"America's Greatest Fear: What If Saddam Had Invaded..." Topic

… Saudi Arabia?

"In early August 1990, the Iraqi Army executed a nearly flawless operation to seize and occupy Kuwait. Iraqi forces had grown increasingly lethal in the final year of the Iran-Iraq War, and they brushed aside Kuwaiti resistance with little difficulty.

What came next is well-known; the Iraqis hunkered down in the belief that the United States and its allies would shy away from a direct military confrontation over the future of Kuwait. The Bush administration assembled an impressive coalition of forces, and tossed the Iraqis from Kuwait with trivial casualties.

But at the time, many in the United States worried that Saddam Hussein would order his army south, into Saudi Arabia. And in retrospect, giving the United States the time to mobilize a huge army in Saudi Arabia looks like something of a blunder. Would Saddam have had a better chance if he had gambled for higher stakes at the start, and ordered his forces to invade Saudi Arabia?…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well, that was a concern at the time, but Iran was and is, clearly the larger threat, as we now see throughout the region.

I remember at the time a number of American military "experts" saying in the media that Saddam would keep on rolling into Arabia and the Americans would have to scrape together some ad hoc emergency response unit and stop the Iraqis somewhere along the Persian Gulf or on the road to the oil fields.

Didn't happen. I don't know why so many "experts" thought the Iraqi army was some sort of blitzkrieging Wehrmacht. Grabbing Kuwait seemed like an easy grab by a regional power against a non-power, and it's hard to not believe that Saddam did not think the US, who had been arming him and encouraging him against the Iranians all through the 1980s, wouldn't wink and look the other way. More fool he.

Had Iraq truly wanted to seize the Arabian oil fgields along the Gulf, perhaps they could have steamrolled the Saudis -- I don't know what their position was at that time. But the US would still have rolled them up again once they arrived. That was a singularly one-sided war. The problem for the US is how long it took them to get their (overwhelming) forces in theatre -- to me, that is their weakness. How often are you going to have the luxury of having months to prepare and position and your opponent is not going to do a thing to hinder you? The US goes to war in a very lazy and pampered way, when you look at the logistical tail and the prep time involved. Is this how they intended to react against the Soviets had they moved into Germany in the 1970s or 1980s? Or maybe they never took that threat seriously.

For that matter, I also remember personally attending academic conferences in early 2003 where again, "experts" decried how the American forces soon to be launched against Iraq (again) were sure to face chemical weapons and other WMDs. It's incredible what some people will talk themselves into believing.

In the 70s and 80s the equipment was pre-positioned in Europe and the troops were to be flown in. Ready to go in days or weeks vs months. With a sizable force already in the area. Would we have had even days to wait is a question beyond my pay grade.

We beat this dead horse a number of times. The talking heads got it wrong because amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics. The logistics of going into Kuwait are nothing compared with going 500 miles to Riyadh, even without US and Allied air power hammering your vulnerable trucks by day 5. Even if Iraq took SA, they would not have kept it long unless they went the 800+ miles to take all the major Gulf ports. The handful of troops who would make it to Dubai would have been very outnumbered and outgunned. Iraq just didn't have the ability to go that far.

"Greatest fear"? The author is hyperventilating.

CS got it right.

I agree … CS is right on. I was a Bn and later Bde Asst. S4. Logistics drives everything … That and maintaining all the "Iron Monsters" that most modern 1st World armies have. I was "lucky"(?!) to be an Bn and later Bde BMO too. If it can't shoot, move and/or communicate, you have very large, very expensive "monuments" … I only mention my past experiences as to make my comments more credible. As anyone who has been in the military knows. You spend a lot of time ordering supplies and parts, pulling maintenance daily, running convoys etc., etc. … IIRC said something like, "An armie travels on it's stomach."

"Greatest fear"? The author is hyperventilating.

That is one of the problems with 24 Hour News and mass media. You have to find everybody and their brother to fill air time.. And/or sell books. That being said, many "experts" do know what they are talking about … as many as those that don't.

Let's not forget that Mr.Hussein had US approval to invade Kuwait via Ambassador April Glaspie.That gets conveniently forgotten.

Perhaps if he had taken SA, 9/11 might not have happened.

Of course, that's just wild speculation, but most of the attackers were Saudis, and supposedly the plan was backed by them, so……

The offensive and logistics capabliites of the Iraqis would have been challenged to seize Saudi Arabia, without US and allied support. With US airpower its very unlikely to have been possible.

After 2 Aug, the US did deploy forces. A carrier was already in striking range, a MEU was off the coast of Saudi Arabia within 48 hours. The first elements of the 82 Airborne landed in 5 days as did the advanced party of Regimental Combat Team 7 (who once married up with (i.e. RSO&I complete) a MPS squadron gave a 'middle weight' force who were operational ~6 days later).

For the Iraqis to have sustained an offensive down the penninsula with US airpower attacking them would have been near impossible. The US ground forces were mostly a show of force/resolve.

Ah, thanks for the first hand reports -- this latter commentary is what I would have expected, and what seemed logical at the time to me as an uninformed but sensible observer. The myth of the Iraqi "juggernaut" based purely on its numbers of men and armor never seemed right to me, if only because I paid attention in the 1980s and recalled how neither Iran nor Iraq were able to deal a knockout blow to the other. Taking over Kuwait by comparison seemed more like the Germans seizing Denmark in 1940 than a serious military challenge. The long road into huge Saudi Arabia by comparison, under aerial attack by the US, would have been a very different matter.

" it's hard to not believe that Saddam did not think the US, who had been arming him and encouraging him against the Iranians all through the 1980s, wouldn't wink and look the other way."

The US didn't arm Iraq. The only weapons sold to Iraq were some jeeps with recoiless rifles in the 1950s. The vast majority of Iraq's weapons came from the Soviet Union with a bit from France and China.

The fear of an Iraqi invasion of SA came at least in part because SA had and has next to no ground forces. The air force is considered the premier arm of their military and has most of the actual Saudis that are in the military are piolets. The ground forces are very poor and filled with foreign nationals as are the maintance personnel for the air force.

He would've gotten his ass kicked 6 months earlier.

Riyadh nothing. You invade and capture the oil ports. They are a lot closer.

The was a wonderful map-wargame called "For those whom the Gods wish to destroy" in an issue of 'Stategy and Tactics ' at about this time that postulated how a US Buildup (think 82nd AB and 101st AB) in blocking positions would play out with increasing Air assets deployment ..was a good game …I would still have somewhere if anyone's interested… still remains strangely relevant today.

I've got it … like all my old S&Ts and AH. Pretty good game as I remember.

The logistics of going into Kuwait are nothing compared with going 500 miles to Riyadh, even without US and Allied air power hammering your vulnerable trucks by day 5.

Victory Games' "Gulf Strike" illustrated that very well. I recall playing that out during the Desert Shield weeks, realizing how I'd gotten the logistics rules wrong as Iraqi units were steamrolling south. When I re-set things, I got the picture of how hopeless it was to try to keep them supplied and moving. Republican Guards with no fuel or shells don't do so much.

Look at a map and see the different in sizes of Kuwait & Saudi Arabia.

Remember what happen to when Germany tried to take large tracts of land in Russia.