This invasion was a complete disappointment. After all of Saddam's boasting, I was actually expecting for him to have his "Mother of All Battles." But all we got was this 2 week crap war...now, this is not to say that the guerilla war won't be more impressive, as that is just beginning. Now, the question is, what could Saddam have done to win the war? It is not enough to say that, "Saddam lost because America's army is more high-tech and is just better." We must look specifically at WHY he lost, what specific areas he was defeated in. We must make a case study, to learn from their mistakes.

My general theory is that Saddam lost because of an unresponsive and almost childish defensive plan. But, I will list all the things that I could think of that could have helped him win.

1- Better propaganda. Propaganda is key to everything. During the Iran-Iraq War and the Persian Gulf War, Saddam used incredible propaganda; it was so effective that his army went to their death fighting of him.

2- Greater use of the suicide bomb. He had an entire army of "Fidayeen" soldiers. If you do not know, a "Fidayee" is a soldier who pledges to fight to the death- so why not have him strap bombs to his waist, instead of just being gunned down in a fire-fight? This would have made the coalition very paranoid, and thus decrease their morale.

3- "Planned for failure," to quote the RTPBs :D . He did not plan for what to do if his command and control went down, and that was quite obvious. What he should have done in this situation was to mimic the Palestinian Guerillas in the West Bank and Gaza. What they do to organize their fighters during an Israeli incursion is use Mosque loudspeakers to wake everyone up and call them to arms. Saddam could have done the same- communicated via short-range radio to commanders in mosques, who in turn would relay the message across the whole city. Messages could detail American troop movements or give orders of how to organize the Iraqi forces. Since most the Americans/British do not speak Arabic, and there was little (if any) Arab anti-Saddam fighting, they could do this relatively safely.

4- Snipers! This was the key to Russian victory at Stalingrad. The snipers were so bad in Stalingrad that the Germans could not even stand up during the fighting; they had to crawl wherever they go...hence it gained its name "The Rat War."

5- Anti-Aircraft Weapons. He knew that by turning on his early warning radars, these would be bombed very quickly. So, he should have found a new use for them- aiming them at the ground! The exploding shells work wonders against Armored Vehicles and infantry. This was a painful lesson the Israelis learned in trying to take an Egyptian city during the war on the Sinai Peninsula.

6- Should not have waited to be attacked. He KNEW from the beginning that the Americans would attack, so he should have attacked them first as they were assembling in Kuwait. He could have made excellent use of his "Al-Samoud" missiles if he struck preemptively, before any Patriot batteries arrived. Or, he could have simply invaded Northern Kuwait, thus driving American forces back.

7- He had French Anti-Ship missiles. Why didn't he use them?? If he had hit just 1 American ship, it would have been hugely beneficial for his psychological campaign...even if the ship did not sink.

That's all I can think of for now, feel free to add the the list.:)

Elaborating on the idea of the suicide-bombers... Since the Fadayeen army was obviously extremely poorly equipped, but very dedicated to the Saddam Hussein regime, they would have been better suited to being bombers than mere gunmen.

I remember hearing an interview with an Ex-Hitler Youth soldier on the History Channel. He was talking about the bravery of the Hitler Youth when he described one of his comrades... He took his Panzerfaust, dived underneath an American tank, and fired the missile straight at the tank's belly- destroying it. Imagine if those 300 Suicide Vests that have just been discovered were on 300 Fadayeen troops, who in turn dove under 300 armored vehicles.

Now, adding to the list:

1. WTF was going on with the commanders in the field? When bombs started hitting their units, they ordered their men to, "Stand fast and die like men!" They should have made greater use of decoys to waste American bombs, and they should not have slept near their vehicles.

2. The disorganized nature of the Iraqi Army towards their latter days could have been of good use. If I recall correctly, in the book "US Marine Operations in Urbanised Areas," it was stated that a decentralized military is actually ideal for an urban setting. However, it was obvious that they were confused and scared. But, the resistance that volunteer soldiers from Syria and other Arab countries provided shows that the Republican Guards could easily have turned the streets of Baghdad into a bloodbath for the Coalition.

The Volunteer soldiers were very organized, and I believe they were responsible for the majority of American casualties in Baghdad.

3. Why have the Republican Guard concentrated in Baghdad? That is why I say Saddam's defense was childish. It was a panic-response to an American threat, and he never took time to revise his strategy. It reminds me of the captain of the Titanic crying, "Women and children!" when a bit of innovation could possibly have saved the vast majority of people on board...

I believe there were 5 Republican Guard Divisions: Al-Nida, Hamurrabi, Medina, Baghdad, and the Special Republican Guard. They were all given the latest equipment, including Night Vision goggles. If I were Saddam, I would have kept the Medina Division, arguably the best-trained, INSIDE Baghdad. Their T-72 tanks are no match against America's army in the Desert...but in the streets they could have posed a bigger problem.

2 More Divisions would be sent North, staging a preemptive incursion into the Kurdish territories, destroying any of their assets which could be used to help the Americans (e.g.: airfields, bridges...). It wouldn't make Saddam look like an angel in the International Community, but it's not as if the Kurds like him much anyway. Besides- he had nothing to lose. While in the Kurdish territories, perhaps he could have threatened Turkey...stating that, "Any assistance to the coalition will mean X missiles fired into your country." That would drag Turkey into the War, and they would be forced to invade through Northern Iraq...Kurdish territory. Therefore, in the ideal situation, the Kurds are locked in battle with Turkey (whom the Kurds absolutely hate), rendering Northern Iraq effectively unusable. A defensive alliance could have been formed with the Ansar Al-Islam group, because they are clearly more clever than Saddam's army...

When they left the city of Halabja, they planted numerous booby traps (car bombs, landmines, etc.). So, as the invading Kurds hoped to find war booty inside a car, they were instead blown up...killing 12 soldiers, in one incident. In another incident, more than 20 Kurdish Peshmerga were blown up by an Ansar booby-trap.

In the South, 1 more division of Republican Guards should have been sent to the Al-Faw Peninsula and concentrate his soldiers in the cities, where they would be most effective.

4. Saddam's Airforce. Yes, he still had one...albeit, not many planes and even fewer trained pilots. But he should have made use of what he had. It would have been better to have something in the air rather than keep all his planes on the ground to be annihilated.

5. Helicopter Gunships. Saddam made excellent use of these during the Iran-Iraq War and the Shia and Kurdish uprisings. They cut through the lines of Iranian "Human Waves" and they saved his regime when most his provinces were in uprising and the Shias were in the streets of Baghdad. These could have been used to attack American convoys or Kurdish Peshmerga.

6. He should ceased all cooperation with Resolution 1441 when the Americans started gathering in Northern Kuwait. I believe the French Foreign Minister told Russia shortly before WW1 began in earnest that, "Mobilization is effectively a declaration of war." Instead, he should have made the demand that, "We cannot disarm any of our weapons when there is a credible threat to our sovereignty," and further demanded that, "All American forces must leave the MIDDLE EAST before we can continue disarmament." That would have gone very well with the hardcore Muslim extremists, who have wanted Americans out of the Arabian Peninsula for some time now... They would see this is a battle between Muslims and America, and not of just Saddam Hussein and America.


Maybe I'm just living in a fantasy world, but these are just some things that I thought Saddam could have done to at least defend his country.

Saddam had little chance of winning, and by concentrating all his Republican Guard in Baghdad I think he wanted the Americans to have to come in and cause lots of innocent casualties. If he could shift the public's opinion against the US then he at least wins the propaganda war.

But the cities just fell pathetically. I don't understand why he didn't anticipate this, and the whole place boobytrapped to fuck. I agree with you on the ill use of a suicidal group, they should have loaded them up in cars with large amounts of explosives, set a timer, then driven towards the checkpoint at high speed. If the driver gets shot and can't detonate the explosives then the timer will, and he'll kill at least 3-4 soldiers for one guy.

I for one oppose the general view that Saddam has lost the war. For one, I don't think that the war is over yet. It wouldn't come as a surprise to me if a whole bunch of chemical weapons were suddenly deployed by another one of his elaborate security systems all across the country.
Also, how you define victory also determines the outcome of the war. In most of the scenarios described. he would have made himself look worse, and would have given the US more reason to attack. He would have also garnered more support from other countrys (france) if he had fought back with any of his suspected WMD's. In effect, I think he has made GWB look like a real war-mongerer now that there doesn't appear to have been as big of a threat as first thought.

Gonna miss this guy.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2002/08/13/wirq13.jpeg

"Our estimates are that none of them will come
out alive, unless they surrender to us quickly."

The Iraqi information minister RULES!

You can't help but admire the guy, and as far as bullshiting goes, he can't be beat.

There's all kind of politcal office and public service jobs waiting for him in this country :)

On the contrary to MrSomasa's opinion, I think the Iraqis utilised propaganda a lot. We didn't get to see much of it, but the Iraqis saw nowt but. Whether they belived it or not though... still, they did try.

So yeah, where's the WMD?

Ahh, the Iraqi Information Minister. I had a great time, while pulling all-nighters for school, watching him at 5:00 am.

Info. Min: "The Amrikans tried to take Baghdad, but it was suicide. We destroyed all of them, and they will never advance an inch."

Journalist: "There's a battle going on about half a mile from here with lots of mortars and machineguns, how do you feel about that?"

Info. Min: "Don't pay attention them. It's all lies. Listen to us, we will tell you the truth."

That guy was great...but you gotta admit, the Taliban Information Minister was pretty good too:

Journalist: "Do you know anything about the Anthrax being sent in letters across the US? Does the Taliban have anything to do with that?"

Info. Min: "What is Anthrax? We don't know what Anthrax is."

AAh comical ali, he'll be missed
he made some great claims like:
the US did not control the airport, they just ran in with the film crews filmed and ran out

or when he tried to tell us that the americans were not in baghdad when there was an american tank visable over his shoulder, accross the street.

i reckon he's probably got a job working for the BBC or the mirror

he will be missed though

I was watching the news when Baghdad fell and they had the reactions of some of the people in Egypt and one man was completely dumbfounded he said "I dont believe this, how could baghdad fall? The information minister said... wait he lied? I dont believe this, ill never watch al-jazeera again" True story. And people think americans are gullible.

Mother of all battle seemed to last about long enough to soft boil a egg.
Looks like I will have to go back to Video Games to get my images of war, death, and destruction....But Their light at the end of the tunnel... we might go and kick syria[sp?] around.. ohhh one could only hope. I need my daily Propaganda/ War Images fix.... Plus hopefully a Syarian Sniper can Pick off a Reporter while on a live feed... Yeha that should Boost morale :D It will make my day.

the iraqi information minister is not gone
http://www.iraqiinformationministry.com/
he's back and on the web

This is rather interesting... In a letter sent through Amman, Jordan, the leader of the "Mujahideen Army" in Iraq, Abu Liyad, described what happened to the Iraqi Army; and they were NOT all blown to bits.

He said that simply could not compete with American air power, and that the only way they stood a chance against the Americans was in a Taliban-esque Guerilla War. So, in line with the Taliban tactics, the Iraqi Army vacated the cities and retreated to a network of tunnels built in 1989. They took 150,000 of the most loyal soldiers to Saddam, the remaining Republican Guard Units, and 150 Iraqi Jets. Of those 150 Jets, a recent find has uncovered 51 of them. Other than that, notice that the media is not mentioning Iraq's vanishing military.

As they vacated the city, they cut the power. This is because the Americans had started the psychological war, trying to dishearten the Iraqis. The actual armed forces knew this was little more than propaganda, but they felt that the regular Iraqi civilians would lose confidence...so they cut the power to turn off all the TVs :D .

In their tunnels, they simply have the Republican Guard and the dedicated Iraqi Regulars...they will NOT be fighting a guerilla war, according to Abu Liyad, because that is not how they were trained to fight. Instead, they will wage a regular war to retake the cities after the Fadayeen and the People's Militia (composed of some 1 million militiamen, according to Abu Liyad and Saddam Hussein), fight their guerilla war. These unconventional forces did NOT retreat, and are instead in the cities.

I can't verify how accurate this information is, but the letter was on the news site "Jihad Unspun," which tends to carry news related to various Muslim irregular armies ;) . The website is www.jihadunspun.net , but I have lost the link for the actual article. sorry.

That would be interesting! Wait for the infidel yankees to send the bulk of their army home then counter strike to recapture Baghdad:cool:

So yeah, where's the WMD?

They're being flown in with a C-17, convenient way of getting rid of outdated WMDs...:D

Mr Samosa I think this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2966007.stm) is a more likely explanation, and understandable too!

In the words of CartMan "Screw you guys, I'm going home"

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a low level terrorist action in Iraq for months or years to come, but it won't be coming from Republican Guards in tunnels. The biggest problem is going to be holding together the three main religious/cultural groups over the next few years - best they employ the services of a brutal, repressive dictator;)

"The British Army has even given me a job working in their headquarters in Saddam's Basra palace. Washing floors for the British Army is better than fighting against them"

Ahhh, nostalgia...

That guy was great...but you gotta admit, the Taliban Information Minister was pretty good too: yeah the both of them could join, in the next episodes of the Muppet show replacing the two "grannies"on the balcony.