Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/27/2004 11:21:11 PM EST

I read an article immediately prior to the start of OIF which stated that Rumsfeld VERY STRONGLY wanted to utilize only SOCOM and air power to take down Saddam's regime, and that Gen. Franks equally strongly wanted to use a massive overwhelming force of combined arms.

So, with 20/20 hindsight, do you think that SF types alone, with plenty of support from air power, naval gun batteries, etc. could have destabilized the regime enough to catch Saddam by now?

Bear in mind that I HIGHLY doubt there would have been any occupation following Saddam's capture/death at the hands of these guys, because significantly less damage would have been done to Iraqi civilian areas, utilities, and that sort of thing.

Discuss.

Link Posted: 9/27/2004 11:38:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 11:40:11 PM EST by CavVet]
Everytime the libs throw this "We should have just assasinated Saddam" bs out there, I tell them to stop and think about it.

Some country, China, wants to kill GW. China is in the year 2010, and the USA is in 1964. The USA knows China wants to kill him.

Do you think they could just drop into D.C. and zap him? No way in hell.
How many people do you think it would take on this assault team to succeed? Nothing short of 200.
Dont you think each and every member of the team would be DOA? 99.999% probability.
Isnt this the best way to get your ass whipped bad & early? yes.


Sorry, that dog dont hunt in any scenario.

You have to know exactly where he is when you go in.
You have to insert covert and keep the total element of surprise to have any chance of success.
You have to neutralize all guards & support and prevent replacements from showing up.
You have to hope he isnt spending the night at some girlfriends house you didnt know about.
You have to extract....And this is a real loser here. Extraction out of a major city with zero ground support.

Sorry, thats a suicide mission with a 1% chance of success. And you would have insured a civil war followed. Kill our POTUS we have succession. Kill a 30 year dictator and every side from everywhere will be pulling for control. Total KAOS even if you could pull it off.

Kaos aside, a simple missle would be a better soultion. But then you have KAOS again.

We did it the right way, period.

BTW, can we have a link to the Rumsfeld quote? I do not recall him calling for that.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 12:53:32 AM EST
Besides the things pointed out by CavVet, what about his sons, who would simply have taken the reins...or any of several other top guys...any one of whom might well have been worse than Saddam?

I cannot believe that even the average 10 year old would have seriously considered such a scenario, much less ol' Rummy.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 2:29:08 AM EST
there no possible way. its the size of CA and it takes a lot of boots to hold that much ground. both of these wars were showcases for the validity of SF, the concept has matured. and i dont think it could have been done much differently.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 2:45:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:
I read an article immediately prior to the start of OIF which stated that Rumsfeld VERY STRONGLY wanted to utilize only SOCOM and air power to take down Saddam's regime, and that Gen. Franks equally strongly wanted to use a massive overwhelming force of combined arms.


There is probably no way that SOCOM can do it alone on the ground. Those folks are human just like the rest of us, just that they got awhole lot more training. In my Gen. Frank's opinion was the best strategy, since he was a real soldier, "having been there done that."

My feeling is that we don't have enough solider in Iraq because we should have vastly overwhelming superiority in every aspect. This war is going to drag out, longer than GWB Jr. anticipated.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 2:51:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 2:54:51 AM EST by BB]
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we had Special Forces IN BAGHDAD targeting before we even invaded.

This could have easily been handled by Special Forces; train and arm the locals and let them handle the revolution (almost happened, remember? but they got no support, and Saddam wiped them out) and support them with airpower and arms.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:00:51 AM EST
There was a CIA plan to kill Saddam using some generals that wanted saddam gone. It was all in place with CIA only to provide comms, coordination and some air. When the plan was sent for approval, the CIA agent in charge was called home and threatened with murder for hire charges. He is now 'retired'. Robert Baer. Google him.

It sounds great and he probably could have done it, but there was a line of shitheads behind saddam that was long and they were just as bad (sons, al-duri, etc.).
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:06:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 3:07:20 AM EST by garandman]

Originally Posted By CavVet:
Everytime the libs throw this "We should have just assasinated Saddam" bs out there, I tell them to stop and think about it.

.



And if we HAD senf SF and just whacked Saddam and his sons, the Looney Left would have said "Yer a bunch of murderous assassins."

Rule # 1 - NEVER, and I do mean never, try to appease the Looney Left. WHATEVER you do, they'll disagree with it. Even if you do what they ask for, and once you do it , they'll criticize you for it.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 3:19:03 AM EST
It's within the realm of possiblilty than Special Forces alone COULD have toppled Saddam Hussein. The problem is the down side. Do you remember Desert One? Do you remember Francais Gary Powers and his U-2? Saddam Hussein was not without assets. He had an efficient police state at his disposal. If those guys had been able to round up even just a few of our guys it would have been a total disaster.
There simply were not enough friendlies (armed) on the ground for this plan to have been a good risk. And the downside was almost bottomless.
So, "Do you feel lucky?"

Also, there is a lot of competition between the armed forces. The Joint Chiefs would probably never have signed off on that plan.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:07:01 AM EST
Yes, Special Forces and bombing could have done it but it would have been a longer, deadlier war for the Iraqis. It would have to be more like Afganistan with massive bombing of fixed targets.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:19:39 AM EST
No

Doing so would have been a complete disaster ie Blackhawk Down or Iran hostage type fuck-up
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 4:44:36 AM EST
Not no, but HELL no!
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:54:01 AM EST

A few things I should clarify here.

One - I don't have a link to the original interview, I read it in Maxim over a year ago. General Franks very briefly touched on the fact that he and Secretary Rumsfeld had disagreed about how to fight the war.

Two - I think that what Rumsfeld wanted was not full scale combined arms warfare, but rather, an intensive air campaign, with SF types calling in precision raids, hitting soft targets all over the country, etc. Not merely a 'Delta Force in downtown Baghdad' mission, but a full scale (albeit low intensity) war. That is the impression I got from the interview.

I think it probably would have worked. Yes, it would have taken longer than three weeks, but also the war could have begun much earlier, considering there would not have been the significant forces buildup in the Middle East prior to the start of the conflict. Also, there would be no occupation, which is the biggest issue of contention about the entire war, I believe.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:18:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:
Everytime the libs throw this "We should have just assasinated Saddam" bs out there, I tell them to stop and think about it.

Some country, China, wants to kill GW. China is in the year 2010, and the USA is in 1964. The USA knows China wants to kill him.

Do you think they could just drop into D.C. and zap him? No way in hell.
How many people do you think it would take on this assault team to succeed? Nothing short of 200.
Dont you think each and every member of the team would be DOA? 99.999% probability.
Isnt this the best way to get your ass whipped bad & early? yes.


Sorry, that dog dont hunt in any scenario.

You have to know exactly where he is when you go in.
You have to insert covert and keep the total element of surprise to have any chance of success.
You have to neutralize all guards & support and prevent replacements from showing up.
You have to hope he isnt spending the night at some girlfriends house you didnt know about.
You have to extract....And this is a real loser here. Extraction out of a major city with zero ground support.

Sorry, thats a suicide mission with a 1% chance of success. And you would have insured a civil war followed. Kill our POTUS we have succession. Kill a 30 year dictator and every side from everywhere will be pulling for control. Total KAOS even if you could pull it off.

Kaos aside, a simple missle would be a better soultion. But then you have KAOS again.

We did it the right way, period.

BTW, can we have a link to the Rumsfeld quote? I do not recall him calling for that.




Anyone who has read Blackhawk Down would understand this.

SF had tons of trouble (not tactically, but from an intel standpoint) of capturing two-bit warlord Aidid.

They would have been massacred in Baghdad.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:21:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:
A few things I should clarify here.

One - I don't have a link to the original interview, I read it in Maxim over a year ago. General Franks very briefly touched on the fact that he and Secretary Rumsfeld had disagreed about how to fight the war. Surprise!

Two - I think that what Rumsfeld wanted was not full scale combined arms warfare, but rather, an intensive air campaign, with SF types calling in precision raids, hitting soft targets all over the country, etc. Not merely a 'Delta Force in downtown Baghdad' mission, but a full scale (albeit low intensity) war. That is the impression I got from the interview. Will the real John Kerry please stand up. Either full scale or Small scale. Without support, its suicide.

I think it probably would have worked. Knock yourself out. Its a suicide mission with little chance of success. Yes, it would have taken longer than three weeks (after 48 hours on the ground, you are surely dead), but also the war could have begun much earlier (with no support) , considering there would not have been the significant forces buildup in the Middle East prior to the start of the conflict. Also, there would be no occupation (Kaos instead), which is the biggest issue of contention about the entire war (depends on which lieberal you listen to), I believe.




Knock yourself out. I am not a suicidal type, I prefer homicide if somebody has to die.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:27:52 AM EST
All it takes is a little garbage and to get the DeLorean to 88 mph....
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:34:09 AM EST
No.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:36:51 AM EST
No way. It may be marginally possible for them to assassinate Saddam (though I strongly doubt it), but where does that leave us? Some other whack-job will just take the reins and start doing the same stuff. The goal here is to have a stable, free Iraq that won't turn into another totalitarian dictatorship or massive civil war 5 minutes after we leave. If we want to do that, we have to put Saddam's military/police machine out of business entirely and then keep the country stable long enough to establish a genuine representative government. You can't keep a country stable with 20 guys and a bunch of jets, no matter how cool those guys and jets are.

If it's going to be done, it has to be done pretty much like it is. There's no way around it. Though it would help a lot if the media would report on what we've accomplished and who we've captured instead of how many US soldiers were killed or wounded.
Top Top