lines too thin.

In my scenario, his supply lines are protected by a 'neutral' Saudi Arabia and a 'neutral' Syria on either side; the actual 'front' through which US airpower could be applied would only be maybe 75 miles wide, which would simplify his defense. Besides, the length of Hussein's supply lines is a function of where his supplies are, and what are we really sure of there?

[RightWhale]

It is known that DEBKA derives most of its good info from Stratfor, or maybe it's the other way around.

[Centurion2000]

Hussein's secondary mode of deterrence would be to demonstrate that Iraq does possess a significant weapon of mass destruction that could be delivered effectively and that the United States could not destroy it with any high degree of assurance. It is difficult to conceive of such a weapon, but one scenario might be:
1. To demonstrate by some means that he has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
2. To announce that those weapons have been deployed in some American cities.
3. To announce that they will be used if the U.S. commences a war but not otherwise.

Interesting that Iraq is planning a 'major' announcement soon. The Iraqi ultimatum may be forthcoming shortly.

[Poohbah]

In my scenario, his supply lines are protected by a 'neutral' Saudi Arabia and a 'neutral' Syria on either side; the actual 'front' through which US airpower could be applied would only be maybe 75 miles wide, which would simplify his defense. Besides, the length of Hussein's supply lines is a function of where his supplies are, and what are we really sure of there?

First point: Fahd & Assad will either (a) be very smart and not notice those US aircraft violating their airspace, or (b) we'll say f*** it and take everyone on. Second point: if we don't know where his supply dumps are (unlikely), we'll know quickly enough when he starts moving. Large columns of fuel trucks are rather easily discerned in Western Iraq.