Posted on 01/27/2003 1:22:43 PM PST by knighthawk
U.S., allies would win war: Number of casualties, fierceness of fighting are in question
WASHINGTON - If it comes to war between the United States and Iraq, there is no doubt about the final outcome: The United States will win.
What is in doubt, however, is the number of casualties and fierceness of the fight.
"The United States and coalition partners would win any future war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in a rapid and decisive fashion," writes Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution think-tank. "This would not be another Vietnam or another Korea. But casualties could be significantly greater to all concerned parties than in the 1991 Persian Gulf War."
Using complex formulas based on the size and quality of the forces involved, the nature of the terrain and other factors, Mr. O'Hanlon calculates U.S. forces would lose between 100 and 5,000 troops killed in action, with the lower half of that range being likelier. Iraqi casualties would be about 10 times as high.
U.S. forces already deployed in the Gulf or on the way there total about 150,000, with an additional 30,000 British troops. Analysts suggest before George W. Bush, the U.S. President, gives the green light for an attack, total allied forces will probably number about 250,000.
Ranged against that is Saddam's tattered but still dangerous military.
In contrast with the Gulf War of 1991, when Iraq had the world's fifth-largest army on the eve of battle, with 950,000 troops, more than 5,000 tanks and a credible air force, today's Iraqi army numbers about 375,000 men with about 2,000 battle tanks, including 700 relatively modern Lion of Babylon tanks, Iraq's version of the Soviet T-71. There are also about 650,000 reserves.
By comparison with the lavish U.S. defence budget of US$400-billion, Iraq spends about US$1.5-billion annually, according to Jane's World Armies.
"The defence forces are dramatically underfunded and almost certainly involved in a day-to-day battle for financial survival," says the Jane's report.
The army is organized into five regular corps and two Republican Guard corps, according to Jane's and Anthony Cordesman, who has prepared a detailed look at Iraq's military for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The regular army is divided into 16 divisions, three of them armoured and three mechanized. The regular divisions are heavily dependent on conscripts from the Kurdish, Shiite and Turkoman minorities and are undermanned, undertrained and underequipped.
The two Republican Guard corps are divided into six divisions -- three armoured, one mechanized and two infantry -- plus four Special Republican Guards brigades.
The Republican Guard divisions are at about 80% of full strength, much better equipped than the regular army, more loyal to Saddam and trained for urban combat.
Although still far inferior to U.S. units, Republican Guard divisions did not collapse during the Gulf War and put up a fight while retreating.
The toughest resistance will likely come from elite units made up of loyalists from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, as well as allied Sunni Arab tribes.
The Amn al-Khass, or Special Security Service, has about 5,000 men under the direct command of Saddam's son, Qusay. It protects senior officials, controls weapons of the Chemical Corps and is responsible for arms smuggling from abroad.
The Mukhabarat, or secret police, number about 8,000 ultra-loyalists who would fear their fate under a new regime and so would fight to the end. They are blamed for trying to assassinate Mr. Bush's father in 1993.
Finally, Saddam's Murafaquin, or Companions, are his elite bodyguards from his own al-Bu Nasir tribe.
As well as those forces, Iraq has 40,000 national police equipped with light weapons and light armoured vehicles as well as a 30,000-strong frontier guard equipped with cross-country trucks.
Other irregular units, which are likely to be even more ineffective than the regular army, are the National Defence Battalions, at one time 100,000-strong but now much smaller and made up mainly of Kurds with some loyalty to Saddam. There is also the Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, Brigade, a volunteer force formed to take Jerusalem from Israel.
Several fascistic youth groups, including the 40,000-strong Feyadeen Saddam, based in Baghdad, and the Lions of Saddam (made up of boys between the ages of 10 and 16), may play a role similar to the shattered remnants of the Hitler Youth in the dying days of the Third Reich.
Ground forces are Saddam's strongest suit, with other branches of the military likely to play a minor role in the fighting.
Iraq's navy was always small but now has only about 2,000 personnel equipped with nine obsolete ships, although it still does have shore-based Silkworm anti-ship missiles as well as some mines.
Iraq's air force has not recovered from the Gulf War and now numbers only about 316 mainly Soviet combat aircraft, about half of which are serviceable and all of which are obsolete.
Hemmed in by the northern and southern no-fly zones, Iraq's top pilots train for only 90 to 120 hours a year, while junior pilots have as little as 20 hours of flying time a year.
The Iraqi air force does not have the capability of mounting co-ordinated operations but it is thought to be able to send single planes on low-flying penetration raids against allied forces.
Iraq has one of the densest air defence networks in the world, although it has failed to shoot down a single allied fighter in the no-fly zones.
Air defence troops are much wilier than during the Gulf War, and have learned to flash on their radar guidance systems briefly to avoid being destroyed by U.S. missiles, which home in on missile batteries by locking on to their radar signals.
According to Jane's, Iraq has between 20 and 25 SA-3 and 10 SA-6 anti-aircraft missile batteries, as well as larger numbers of shoulder-fired missiles. There are reports China has helped Iraq build a state-of-the-art fibre-optic communications network that would resist U.S. jamming, and Iraq may be equipped with modern Ukrainian radar.
Although United Nations weapons inspectors have so far failed to find proof Iraq still has biological and chemical weapons, military planners assume it has tens of thousands of artillery shells filled with chemical and biological agents.
According to documents from Iraqi opposition groups obtained by the BBC, key Iraqi units are being equipped with chemical warfare suits and are being given atropine, a drug that counteracts nerve gas, in preparation for a chemical war.
The Federation of American Scientists ((FAS) estimates there are 41 industrial sites within Iraq that could be converted to produce chemical weapons on several weeks' notice, although such a move is unlikely with UN inspectors in the country.
The FAS also estimates it would take Iraq five to eight years and US$100-million to rebuild its once fearsome biological weapons capability.
Iraq is thought to have about two dozen obsolete and inaccurate Scud missiles still in its inventory.
Iraq's military doctrine is as antiquated as its equipment, relying on a mishmash of British, French, U.S. and Soviet thinking, according to the Center for Defense Information.
Saddam's brutal rule and the fear of stepping out of line has produced an officer corps that is rigid in its thinking, unwilling to take risks and refers most decisions back to headquarters in Baghdad.
The CDI estimates an Iraqi colonel has about as much authority as a U.S. Army sergeant.
Like all militaries, Saddam's forces have probably learned a lot of lessons from the Gulf War and the no-fly zones and would be unlikely to risk open battle with U.S. forces. Analysts feel Iraqi troops will probably hunker down in the cities, where some of America's technological advantages are muted, aircraft have to fly lower and face a greater risk of being shot down and where the possibility of civilian casualties would hamper U.S. operations.
Still, there is no question about the result, no matter how hard Saddam's forces fight.
"In military terms it seems virtually certain that Saddam would be deposed and his regime destroyed," Mr. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution writes, but then adds: "If the war's outcome is not in real doubt, the costs of victory are."
jcienski@nationalpost.com
I guess you could call a 30 year old tank relatively modern compared to a 40 year old tank. These facts and figures grossly overestimate the Iraqi equipment especially when compared to US equipment. It would take a while to destroy it all but not because it is comparable, just because it takes a while to fire that many rounds.
I don’t think Saddam has many willing Kamikaze pilots in his air force.
Iraqi Air Force prepares gift for Saddam (and it's not a cake)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.