Bracing for Primordial Combat

[Cheetah772]

Deltapooh....

Hello Deltapooh,

First of all, I'm sorry if I offended you with my earlier statement about foreigners in the ancient Roman army comparing to minority groups in the US Army. You're right that adding the minority groups in US Army were long overdue, and provided many excellent benefits. The foreigners that were added to the ancient Roman army did provide many excellent benefits and much needed skills that the Roman army couldn't acquire from its own native population.

However, I refuse to remove that earlier statement, I just refuse to be politically correct, still, it seems worth to add that many foreigners who served in the Roman army eventually did acquire many good benefits, and this influenced the Roman civil policy in general. During the Julio-Claudian Dynasty (44 BC. to 68 AD.), some emperors, especially Claudian, added people from outside provinces to provide a fresh face in the Senate, as it was filled with old faces and no ideas to debate. It's true that the Senate had no longer ability to push its agendas through legal means as the emperor now had real political power. The Senate was perserved because it was an old tradition that dated to the Republican Era, which doesn't do justice in removing the Senate completely.

During the Flavian Dynasty (71 to 96 AD.) saw an increase in relying upon the foreigners to do many important domestic tasks such as administrating the civilian bureaucracy, many foreigners were born into Roman colonies established in Spain, Gaul, North Africa, and other provinces. They were already Roman citizens by law. So yes, foreigners were serving with a great distinction in the Roman army and its civilian administration. In the "Years of Five Good Emperors" (96 to 180 AD.), the foreigners were becoming an even more important part of the Roman society than before its time. For many minority groups, they had naturally many social grievances, and bitterness as they experienced some heavy-handed management style by the Roman governors and their administrations. Especially the Jews whose social grievances were genuine suffered greatly under both Emperors Trajan's (98 to 117 AD.) and Hadrian's (117 to 138 AD.) control. The Jews saw their homeland devastated by the Roman army, more than 500,000 people died due to famine, fightings, and other incidents. More than half of Palestine was rendered worthless. Before that, it was the envy of Middle East. Jerusalem took more than a year for the Romans to capture. There were numerous fortresses that Romans had to lay siege before moving onto the next target.

In all, 50 fortresses, 985 villages, and about 580,000 people's lives were ruined by the Roman army. Yet on one hand, it was brutal, but which would you rather live under Rome or Saddam's rule? Obviously, under the Roman rule was certainly better than living under Saddam's rule.

So yes, Deltapooh, we can happily say that the minority groups, blacks or whatever the race is, fared better in USA than in the Rome Era, and were certainly treated better by the US Army than the Roman army did. No matter how we put in the words, the minority groups and foreigners did their part in the Roman army and Rome's civil adminstration just as they did in USA.

Again, I'm always looking forward to your insights, they're very friendly and civil and thoughtful. I sincerely hope this can continue.

Thanks,
Dan

 

[Deltapooh]

Originally posted by Cheetah772

However, I refuse to remove that earlier statement, I just refuse to be politically correct, still, it seems worth to add that many foreigners who served in the Roman army eventually did acquire many good benefits, and this influenced the Roman civil policy in general. During the Julio-Claudian Dynasty (44 BC. to 68 AD.), some emperors, especially Claudian, added people from outside provinces to provide a fresh face in the Senate, as it was filled with old faces and no ideas to debate. It's true that the Senate had no longer ability to push its agendas through legal means as the emperor now had real political power. The Senate was perserved because it was an old tradition that dated to the Republican Era, which doesn't do justice in removing the Senate completely.

During the Flavian Dynasty (71 to 96 AD.) saw an increase in relying upon the foreigners to do many important domestic tasks such as administrating the civilian bureaucracy, many foreigners were born into Roman colonies established in Spain, Gaul, North Africa, and other provinces. They were already Roman citizens by law. So yes, foreigners were serving with a great distinction in the Roman army and its civilian administration. In the "Years of Five Good Emperors" (96 to 180 AD.), the foreigners were becoming an even more important part of the Roman society than before its time. For many minority groups, they had naturally many social grievances, and bitterness as they experienced some heavy-handed management style by the Roman governors and their administrations. Especially the Jews whose social grievances were genuine suffered greatly under both Emperors Trajan's (98 to 117 AD.) and Hadrian's (117 to 138 AD.) control. The Jews saw their homeland devastated by the Roman army, more than 500,000 people died due to famine, fightings, and other incidents. More than half of Palestine was rendered worthless. Before that, it was the envy of Middle East. Jerusalem took more than a year for the Romans to capture. There were numerous fortresses that Romans had to lay siege before moving onto the next target.

In all, 50 fortresses, 985 villages, and about 580,000 people's lives were ruined by the Roman army. Yet on one hand, it was brutal, but which would you rather live under Rome or Saddam's rule? Obviously, under the Roman rule was certainly better than living under Saddam's rule.

I would not disagree with your position in the past. We all know why. One of the reasons the Union defeated the Confederates was because Grant knew he had more resources, including personnel, to spare than Lee. Blacks were indeed inducted to reinforce manpower.

However, that's not the case since at least WWII. Today, minorities serve in the US Army because they should as Americans. I try to avoid the Harry Belefonte Policy. It basically states any black man who's stupid enough to serve the government and promote what some believe are white only policies, you are an Uncle Tom. The statement you made when applied to the modern US Army can be used to support that claim.

Like I said, you are right when we review American history. However, today, there minorities have a duty to fight for the freedom they share. While, some would like to believe minorities have yet to see freedom, they haven't been to Africa, or Iraq lately.

I don't view you as an idiot who is racially bias. That's why I respect your opinions. I would ask you to retract the statement. "Stand for something or fall for anything" is in part my motto. So I admire that!

As for the rest, well, history in general is not my strong point. I've read books by Micheal Grant, and Norman Davis, but only to review the political impact on military history. So you have me stumped and unable to reply there. You're the historian.

 

[John Paul]

Rome

I just can't resist a discussion dealing with the subject of ancient Rome.While Rome did have the premier military of its time,it had better success against "Foot" armies then those enemies whose main battlefield asset was the horse and bow.The Romans had their behinds handed to them almost everytime they went up against the Parthians,as a matter of fact about the only time they had any kind of success in that area was when the Parthian throne was in dispute.This allowed them to regain influence in Armenia and also to negotiate a settlement whereby all the Legionary standards captured in previous battles were returned to the city.Also of interest since China is mentioned,it appears that many Roman soldiers captured during the wars with Parthia were either sold or given as gifts to the The emperor of China,or whoever was in charge at that time.There they ended up as slave-soldiers serving on the frontier,and there seems to be some archealogical evidence to support this.

 

[Headshot]

The US isnt going anywhere, But neither is russia germany or england. Israel on the otherhand may be the one country that is seriously threatended. Sure their army is in many ways more advanced than ours, but a surrounded army rarely holds off the enemy forever.

 

[Tex]

How is Israel threatened? They have a substantial nuclear arsenal and I don't believe a nuclear capable country has ever been attacked by conventional means.

 

[Deltapooh]

Israel is threatened, but extermination is very unlikely. Israel has proven it can attack as well as defend. I hope the world not standby and allow the Arabs to eliminate that nation. While I my interest in the Middle East is decreasing by the moment, I still believe Israel should be defended.

John Paull you make an excellent points about the Roman limitation.

Playing Devil's advocate,

One could argue the US is less successful against insurgents, and poorly equipped troops than against maneuver forces. We blew right through the Iraqis. Yet, both the Somalis and North Vietnamese gave us all we could handle. While we can chalk up their success to determination, tactics, poor political leadership, etc, the similarities can't be denied.

Both the Somalis and North Vietnamese realized that defeating the US Army on the battlefield was impossible. So they focused more on achieving political success. In both cases, the people the soldier's defended became the enemies best weapon.

It doesn't matter how your opponent defeat's you, the side that decides not to continue until victory usually is declared the looser.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Originally posted by Tzar
Cheetah,

I appreciated your comparison between the Roman Empire and the United States' current position in the world. I indeed believe that we are living in a time of "Pax Americana" instead of the old "Pax Romana". Washington is the modern Rome.

Are you making a comparison between America and the Roman Empire based on the fact that each of these powers enjoyed sizeable military advantages for a while, or are you truly equating the two civilizations on a deeper level?

I do not share however your pessimistic conclusion on the current state of the United States Armed Forces. Let's consider these hard facts:

America's annual defense budget is:

1. $15 billion per year more than the United States spent for defense in 1980, at the height of the Cold War (adjusted for inflation)
2. Three times as much as any other single nation on Earth spends on defense.
3. 37% of total global military expenditures. As a reference, the American population accounts for about 4.6% of total world population...
   [/list=1]
   
   Some defense budget comparisons:
   
   1. The six ''rogue'' nations of the world - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba - have a combined military budget of only $5 billion. In other words, the U.S. spends 66 times as much money on the military as all its enemies combined.
   2. America's allies - all the other 15 countries in NATO - spend a combined total of only $150 billion a year on defense. Washington spent around $ 330 billion this year for defense and plans to spend around $ 380 billion in 2003...
   3. Japan spends only $42 billion. By contrast, the U.S. spends an estimated $90 billion a year to subsidize the defense of Europe and Japan.[/list=1]

1. 1. 
      
      This is all fine and dandy, but it distorts reality in several key respects. Money does not equal military power, although some wish it did. For one thing the US Military has inherited a lot of "legacy" infrastructure from the Cold War days. There are a staggering amount of bases, storage depots, aircraft hangers, railheads, sea docks, and just about everything else that you can imagine, and a lot of this is no longer needed for a force that is roughly half its former size. The military has desperately tried to shed this excess baggage, but powerful members of congress block and frustrate nearly every serious base-closure debate. Those bases equal dollars, and they don't want their state to lose the funding. So the end result is the military continues to spend billions to support unwanted and unneeded infrastructure.
      
      Second, because of its all-volunteer force, life in the US military is very different than in the Korean or Russian army. The standard of living is far higher and soldiers are paid much higher wages. There are also issues of healthcare benefits, military housing, and recreation, not to mention transporting soldiers and all of their dependants along with their household goods to foreign countries. Just look at how much it cost the Army to move me and my whole house over here to Germany. Don't discount what an impact these things have on the budget! Personnel expenditures account for 75% of the total defense budget. No other government needs to spend anything like that amount on personnel, rather they spend it on weapons and equipment. If the United States spent the same percentage on personnel that Germany or Russia spends, our total defense budget would be roughly 40% of what it is.
      
      An outright comparison, budget-to-budget, is a wholly inadequate method to compare other armies to America's. The math just doesn't add up. Further, this paints a completely distorted picture of how powerful the US military is. There is another key point here as well. Much of the US defense budget goes into research and development and strategic defense resources such as the Navy's early warning networks and spy satellites. Although these are incredibly valuable resources, they really only come into play in a very limited number of situations. Most have little or no effect on the outcome of a conventional war (short of WWIII). Again, these expenditures vastly inflate the US defense budget and further distort the vision of the US military as Pax Americana. I submit to you that the US military, although formidable, is not anything near the invincible machine it appears to be from the outside. Most of its true strengths are very subtle and can easily be disrupted if the military is led poorly or mishandled by politicians who don't fully understand what its strengths and weaknesses are.
      
      No only can America take a few casualties in Somalia, we can be beaten. Beaten in a major conventional war. Those of us who wear the uniform are painfully aware of our own military's limitations and will seek to avoid placing ourselves in situations where we can't bring our strengths to bear. Here is yet another factor which distorts the budget theory of strength: the US military is very casualty averse because the public is so. We spend a HUGE amount of money training to do rather mundane military tasks in such a way that they are risk free. Most other armies do not suffer from this mentality. If you are willing to sacrifice the personnel, you can accomplish most of the same things we do at a far lower cost in dollars, albeit at a much higher cost in lives. Again, spending these sums didn't really make us truly stronger in the conventional sense, it simply means we can fight with less risk to the soldiers, airman, and marines.
      
      Bottom line, the US is certainly stronger, but not that much stronger.

 

[Deltapooh]

A little bit more on topic, CNN reports President Bush has "quietly" approved a military plan to invade Iraq. Overall, it calls for 200,000-250,000 troops to assault the nation, the call-up of 265,000 NG and Reserve troops, all supported by a massive air presence.

Saddam will accept the UN Resolution, as expected. I doubt the Hawks want to launch their invasion plan right now. Our forces are not in position. The weather is not exactly favorable. The Iraqi's are ready. It's better to let them wait for a while and downgrade their alert status.

This crisis is far from over. The UN Resolution has alot of terms that are open to interpretation. Saddam will likely resist try to exploit one and Bush will have his green light. While the UN debate, Bush will not be able to participate because he'll be watching his invasion orders being carried out on CNN.

At the same time, The Arab League is once again double talking. They support the UN resolution, but issued stern warnings against invasion. The strange thing is several of those governments are allowing US forces to stage in their country! It's this kind of twisted foriegn policy that is promoting terrorism. The Arab leaders appear to be standing up to "The Great Satan" on Channel 6, while shaking our hand and welcoming us as allies on Channel 7. I'm certain few people in the Middle East know how much their government is supporting the US they claim are at the root of their woes.

I know Bush is desperate for support. And I understand "the greater good" argument. However, we are allowing these corrupted, lying, underhanded, no good, mis-guided, dirty, back-stabbing, maggot infested, no moral having, Arab politicians to goatscrew us. They are talking much crap saying "they will not tolerate attacks on Iraq." Yet know they will do very little, expect slip morons like Bin Laden some cash and a nod to go out and kill Americans because they don't have the *alls to truly carry out their threats. The Arab league's foriegn policy toward the West is somewhere between "Gimme and Gotcha." And we are just taking.

I hope historians aren't using our handling of the War on Terrorism to argue we are like the Roman Empire. The Roman military's greatest weapon might have been the fear they created in opponents. Those who resisted Rome suffered dearly. The Romans made examples out of them by destroying the city, killing all the men, raping the women, mutilating the animals, and selling their children into slavery.

While all this eventually worked against the Romans, it was still quite effective.

The US is a very humane military force choosing to risk the lives of our soldiers to preserve life. Besides that, we take alot of crap others might not be so inclined to. I doubt the Arab League would do so much tough talking if we really were the Hammer dropping, folk carrying, Great Satan they claim the US is. For every similarity there is a contrast in the US-Rome Debate. While we might be the Modern Empire, we are humbled. Many nations are crying poor Iraq because they just don't want to get involved, but would prefer to save face, like France. If you don't want to go to war, don't send your troops. However, you shouldn't ignore facts just to cover your *ss. I thought France had learned that.

Each nation has a right to oppose our action. I'm just sick of the world making it out that we are just picking on Saddam when they all know the guy is bad. If we are considered evil for trying to defeat an enemy who has, and likely will threaten peace for years to come, then I need to go back to school because evil sounds alot like good. Rome ruled with a combination of sophistication and tyranny. While the US has done much wrong, we are trying to lead with sophistication and humanity. The world is kidding itself if they believe the US is getting it's jolly by throwing its son's and daughters into the hell that is combat.

Before we forget, I remind the world that 400 US soldiers gave their lives to remove Saddam as a threat. Many countries joined us and had soldiers that paid for those Resolutions with their lives. I think we have a responsibility to make certain they didn't die in vain. This might sound like a cheap statement coming from a nation who led the Anti-Accountability campaign for the past decade. Yet, mistakes are only mistakes if you don't learn from them. We have learned that letting Iraq slide is the wrong course of action, and seek to correct it.

Rome? Not exactly.

 

[John Paul]

My previous post was for mere historical curiosity,i thought it was an interesting aside considering where the discussion had gone.

Back to the topic at hand.If the only Iraqi plan is to fall back on their cities..well thats a piss poor plan.But no one really knows what they will or will not do if an invasion is launched,as we do not have the luxury of their press reporting details of their every thought,or plan of action.If Saddam does plan on using biological or chemical weapons,then perhaps we should let it be known as in the first Gulf War that any such attack will be responded to violently.This may not deter Saddam if he thinks he's going to into the dustbin of history,but it may be enough to make his generals,who may be able to live life after Saddam,hesitate before using such weapons.Such a threat does not have to be serious in order to have an effect.

All the discussion seems to be mulling around the lack of will of the US to engage or win in city fighting.Who is to say that the Iraqi army is any better prepared to wage such a campaign.The last time the press kept announcing what a battle hardened and fierce fighting force it was,and how body bags would be returning to the US by the thousands.What has exactly changed in their forces to make them more capable this time around?

 

[Cheetah772]

While on subject of Armies....

Hello,

While we're on the subject of whether Iraqi Army will surrender at the first sight of an Apache gunship hovering over their knocked out tanks, I am curious about a few things, prehaps Maddog or Deltapooh can answer this.

What's the difference in Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam's Armies? I mean, all three men were dictators, yet, Hitler had probably one of the best military machines in the history of modern warfare. Stalin's Army fought hard, and was far better than Saddam's Army. Yet, all Armies were under ruthless dictators.

What does make an Army tick and tock, so to speak figuratively?

Iraqi Army fought ruthlessly and were quite determined not to allow Iranians to destroy the nation of Iraq in Iraq-Iran War that lasted for brutal eight years. Yet, at the time of Gulf War, everything came apart for this Iraqi Army.

Please don't tell this is about modern technology versus Saddam's incompetent military leadership. I just can't accept it. Just look at Stalin and Soviet Army. At the time of WWII, Soviet Army was in far worse shape than Iraqi Army emerging hardened from Iraq-Iran War. Yet, Soviet Army fought hard, and determined to protect Moscow at all costs. Iraqi Army did not display any of trait of espirit de corps in its combat units. German Army was the best of bests, even though some of its units fought with inferior quality in tanks and arms, especially in the early phase of WWII. German Army made up its shortcomings in its superior training and incorporating military theories into practice.

Could Maddog or Deltapooh answer this? I'm curious....

Dan

 

[Tzar]

Originally posted by Maddog


Are you making a comparison between America and the Roman Empire based on the fact that each of these powers enjoyed sizeable military advantages for a while, or are you truly equating the two civilizations on a deeper level?

I go on a deeper level:

First, I do believe America enjoys a sizeable military advantage on any other nation, not in raw numbers of manpower, but in sophistication, technology, technique and deployment capacity on short notice around the globe.

Secondly, I think the American culture, its way of life and its language, English, are well-disseminated all around the globe, especially through the powerful medium that is music and movies.

This is all fine and dandy, but it distorts reality in several key respects. Money does not equal military power, although some wish it did...

I have cut the rest of your post, but you are making all very valid points. I knew a couple of those points already, but they were others I didn't know about.

Although money is not the only factor to consider when comparing defence budgets and military capability, it is still the main differentiator between a good army, well-trained and well-equipped, and a badly-trained and badly-equipped army.

Obviously, at some point, spending over $ 350 billions a year is due to create some kind of advantage... I understand a lot of this money can be gobbled up in salaries, benefits, and fixed capital costs like bases, but there is enough money left to invest in technology and procurement to make a big difference, when compared to any other nation's military capability.

The numbers I have shown doesn't cover all the truth, and you brought us to a more clearer understanding of where that money goes. But I guess these figures are still a good indicator of the great power of the American military. When you consider it from the perspective of training, firepower and technology, the staggering amounts of money invested in the military insure that the American soldier is the best in the world, I believe.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Re: While on subject of Armies....

Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,

What's the difference in Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam's Armies? I mean, all three men were dictators, yet, Hitler had probably one of the best military machines in the history of modern warfare. Stalin's Army fought hard, and was far better than Saddam's Army. Yet, all Armies were under ruthless dictators.

What does make an Army tick and tock, so to speak figuratively?

Dan

That's a very very good question. Let me think about that a bit before I answer.

 

[Heinz57]

This time around, the US benefits from a full decade worth of new technology which had a pretty nice trial run in Afghanistan. We have quite a few pilots involved in enforcing the no-fly zones with much better knowledge of the area than they did a decade ago with at least some combat experience to go with it. While the Iraqi's have learned a thing or two, they have yet to take down one of our planes involved in one of these missions (at least from what has been released). With this, there is a more or less daily erosion of their command and control/air defense system that they have a harder time replacing than they did a year ago.

Concurrently, we have a variety of "peacekeeping missions" in our relatively recent history to apply as experience in what would be a likely aftermath situation. Additionally, I think we have a greater ratio of servicemen who have been involved in combat than we did in 1991.

Above and beyond these things, I think our military leadership has become very creative in their methodologies -- the quality of leadership...okay...well there are always going to be some exceptions here and there, but I think for the most part, leadership skills, training, etc. are better from NCO on up than they were in 1991.

One other note...everyone (perhaps only the Media) talks like Somalia was some sort of disaster...I fail to see how a company of guys holding off thousands of armed psycho-drug freaks for a day or so and for the most part making it out alive, can be considered a defeat???!!!

Chosin Reservoir -- did not go down as a Marine Defeat -- they were outnumbered I don't know how many times over by the Chinese in ALL directions and they broke out!!! That goes down as a Win in my book -- if an enemy has our guys surrounded and still can't kick our ass...well...I think that says more about how incompetent our enemy is...of course there was the matter with Almond getting us into that situation to begin with...but that's a different story...

The biggest problem I see is that the lethality of US Armed Forces is so extreme that we really need to get better at staying out of our own path of destruction...in Gulf War 1 and Afghanistan, we inflicted more casualties on ourselves than the enemy did.

That alone should be really, really bad for enemy morale. In any case, if you guys get mobilized -- give us a way to send you care packages.

Heinz57

 

[Dr Zaius]

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's parliament has voted to reject the U.N. resolution threatening possible military action if Baghdad does not disarm, ignoring pleas from Saddam Hussein's son to accept the text.

Parliament's unanimous vote is a recommendation and leaves the final decision on whether to accept the U.N. edict -- approved unanimously by the U.N. Security Council last week -- to the Revolutionary Command Council, Iraq's highest authority which is led by Saddam.

The 250-member parliament accepted in a vote on Tuesday a recommendation from its foreign relations committee to reject the resolution.

But it also urged the "political leadership" to "adopt what it considers appropriate to defend the Iraqi people and Iraq's independence and dignity and authorizes President Saddam Hussein to adopt what he sees as appropriate expressing our full support for his wise leadership."

Parliament speaker Saadoun Hammadi asked deputies to vote three times by a show of hands, once on each clause of the resolution and once on the entire proposal.

After each vote, Saadoun announced unanimous approval. It was not clear how many MPs were present for the vote, The Associated Press said.

Earlier Saddam's son Uday sent a working paper to parliament urging: "We should, as a National Assembly, accept the U.N. resolution which is under debate in these sessions."

Uday, himself a parliamentarian, argued acceptance of the U.N. text should take place "under the umbrella of the Arab League," which backed the resolution during a meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo, Egypt, on Sunday.

"The parliament should accept the resolution in accordance with certain procedures and without restrictions because the initiative is not in our hands," Uday said.

Uday echoed Arab League calls for Arab weapons experts to be involved in U.N. inspections, but criticised Syria for supporting the resolution. Syria is the only Arab nation on the U.N. Security Council, which voted 15-0 to pass the resolution.

Uday urged parliament in his statement to deny the United States a chance to wage war on Iraq.

"We should not wait until the arrows are fired at us to confront them with our shields. As we know the Americans are cowards, deceitful and wicked and we should deny the wicked and the mean this opportunity," he said.

Uday urged Arab countries to cut oil supplies to any countries involved in a war on Iraq, including those that offer logistical support or let U.S. and British warplanes to use their bases for an attack.

He also said Arab countries should not let warships or military shipments pass through their territory.

Earlier, Saadoun outlined a motion before the assembly to reject the U.N. text.

Saddam has until Friday to accept the U.N. resolution

CNN's Rym Brahimi in Baghdad said: "The parliament went through all the reasons why it was unacceptable to accept the resolution on the grounds of protecting Iraq's sovereignty.

"But the leadership has indicated it is prepared to respect it -- even if it does so under protest."

Iraq has until Friday to accept the terms of the U.S.-promoted Security Council resolution demanding Baghdad allow U.N. arms inspectors unhindered access to any site suspected of producing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons -- or face "serious consequences."

Washington has been adding to the pressure on Iraq with senior Bush administration officials warning the U.S. would be ready to take unilateral military action should Iraq violate the resolution. (Full story)

The Iraqi National Assembly reconvened after deputies met for three hours on Monday and heard Saadoun denounce the measure as a "preamble for war."

CNN's Jane Arraf says there was heavy criticism of the U.N. resolution from the lawmakers at Monday's session.

They said the inspections order was unworkable, it imposed "impossible demands" on Iraq, and that it was mostly a plan to launch a U.S. strike on Iraq.

Ah shit...

This is the worst case scenario. There is no doubt that Saddam will have the final say on whether Iraq will accept the UN resolution, not the parliment. This could be a play on the part of Saddam to look wise and diplomatic by overruling the parliment and accepting the UN. On the other hand, he could openly defy the UN security council. If he does so, that leaves some big questions to be answered.

France and Russia have lobbied from the beginning that a two step process is required. A first UN resolution to mandate renewed inspections and a second to authorize military force if Iraq attempts to frustrate the inspections. If, however, Saddam refuses to comply with the UN resolution from the start, that doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of other options. The UN will almost certainly be left with a pretty stark choice between acting or failing to do so. If Iraq chooses to openly defy the UN it will be fairly difficult for France and Russia to continue to wiggle.

There is still some possibility that military conflict can be avoided if Saddam will overrule his parliment. This is the moment of truth that everyone has been waiting for. This is the time that Saddam will show his true colors and decide how all of this is going to play out. The ball is in his court. Let's hope there is still some shred of common sense left in Iraq.

 

[Deltapooh]

Originally posted by Cheetah772

What's the difference in Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam's Armies? I mean, all three men were dictators, yet, Hitler had probably one of the best military machines in the history of modern warfare. Stalin's Army fought hard, and was far better than Saddam's Army. Yet, all Armies were under ruthless dictators.

Very good question Cheetah772.

For one thing, Hitler had more trust in his military than Stalin or Saddam. He used his superior political skill to encourage devotion to an amazing degree. While Hitler might have thought the German's supported him as a person, they really supported the strength and courage he exhibited. Hitler was able to morph himself into whatever the people wanted him to be.

Stalin was intelligent enough to realize he was not a military commander. Hitler and Saddam think otherwise. Hitler's early success occurred only because he stole the plans of his officers. He said, "that's what I've been trying to tell you all along, but you all couldn't understand." After the fall of France, Hitler began to believe his own press. He took greater gambles, ignored mundane military problems like logistics, and eventually ran what was a great Army into the ground.

Stalin purged the Russian military in the 1930's because he didn't trust his commanders. That robbed the USSR of experienced officers. Junior officers were suddenly placed in command of divisions, corps, and armies, and forced into a trial by error. While Stalin was heavily involved at the outset of WWII in the military decisions, he soon realized he was no commander. Stalin didn't remove himself from war planning. However, he did listen to his commanders more, and gave them more freedom to operate at will.

Saddam keeps his regular Army weak to discourage coups. He kills officers who appear to think independently. And he constantly applies his unexperienced military mind to battle planning.

Despite all this, I would not say the Iraqi Army is a bunch of pushovers. In 1991, the RGFC managed to escape VIIth Corps and XVIIIth Corp. We still aren't sure how they coordinated their retreat, but it was rather organized. So they can fight, but Saddam needs to stay out of the military's business.

The Iraqi Army as a whole fears Saddam more than they trust him. He can't inspire his armies to fight against all odds (or at least couldn't in 1991). Hitler and Stalin both used a combination of fear and encouraged respect to force their armies to carry out their will. In the end, the Iraqi Army trusted their enemy more than their own leader. If this happens again, alot of American soldiers will live to tell their grandchildren how they deposed Saddam Hussein.

Cheetah772's question did make me think about one thing. Both the Germans and Russians fought like hell to repel invaders of their homelands. While, I don't think the regular Iraqi Army will follow in their footsteps, I do wonder about RGFC.

Originally posted by Cheetah772

What does make an Army tick and tock, so to speak figuratively?

I could sit here and give you "the duty, honor, country speech." However, those are not the sole reasons soldiers fight.

The individual soldier fights because of the man next to him. "My buddy can stick it out, so can I." They fight because they trust their military leaders, equipment, and training. The soldier is confident that he has a chance to not only survive, but win. They fight for tradition. They have heroes, role models, and family members who slugged it out on the battlefield, and they want to be like them. Soldiers also fight for committment. They signed on to defend the country and must fulfill their duty. They can't just back out of a promise. And they fight for their families. We all want our familes to be safe, and will do anything to protect them and their way of life. There is also the fear factor. "I'd better kill the enemy before he kills me!"

War is man at his worst. We have rules to maintain some level of humanity, but once the shooting starts, you kill who you are convinced is threatening you. Everyone dies in most violent way possible. It takes a host of factors to convince a man to stay, and fight, while thinking and respecting the rules. You break the most important rule of all in war. You kill people. It's nothing short of a miracle that men don't run the moment the first bullet cracks over their head. Each must find a reason to stay and fight. Some I've listed, but I'm certain there are more.

The Iraqi Parliment crap is just that crap. We all know this is for show. They voted against the Resolution so Saddam could approve it and look like he is going all out, even to the point of ignoring his people, to keep the peace.

I pray he accepts the Resolution. I don't think the US is ready to invade Iraq right now. If Saddam rejects the UN resolution, it will take weeks to mobilize the forces needed. In the meantime, Saddam will prepare and play games, making the US look like a bunch of talk. Saddam is going to accept the Resolution then take the bait and try to argue certain points. That will be our trigger.

The US might not wait for a second UN resolution. I feel Bush will attack while the UN is debating, and rightfully so. The Resolution stated clearly that either Saddam complies unconditionally, or he pays. Since we are the ones that is collecting today, we get to call the price. Bush will likely take Saddam's regime. Let France and Russia talk until their tongues fall off. Not to be a cut on the French people, but their government has been whining over Iraq since 1990. They didn't want to do anything in 1991 or the years that followed, and don't now. So they need to just shut the *** up and see unilateral military action by Bush as letting them off the hook, which is what France wants anyway.

Like France, Russia has other reasons for not wanting to invade Iraq other it's morality. One of them is Russia still see's itself as a superpower. It's leaders seem to constantly be searching for situations where they can inject their interest where it really doesn't belong. Part of the reason Saddam has BC weapons now is probably due to the USSR assistance in the 1980s. We haven't called them out on this, so they should be alittle more friendly.

Those countries who truly feel it's a bad ideal or that it's wrong should be heard. However, France and Russia are two with other interest than trying to help the US not make a bad mistake. For that reason, I say we should just do what we have to.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,

What's the difference in Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam's Armies? I mean, all three men were dictators, yet, Hitler had probably one of the best military machines in the history of modern warfare. Stalin's Army fought hard, and was far better than Saddam's Army. Yet, all Armies were under ruthless dictators.

What does make an Army tick and tock, so to speak figuratively?

Dan

This is a good question and I'm not sure I have a complete answer to it, but I'll outline a few basic points.

I think the situation in which each of these tyrants commanded their armies played a major role in how the soldiers reacted. Although it is true there were terrible purges in the Red Army and that life was very harsh for the average soldier, Russia was being invaded by a particularly cruel opponent. It didn't take long for most civilians - even the independent thinking Ukrainians - to learn the true nature of what the Third Reich had in store for them. The Red Army watched as dozens of its proudest cities were captured or destroyed and that had a deep psychological impact on how they fought and why. The Eastern Front was a war of extermination, kill or be killed. That partially explains the Germans' tenacious spirit there as well. Surrender was not an option.

In the case of the Germans, Hitler was a very different figure than Stalin. Stalin was feared and loathed by his own people prior to the start of the war, but the people responded to his leadership out of necessity. Hitler is today remembered as one of history's worst tyrants, but he was not thought of at all this way back then. For the most part he enjoyed a high level of support from the public, at times even adoration. Many people had reservations about some of his decisions, but by and large they believed he would lead them to a better tomorrow. His atrocities were mainly limited toward the Jews and known enemies such as the Soviets. There was a very high level of professionalism within the German military and Hitler respected that. It's true, he sometimes browbeat his senior officers, but the soldiers mostly approved of him. At least until the very later stages of the war when it was obvious he was a failed leader with flawed ideas.

In 1991 Saddam Hussein was in a different situation than either Hitler or Stalin. He did his best to convince his people that the war on Kuwait was justified, but it was obvious that a majority of Iraqis had very deep ethical problems invading a fellow Muslim state. The Iraqi soldiers didn't hate the Kuwaitis and they really didn't know a whole lot about the Allied forces arrayed against them. If Iraq had been menaced with an unjustified invasion by Western forces I believe many of them would have fought much harder. Their heart simply wasn't in it. Also, as Deltapooh mentioned, Saddam actively ensures that those with true ability and initiative are dealt with.

If Saddam treated his military with a degree of respect and allowed it to grow and mature, and also if Baghdad is directly invaded, there is no reason to believe that Saddam couldn't achieve a fairly high degree of motivation and tenacity from his forces.

The bottom line is this: Stalin had a real mess on his hands in 1941. He made just about every mistake that a dictator can make. However, the Germans gave him the one thing he needed more than anything else: time. In spite of their best efforts, it was beyond the Germans ability to knock Russia out of the war in one year. This gave Stalin the time he desperately need to learn from his past mistakes and reorganize. Saddam is fully capable of the same thing if we let him. That's why any campaign to invade Iraq simply must be lightning fast and brutally effective. Anything less will allow the Iraqis to recover from the initial shock and start to learn. That type of knowledge is dangerous. Even the most hapless opponent will begin to learn at a frightening rate once in mortal combat if given the chance to do so. The RGF must not be given that chance.

The pre-war political phase of this situation is far from over. A lot can still happen that might avert a war.

In short, soldiers fight for a variety of reasons in different situations. Just because the Iraqis fought poorly before is no reason to automatically underestimate them now. They are a dangerous opponent, that's why we're so concerned about them.