Conquering Iraq - American Strategies (Interesting Stuff)

I believe there is a mountain range on the Turkish/Iraqi border. The place is also a lot farther from major ports than Kuwait is.

Any ground ops we do in Iraq using Turkish bases, as opposed to Turkish ground ops, would almost certainly be airmobile. Mechanized ground power would come out of Kuwait.

Your take makes more sense to me.

I have been seeing a pattern of 'credential challenge' on many BBS and web logs whenever the subject of the preparations for an Iraqi invasion comes up.

I was thinking I was paranoid for seeing the pattern because I couldn't take seriously the thought that it was organized.

Good point about the mountains on the border between Turkey and Iraq. I have heard that the transportation network through them is also very poor. A big unknown would be the Kurds, and lots of them live on both sides of the border in this region. They want their own country, and Turkey is not about to give it to them.

Even so, I still have doubts about Kuwait as our main launch point. Yes, it is close and the terrain is favorable to armor once the summer heat in the desert is over. However, Saudia Arabia cannot be trusted, and Iran is awfully close. Maintaining a secure base of operations and secure supply lines could be tricky.

Interestingly, an easy route into Iraq is through Syria. Syria is on very thin ice, and could become a formal enemy at any time. Strategically, Syria is in an interesting position. Turkey to the north. Israel to the south. The U.S. Navy to the west. And a place we want to attack (Iraq) to the East.

We're supposed to run long, dangerously insecure, LOC through Syria because short LOC through Kuwait might be insecure? We rule the sea and air. We don't rule the land. Sea LOC are inherently shorter and more secure, even given the Navy's vampires-to-garlic reaction to mine warfare.

Besides, we have a chance of several thousand Jordanian Army Bedouin light mechanized cavalry swooping into Iraq on our side. Sort of like the "Toyota War" in Chad.

I like your "Toyota War" comparison. Given the air and special forces support we can provide, it might work. However, it seems unlikely that Jordan would support us that openly. Letting us use their territory might be all they could handle politically.

We would only go through Syria if we had to fight Syria anyway. Based on statements from President Bush, this looks 50/50.

If we expect to fight Syria at the same time we fight Iraq, why not enter Iraq through Syria? We could easily secure port facilities in Syria and/or Lebanon, and access to those ports would be easy to protect. While we do all this, we would be pounding Iraq from the air.

I grant you, invasion through Syria cannot be done as fast as the lightning strike you envision from Kuwait, but it would be through territory we had to capture and secure either way. The extra time it took would not be wasted. A conventional attack scenario includes a substantial amount of time spent on air strikes first either way.

Now for the grand finale: After going through all the above, it seems to me that you may be right. IF a secure attack can be launched from Kuwait, that is the best place to do it from.

However, blocking the Straits of Hormuz would cut off Kuwait unless we could resupply on land through Saudi Arabia. The Straits are incredibly easy to block. Do you think we can gamble a large number of troops on our relationship with Saudi Arabia and/or our ability to keep the Straits of Hormuz open? Even if Iran and Saudi Arabia enter the war against us?

If we expect to fight Syria at the same time we fight Iraq, why not enter Iraq through Syria?

One reason for not going through Syria: They are a lot better at the tactical level than the Iraqis. I have heard that the Israelis got handled very roughly by the Syrians the last time they sent mech forces into southern lebanon. Granted that was an ambush, but most modern combat is precisely that.

Syria also has a good sized army, with a fair amount of armor. Taking them out is more than a weekend job.

Their top leadership is unpopular, however, and we may be able to work with that.

To sum up the strategic comments on this thread:
1. Going in through Turkey is too difficult because of the mountains.
2. Going in through Kuwait is risky because our supply lines would have to go through the Straits of Hormuz.
3. Going in through Jordan would create political chaos in Jordan. It would also create long supply lines vulnerable to an armored strike along the flanks from Syria.
4. Going in through Syria would be a major battle all on its own.
5. Not mentioned on this thread, but generally understood: Going in through Saudi Arabia would mean war with Saudi Arabia and a possible rallying cry for all of Islam if the Suadis could somehow show we were endangering Mecca.

Sure hope something in this analysis is wrong or missing.

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.