Help support TMP


"What the Gulf War Teaches About the Future of War" Topic


42 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Modern Media Message Board

Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board



1,284 hits since 3 Mar 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP03 Mar 2018 3:48 p.m. PST

"The Gulf War, codenamed Desert Storm, ended on February 28 1991 with the overwhelming victory of a coalition of states, spearheaded by the United States, against Iraq. In a Blitzkrieg-like ground assault, preceded by an extensive aerial bombing campaign, the United States and its allies expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait, killing 25,000-50,000 Iraqi soldiers and wounding over 75,000, while losing 292 killed and 467 wounded in action.

It remains one of the most one-sided military victories in history. Rather than a modern battle between roughly evenly matched opponents, the Gulf War shares more in common in its outcome with, for example, the British defeat of the Mahdist forces at Omdurman, Sudan in 1898 during the heydays of European Imperialism, where the British killed and wounded over 25,000 against 48 dead and 382 wounded of their own.

As with military successes outside of Europe during the age of imperialism, the one-sided victory in the Gulf War has been primarily attributed to technical advantages underpinning the coalition's overall conventional military superiority ("shock and awe"), next to the clever application of maneuver warfare. (Conversely, the Iraqi Army was poorly led and trained and numerically as well technologically inferior to its opponent.)…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Legion 403 Mar 2018 5:20 p.m. PST

Short answer … the better trained and equipped forces defeat poorly trained and equipped forces …

Ashokmarine03 Mar 2018 8:36 p.m. PST

And being in terrain with no cover made their disadvantages worse

Begemot03 Mar 2018 11:53 p.m. PST

Iraq chose to fight a war that played to all of the strengths of the Americans. Extreme firepower superiority in an open environment. It was a foolish choice and the Iraqis paid the price. It was a Pop Warner team playing against the NFL.

However, when the opposition doesn't play stupid…How long have the Americans' been trying to get control of Afghanistan?

Legion 404 Mar 2018 8:15 a.m. PST

As always, terrain played a critical role … In a desert environment you must try to maintain control of the air and have a good number of effective ADA/AAA systems as well. Saddam had neither. Along with all the weakness of his own forces vs. all the strengths of the Coalition's.

As we see/know in the open terrain in much of the desert, as the saying goes, "You have no where to hide" … generally.

A'stan is a bit of a different paradigm. Fighting an insurgency where you can't tell the difference between the insurgent and the average non-combatant. And the mountainous terrain, villages and towns give the insurgent the "home court advantage". I.e. as in SE Asia, etc., a few decades back.

We see how the Iraq insurgents were defeated by the US becoming allied with the locals. And that made a clear difference. As the locals saw the insurgent forces were killing more of them than the so called "invading" US forces. Even though there was a cost in fighting an urban insurgency. Which IMO has to be one of the worse situation for an outside force has to deal with.

But we also saw once the US stood down and basically left the Iraqis to their own devises, with Iranian support and prodding … Old habits of religious, tribal and ethnic differences rose their heads and ISIS, etc., grew …

We also see the same situation in A'stan, with 6 major tribes, 2 religions, various warlords, clerics, etc., the Taliban, AQ and now ISIS. And the ANA/ANP not being able to really pick up the ball and wage an effective war against all its enemies. For many of the reason already mentioned.

The various forces in Iraq and Syria only turned ISIS as an ineffective force on the battlefield with strong, but circumspect support from the US, UK, etc. And the anti-ISIS forces going door to door to route them out like rats. Killing small numbers, little at a time. To limit Collateral Damage to non-combatants. However, much of the infrastructure will have to literally be torn down and start over from the ground up, in many cases.

IMO, Iraq may see some modicum of stability in the near future.

Syria … is still very much in question. And may end up with it's borders being "redrawn" ? And/or "occupied" by many forces both local and outside.

A'stan will remain a sinkhole/money pit, as it has been for centuries. With expenditures of blood and even more so treasure for a very, very, long time to come. Change will only come there is "they" want it to … But that has not happened yet … or will anytime soon.

RudyNelson06 Mar 2018 5:55 a.m. PST

Seems the saying from the 1970s was correct. If you can be seen, you can be destroyed or killed. I heard both.

Legion 406 Mar 2018 8:42 a.m. PST

I as well … but we served about the same time. Regardless … I too agree, if you can be seen you can be hit, if you can be hit you can be killed.

coopman Supporting Member of TMP06 Mar 2018 5:27 p.m. PST

No matter how great your battle is going, the politicians will swoop in and ruin it for you with a premature cease-fire.

Legion 407 Mar 2018 6:58 a.m. PST

That seems to be the norm in some cases … Examples of that can be seen many times, even recently in the late 20th and early 21st Century.

Charlie 12 Inactive Member08 Mar 2018 8:31 p.m. PST

No matter how great your battle is going, the politicians will swoop in and ruin it for you with a premature cease-fire.

Nice try at overly simplistic analysis, there sport….

And what if the military solution turns out to be no solution at all? Ask the Russians (or anyone else) about Astan….

LDC27108 Mar 2018 8:57 p.m. PST

Lessons learned: we were very good at defeating a conventional Soviet-style force following their 1960s doctrine, twenty years (since Airland Battle came out) and numerous exercises later.

No matter how great your battle is going, the politicians will swoop in and ruin it for you with a premature cease-fire.

The goal was to uphold UN Resolution and take back Kuwait, not to topple Saddam (Bush Senior might have tried that with a couple coups and Kurds uprisings, but it was very much not on paper).

Legion 410 Mar 2018 9:49 a.m. PST

And what if the military solution turns out to be no solution at all? Ask the Russians (or anyone else) about Astan….
As I said … in some cases. And we all remember that Sun Tzu said something about, The greatest victory is to win without going to war … Or something like that … old fart
Lessons learned: we were very good at defeating a conventional Soviet-style force following their 1960s doctrine, twenty years (since Airland Battle came out) and numerous exercises later.
Very true … but I'd think that the USSR and most WP were better at "soldiering" than the Iraqi Army.
The goal was to uphold UN Resolution and take back Kuwait
Indeed the Coalition basically obtained that "victory condition" without killing off Saddam. And the Iraq Army was defeated soundly on the battlefield. The UN Resolution only called for the Iraqis to be thrown out Kuwait. Even if on occasion during GWI, we tried with air assets, etc., to eliminate Saddam. Leadership is generally always a legitimate target in warfare.

Uparmored10 Mar 2018 11:41 p.m. PST

A lot of Iraqis just ain't warriors far as I see it. Just not in their creed. I mean they couldn't beat the Iranians, took a year to liberate Mosul but US Special Forces and Kurds took like a month to roll up Raqua.

They're like the French of the ME?

Legion 411 Mar 2018 9:14 a.m. PST

Since the deployment of US SF, etc. to Iraq in the past year. And the Commanders were allowed to do their job. The US SF and Kurds proved to be critical in the war against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. But some of the Iraqis did manage to be very effective in retaking Mosul and other areas of Iraq. With the very close "assistance" of US SF and small contingents of other US units. E.g. US FA batteries, etc.

However, without the US support, I doubt very much the Iraqis would have been as successful as they have been against ISIS.

LDC27111 Mar 2018 7:23 p.m. PST

A lot of Iraqis just ain't warriors far as I see it. Just not in their creed. I mean they couldn't beat the Iranians, took a year to liberate Mosul but US Special Forces and Kurds took like a month to roll up Raqua.

Severely underestimating the Iranians, getting micromanaged by someone who didn't even graduate high school let alone a military academy… Just shows that absolute dictatorship is horrible at fighting wars.

They're like the French of the ME?

Compare to Saudis and Turks who left dozens of fancy kits in the field, Alawites (the supposed warry Muslims) who are still trying to put the little rebellion in their backyard down, and Egyptians? I think people in that region shouldn't fight each other in general.

Legion 412 Mar 2018 6:51 a.m. PST

The Alawite tribe are Shia as is most of Iran(@ 90+%). Iraq is 60% Shia, and only @ 15% Sunni. The rest was a mix of Christian, Yazidi, etc., don't now what the mix is now after ISIS, etc. And ISIS is Sunni.

In all cases Iran was and is actively supporting their fellow Shia. As they do Hezbollah, which are Lebanese Shia. They VBIED'd the USMC barracks in Lebanon in '83. With strong support from both Syria & Iran.

AQ/Al Nusra is Sunni but they and ISIS fought each other in Syria. And pretty much most of those in the region are anti-Israel. Save for generally the gov'ts of Jordan and Egypt … but IMO wouldn't go as far as calling the 3 of them "allies" …

The Kurds are Sunni, as are the Turks, but both Saddam and the Turks see them as "the enemy". For various reasons. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran even supported the Kurds against Saddam's forces. A case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Plus as we see not only religion but tribal and ethnic differences plays a big part in the unrest in the Mid East.

Also some intel captured in the UBL raid showed that UBL and the Iranians were involved in the GWoT against the US and Europe. Or at least were in "discussion" about this.

And the situation in A'stan is similar, with 6 major tribes, both Sunni and Shia. With the Taliban and AQ vs. not only the ANA/ANP/NATO/UN but ISIS. And again, AFAIK, all 3 of those terrorist groups are Sunni.

Peace in those regions will only come about when THEY ALL want it to. Which appears won't be anytime soon. With all the old hatreds rotating around religious, tribal, ethnic, cleric, warlord, etc. affiliations, etc.

Wolfhag12 Mar 2018 8:17 a.m. PST

The US Marines are changing their infantry squad compositions to customize them for specific tasks and missions. They'll have 11, 12 and 14 man squads and the capability to have SigInt and a drone operator. They'll also be using the Milkor Grenade Launcher System and Carl Gustav.

This will significantly increase their Situational Awareness. SigInt can listen into to cell phone and push-to-talk RF traffic in real time which gives them the ability to listen in to the bad guys planning an ambush, coordinating movement and get an azimuth to their location. If tracking a specific target they can pick him out of a crowd. Voice intercepts can be sent by satellite to other intel agencies to match the voice print and identify exactly who they are listening to.

SigInt can jam certain RF to force the enemy to use only the ones the Marines will let them and make it easier to track in real time.

The Marines have also increased the number of Scout Snipers. They have scopes that can transmit an image of a potential target to SigInt who can send it to the intel agencies to get facial recognition/positive ID and a shoot-no shoot authority.

The drone operators will be using Switch Blade drones. Think kamakazie drone with no collateral damage that can be deployed in seconds in the middle of a firefight.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag12 Mar 2018 8:35 a.m. PST

Wolfhag's Suggested Solutions for Afghanistan

We need to address the poppy growing situation. The bad guys use it as a cash crop and there is no way to replace it with other food crops. They don't have the transportation and technical infrastructure. As long as the Taliban have access to the poppy they have a financial incentive to stay in A'stan.

My suggestion is to commoditize it on the world market like wheat, oil and pork bellies. Opium is a product the rest of the world needs. Let a conglomerate of multi-national drug companies come in and help the locals. This means the drug companies hire their own security and the US can stay out of it. Just like any other crop they can pay the farmers not to grow it if there is too much on the market.

Would it really work? Who knows? The biggest variable is the corruption at all levels of government officials. The big pharma companies would send their lobbyists to DC to get corporate subsidies so it may still end up costing the taxpayers.

Another solution: Mine the hell out of the country
link

Giving the country a real industry could help stabilize the population, generate tax revenue for infrastructure and health and human services. However, would it be enough to overcome hundreds of years of national, political, tribal and religious conflict and international meddling? Who knows?

Wolfhag

Legion 415 Mar 2018 2:26 p.m. PST

Another solution: Mine the hell out of the country
Or the "Escape from New York" solution … evil grin

MadMax1716 Mar 2018 12:11 p.m. PST

Also short answer…

It's much easier to attain victory if you can define what that victory is in one sentence.

When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, not a person I talked to could define victory in a coherent manner. Don't think the situation is much different today sadly..

Any war the US (Or any country for that matter) has "won" had a simple, clearly defined, attainable goal. Absent this, how can one possibly hope to succeed?

Legion 417 Mar 2018 9:22 a.m. PST

I would not be surprised if that is the same situation today. Like in Vietnam and than later in Iraq. Some may think we can build up the national home army and then they can "handle it" … It appears that will probably not be the case.

I have not doubt that once the US, etc., leaves Iraq and A'stan … it will be business as usual. And they will all go back to old habits. Killing off each other over tribal, ethnic and the ever popular religious differences. Those have worked so well for them in the past. Why change now … ?

carne6817 Mar 2018 3:18 p.m. PST

The only "objective" remaining is to keep the sitting President, whoever that may be, from presiding over another 'last helicopter out of Saigon' debacle, played out on live TV. So we'll just keep on keeping on.

Wolfhag17 Mar 2018 6:10 p.m. PST

MadMax,
You're right.

To define victory you need to define who the enemy is. The enemy is not terrorism any more than the blitzkrieg was the "enemy" in WWII.

Because of political correctness, the US can't define the enemy even though they shout to us who they are. For example, if I said who I thought the real enemy was I'd end up in the gulag, I mean dog house.

Wolfhag

Legion 418 Mar 2018 6:52 a.m. PST

As we know Political Correctness does not win wars.
When in comes to enemies that are not "PC", don't follow any GCs, etc., and are from societies that living in the 15th Century …

LDC27118 Mar 2018 5:03 p.m. PST

The only "objective" remaining is to keep the sitting President, whoever that may be, from presiding over another 'last helicopter out of Saigon' debacle, played out on live TV. So we'll just keep on keeping on.

Off topic, but White Christmas was only a disaster because the ambassador made no attempt to prepare for evacuation isn't it (there was an article here a month ago or so about it)?

As we know Political Correctness does not win wars.

The Soviets, Nazis, and Chinese Communists would say otherwise: by defining a clear parameter of "enemies" (be it kulaks, Jews or upper class Tibetan landowners) it is much easier to divide and conquer a population.
If we could get the entire western world to support "Muslims" and against "radical Islamists" the latter would have a lot less supporters and ammunition to fire at us.

Wolfhag18 Mar 2018 9:59 p.m. PST

LDC271,
I understand your logic but I'll have to politely disagree with your last sentence conclusion.

I have a different outlook on my experience in that part of the world which was manpower supply for major infrastructure and military training programs in the Gulf countries for almost two decades. That includes work with local national companies the Royal Commissions and some members of the Saudi Royal family.

I'm not going to get into political discussions on this again – people are watching and listening and I don't want to get fleas.

Wolfhag

Legion 419 Mar 2018 8:05 a.m. PST

I too have to agree with Wolf on this LDC …

The Soviets, Nazis, and Chinese Communists would say otherwise: by defining a clear parameter of "enemies" (be it kulaks, Jews or upper class Tibetan landowners) it is much easier to divide and conquer a population.
That IS not PC IMO … it's more like just good propaganda, disinformation or as some would say today "fake" news.
If we could get the entire western world to support "Muslims" and against "radical Islamists" the latter would have a lot less supporters and ammunition to fire at us.
I want to make it clear I'm Not anti-muslim but anti-terrorists. Which are "operating" generally based on their religious beliefs … it appears, at least to me …

I fear there is more "tacit" support for radical islam, then the West believes. And there is much more to the entire "situation(s)" than that, …

Plus IMO like the America Indians tribes of the USA. They too would rarely if ever unite against the Europeans/White Man. Tribal differences won out. I have friends that American Indians, and they tell me in many cases it still does.

Again, with all the differences of all the followers of islam. I'd find it next to impossible for a "coalition" of that belief system to form to control or eliminate their "lunatic fringe" …

Many say and I AGREE the lunatic fringe has "hijacked" that religion … So I'd think that the "non-fringers" would make that priority to end the reign of all the terrorists who hijacked their belief system/religion(s) …

Note the "differences" involved :

First off the split between Sunni and Shite …

Add tribal, ethnic, warlord and cleric affiliations and
probably some things I'm unaware of …

I'm not even playing the hatred of Jews/Israel(20% which are Arabs, albeit not all islamic)card …

The West can repeat "radical" islam is the problem/the rub all day & night. But that won't get all the non-radical, non-fundamentalist followers of that belief system to become a solid force to rid the world of those terrorists. Who preach that they are the "true followers" and everyone else are "infidels" and should "be put to the sword".

You won't win any popularity contest with that type of "dogma". E.g. ask any Yazidi … if you can find one ? And Yazidis are not Christian, Jew or followers of islam.

Also radical islam has added Hindus and Buddhist to their list of "infidels".

The geopolitical "aims" of certain islamic dominated counties in the region. E.g. the Turks, the 2d largest army in NATO is looking to regain some of their lost empire. It seems. Assad( a Shite), wants all of Syria once again under his control, with strong support of Putin/Russia and Iran …

The Kurds want their own "homeland" … many in the area including Iraq don't want that to happen for a number of reasons. Note Iraq is 60% Shite, 15% Sunni plus Kurds are Sunni but the Iraqi Sunni and the Kurds are two different entities. And the Kurds allied with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of the '80. Even though again, the Kurds are Sunni and Iran 95% Shite. There are even two different types of Kurds. The YPK and YPG, IIRC …

Anyone Confused yet ? [rhetorical]

Note even among the "terrorists", e.g. Hezbollah, will never get along with ISIS and it's still questionable if they will with AQ. Add AS, BS, AQIM, the other AQ affiliates, etc. Throw in Assad's tribe the Allowites, the Kurds, the Turks(who are Sunni too), the anti-Assad forces, the Iranians/IRGC, etc.

Shift to A'stan with 6 major tribes, at least 2 religions, the Taliban, both from A'stan and Pakistan. Some of the Pakistanis that are supporters of the Taliban. Add ISIS, AQ, the Hakani network, etc.

It has to be clear … there will be NO anti-radical islamic front to get rid of the terrorists/the hijackers of their religious belief system. Anytime soon, IMO …

I wish/hope I was wrong(?). But if it was possible for that to occur with all the West's support of the non-terrorists governments, etc. … it would have already happened … IMO …

Eumerin26 Mar 2018 7:37 p.m. PST

Add tribal, ethnic, warlord and cleric affiliations and
probably some things I'm unaware of …

"Me against my brother
My brother and I against my cousin
My cousin and I against…"

And so on. The place is one huge mess.

Off topic, but White Christmas was only a disaster because the ambassador made no attempt to prepare for evacuation isn't it (there was an article here a month ago or so about it)?

I suspect it's a reference to the optics more than anything else. Yes, things would have probably gone a lot better if the ambassador had taken steps beforehand to prepare for the evacuation that everyone knew was coming. But you still would have had some unfortunately iconic photography, I suspect.

Incidentally, a source I like on the topic is the documentary "Last Days in Vietnam". There's no narrator to influence the viewer's opinion. The only people speaking throughout are the people being interviewed.

Legion 427 Mar 2018 6:51 a.m. PST

"Add tribal, ethnic, warlord and cleric affiliations and
probably some things I'm unaware of … "
"Me against my brother
My brother and I against my cousin
My cousin and I against…"
And so on. The place is one huge mess.

Yes, as I said, it appears this will continue for a very, very long time. And those areas/regions will see no real peace anytime soon if ever. Just more blood shed with mostly more of muslim killing muslim … It will only end when they decide … As we see nothing the West can generally do to "fix" the situation.

I saw a recent report where some joined ISIS because they could not support/feed their family. I have no idea if this is true. But if the situation is that bad that you have to join a clearly radical, fundamentalist, jihadi, terrorist organization. Bent on slaughter of anything not ISIS. And bring about the "End Times"
Again, there is little anyone outside the regions can effectively do, IMO. With millions/billions of Western, NGO, etc., funds, support, etc., already being spent in many of these areas/regions. And these expenditures have been going on for decades in many cases, if not longer.

Is it a justifiable to give those that just joined ISIS to feed their family a "pass" ? I'm not an advocate of that line of thinking … Especially if it is clear that while being a member of ISIS they committed the well documented medieval, brutal Crimes against Humanity, etc. Or even being an accomplice to such acts. E.g. the driver of the getaway car of a robbery or murder also have some guilt.

Benito Champley27 Mar 2018 8:03 a.m. PST

Don't go anywhere sandy…

Lion in the Stars27 Mar 2018 8:28 a.m. PST

It's pretty simple, really:

From the Jordan River east to the Indus River, anyone not of the local tribe is an invader to be driven off (or killed).

Legion 428 Mar 2018 8:26 a.m. PST

Both of those posts seems to me to be applicable in many cases … evil grin

Lookingglassman13 May 2018 5:30 p.m. PST

I was a M1A1 tank platoon leader in Desert Storm and it really wasn't all that. It felt more like a field exercise than a war most of the time.

On G-DAY we breached the Iraqi lines and the only "action" we saw was an already blown up Iraqi tank taking two sabots from M1A1s, some artillery fire, a few mines, four guys in a trench who surrendered and that was it.

Day 2 was pretty boring except for my loader stepping on a mine and getting blown up (he lived, but is crippled the rest of his life) and a M1A1 attached to an Infantry company accidentally fired in a trench full of American Infantry. It was a bad day for that tank crew. That platoon sergeant on that tank was lazy and didn't care anyway so I am glad he got reamed.

Day 3 was us driving toward the Republican Guards all day. We finally did a passage of lines through the 2nd ACR to fight what became known as the "Battle of Norfolk".

Day 3/4 Fought the Republican Guards all night, but it really wasn't all that. We came in behind them so we saw mostly trucks and BMPs and troops running around. We ran into their tanks early in the morning. What was stupid about the whole thing was our command was so afraid of fratricide that they put these silly rules on us. Before engaging a target we had to Ask for permission to fire. We had to id the target, send a range to the target and an azimuth. Compasses don't work in tanks so we sent up BS ranges. Near the end of the night my platoon agreed it was stupid and we just engaged stuff as we saw it and ignored my COs blabbering on the radio.

Day 4 Made it into Kuwait, my wingman earned the Silver Star when he engaged an Iraqi T-55 that was hidden behind a sand berm and it had just shot a Bradley in the behind from 25 meters away. The Iraqi tank commander was wounded and couldn't make it out of his hatch on time before his fuel and ammo went up so he burned too death. We didn't care we were more concerned with American Infantry laying on the ground outside their burning Bradley.

The next day it ended. Before the actual cease fire my tank company came upon Iraqis sitting on top of a T-72. My CO sent the Infantry platoon attached to us over to see if those guys would surrender. They did and then the Infantry LT dropped a thermite grenade in the tank's engine so we then had to listen for 10 minutes as my idiot CO berated the Infantry LT over the radio for burning that tank because he thought the battalion was going to drag it back to Ft Riley with us. Whatever. War was over and I got to get some good sleep for once.

Legion 414 May 2018 7:27 a.m. PST

Interesting, thank you !

ScottS14 May 2018 11:29 a.m. PST

Looking-

Sounds familiar. I was with the USMC; it was our job to breech the minefields on the border. That was a bit dicey, but we'd spent months getting ready for it, and once it came time to do the job we just – did it.

Wolfhag14 May 2018 12:23 p.m. PST

ScottS,
I remember reading about Marines landing on a beach that was mined. They hopscotched onto the large anti-tank mines that the wind exposed to avoid the AP mines.

Any truth to this?

Wolfhag

ScottS14 May 2018 2:19 p.m. PST

Not a clue, that wasn't anything I was involved in. We were sent to go after the mines on the border, not on a beach.

I could tell you all about what OCD-1 of TF Ripper (1st Tks, CEB, 1/5, 1/7) did, but outside of that I know as much as you do.

Legion 414 May 2018 3:02 p.m. PST

Wolf I remember seeing something like that incident on the News during the war. But it was not on a beach, and it was some USMC LAVs as well as some other units, IIRC. The wind blew the sand off the mines and they were easily avoided.

Now … IIRC Schwarzkopf told the media in one of the daily briefings. That there was a USMC MEU(IIRC) aboard ships off the Iraqi Eastern Coast. Awaiting the word to invade/hit the beach.

After the war it was revealed it was part of a deception plan. To keep the Iraqis in place to defend the coast. There was a MEU(IIRC) off the coast but they were only there a part of the deception.

IIRC, SEALs and maybe Marine Recon would make little raids along the beaches, and some of those were mine, AFAIK. The raids were just made to keep the Iraqis busy awaiting the landings. And explosives, small arms fire, etc., were used to make it appear the landings were occurring. After a short amount of time the raiders withdrew back to the sea. And later repeated this a number of times… IIRC old fart

And the Iraqis continued to wait for an invasion that never came. Until the end of the[very short] war. These raids tied up @ 3 Iraqi Divs.

Lookingglassman16 May 2018 4:50 p.m. PST

ScottS, Yeah we rehearsed for months also for the breach and the actual breach was a big disappointment. I didnt see no mines or wire. There was nothing there. The real minefield was laid in the Iraqi trenches and my platoon had to do a hasty breach since it surprised us as we were moving. We basically drove over the mines ensuring the tracks of the tanks didn't touch them.

Pyrate Captain07 Jun 2018 11:20 a.m. PST

There is no last word in diplomacy before armed combat occurs. I firmly believe there was a diplomatic solution, and that failed diplomacy in the summer and fall of 1990 can be viewed as the catalyst for all that followed to date.

Lion in the Stars07 Jun 2018 11:33 a.m. PST

?

Armed combat is the last word of diplomacy.


And what on earth do you think would have gotten Iraq out of Kuwait short of military force?

Legion 407 Jun 2018 3:15 p.m. PST

Good point Lion. Saddam wanted some of the Kuwaiti oil, etc. … Don't know how you could convince him to leave, and the US/UN did try. So it came down to an armed conflict … For better or worse …

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.