Iraq

[chico20854]

Working on our alternative take on the Twilight Universe, the timeline in the RDF Sourcebook seems to be open for another look. Webstral, in his The Storm in Germany, detailed the effects of Desert Storm on the Soviet Union. Going from that, we are trying to figure out what Iraq does during the war. We are assuming that the USSR gives some assistance in rebuilding the Iraqi military, but in the end it doesn’t look too different than it did in the mid 1990s IRL.

I see five options:

1) Iraq remains neutral unless invaded by NATO forces.
2) Kuwait Invasion: In a repeat of August 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait. Sometime after CENTCOM begins to deploy ground troops, Iraq invades Kuwait but does not enter any other nation unless NATO forces attack Iraqi forces from that other nation (Iran, Saudi Arabia or Turkey).
3) Same as above, but Iraq also invades Saudi Arabia.
4) Iran Invasion: Iraq chooses to re-start the Iran-Iraq War. At some time after the Soviet invasion of Iran begins, Iraq invades Iran (but not any other nation unless NATO forces attack Iraqi forces from another nation), when Iraq replies in kind.
5) All-out War: Iraq declares a general war against NATO.

Note that what may seem logical to us doesn’t necessarily appear to be the same for Saddam. If we were in his situation in 1990, would we have invaded Kuwait?

Some thoughts I have on the options:

1) Saddam could sit tight, realizing the damage his military took in 1991 and that the USSR is unlikely to provide much in the way of material support, as it is engaged in wars in Korea, China, Iran, the Balkans, Germany and Norway. I like this option the best as it makes the war in Iran as described in RDF Sourcebook most likely.

2) and 3) Realizing that the Coalition that united against him in 1990-1 is engaged in the same wars as the USSR, Saddam figures that it is unlikely that the Coalition will be able to muster a force similar to 1991 to stop him this time – he might succeed this time, and given the disparity of forces, Kuwait is most likely a goner (after 1991 the Kuwaiti military still trained with the goal of resisting Iraq for 48-72 hours before US and GCC reinforcements arrived to relieve them).

4) Showing the strength of his alliance with/allegiance to the USSR, and with the idea of gaining the same valuable resources he tried to grab in 1980 while scoring a relatively easy victory (due to the split between the NEC and Pasdaran and with the Transcaucasian Front advancing rapidly), Saddam makes another try at western Iran.

5) 2, 3 and 4 above, all combined.

I doubt we’ll reach any sort of consensus on this, I’m trying to develop relative probabilities of the options above, (or any other ways at looking at the situation). My gut feeling is:
Option 1: 50%
Option 2: 15%
Option 3: 12%
Option 4: 15%
Option 5: 8%

We'll probably end up using some sort of random options resolution when we wargame things out, hence the probabilities. And after the TDM all these calculations fall apart...

Thanks!
(Oh, and can we try to keep this both civil and on-topic?)

[pmulcahy11b]

The first thing that I noticed about your post was that "Iraq would remain neutral, unless invaded by NATO" (or the Pact?). Iraq will get invaded -- by both sides. That oil's just too damn valuable. That also means that it will probably get nuked a bit by both sides. There will be lots of wrecks on the bottom of the Persian Gulf, and it's shores will be an ecological nightmare for generations from destroyed shipping and oil wells. No way the rest of the world will just let Iraq sit there and be quietly neutral.

As for Saddam, he'll probably get offed by someone trying to cut a deal with one side or the other -- or trying to play both ends against the middle. Hell, Uday might even be willing to try that one himself. And that person will get offed, and so on, and so on, until Iraq is back down to the tribal warfare phase.

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The first thing that I noticed about your post was that "Iraq would remain neutral, unless invaded by NATO" (or the Pact?). Iraq will get invaded -- by both sides. That oil's just too damn valuable. That also means that it will probably get nuked a bit by both sides. There will be lots or wrecks on the bottom of the Persian Gulf, and it's shores will be an ecological nightmare for generations from destroyed shipping and oil wells. No way the rest of the world will just let Iraq sit there and be quietly neutral.

As for Saddam, he'll probably get offed by someone trying to cut a deal with one side or the other -- or trying to play both ends against the middle. Hell, Uday might even be willing to try that one himself. And that person will get offed, and so on, and so on, until Iraq is back down to the tribal warfare phase.

Sorry, I should have clarified... this is for late 1996 and 1997 up to the nuclear exchange. I agree that oil production and transportation facilities in both combatant and neutral nations are going to get atomised.

If they sell oil to the Soviets through Tabriz, then it would be up to NATO to invade Iraq, and given the call on their forces from Transcaucasian Front next door, I don't see CENTCOM being able to do much about it beyond liberal application of F-15Es with CBUs on oil infrastructure.

If they sell oil to the West, then the Soviets would probably start talking to Uday and Qusay.

RDF Sourcebook has things pretty quiet in Iraq through 1997. During the exchange the army starts falling apart and in 1998 the Soviets instigate a coup, which quickly goes bad. This is the "neutral" option in my post above.

I agree the Gulf is going to be a stinking mess for generations to come. Kinda like in real life...

[pmulcahy11b]

The more I think about it, the more I think Saddam will not be in power in T2K. Saddam was basically a thug with lots of power. His sons, on the other hand -- they were diabolical. One of them (and only one -- my pick would be Uday) would be in charge quickly after world hostilities started.

[Matt Wiser]

Actually, it'd likely be Qusay. He was gathering power behind the scenes, and ran not only the Special Security Organization (SSO) but also the Special Republican Guard. More importantly, he was being groomed by his father to be the successor. Uday was more of a playboy and a public danger (his psychopathic tendencies being well known in Baghdad), to the point of having made numerous non-Baathist enemies, who tried numerous times to kill him. I remember a news story on the two before the invasion, and one source remarked this way: "How do you differentate between the brothers? Simple: Uday kills for jollies. But when Qusay kills, it's business." And it's no secret that before the invasion, both wanted the other dead. Lots of folks were surprised that the two brothers were found together-and died together.

[Webstral]

There are a few as-yet unmentioned variables I think we should address en route to determining Iraq's status in Twilight: 2000. The first is whether we believe the entire series of events surrounding Operations Desert Shield and Storm occurred. Saddam Hussein may have invaded Kuwait regardless of the fate of the Soviet Union during the 1989-1991 timeframe. He may not have invaded Kuwait. That's one thing a consensus group should decide, I think.

If Hussein does invade Kuwait, the invasion probably would look much like it did in real life. How does the survival of the USSR modify the US response? How does said modification, if any, modify the post-Desert Storm situation?

I've tried to address these concerns in earlier work, which of course people are free to reference or ignore as they see fit. In summary, I posit that very little changes because the war stands to give the Kremlin some things they want at very little cost to themselves. However, at the end of the war the United States maintains forces in the area. At the end of 1996 in the real world, a brigade of 24th ID or 1st CD was in Kuwait. If this force is in place in early 1997 in Twilight: 2000, and if Hussein in fact invades Kuwait, it’s hard to see how the US (and the Western Allies) don’t get involved. I think we should make up our minds how far events depart from events in the real world.

For my money, I like the idea of a more active US involvement from the start. Call me a drama queen, but I find the imagery of a brigade of US troops duking it out with the Republican Guard in Kuwait City the stuff of good story-telling. Admittedly, going this route means significantly altering the timeline given in the RDF Sourcebook. I’m all for it if we can come to some agreement on updating the timeline—whether my ideas get supported or not.

Webstral

[Jason Weiser]

Web,
We're leaning the same way you are with regards to Kuwait. We happen to have a spare heavy brigade lying around..... As for other matters, the other options are there specifically because of Soviet support, but in your earlier work which is a big start point for what we've been doing, you do have Desert Storm go off, so we're figuring that Saddam has reasons both to get into and stay out of the war. believe me, this was the end result of some disagreement between us DCWG members.

[Rainbow Six]

Reading Chico's options, my initial reaction was to favour option 4, a move against Iran.

However, upon reflection...I'm presuming that would ultimately make Iraq a Soviet ally and therefore, by definition, an enemy of NATO. And we all know how badly Saddam's first attempt to occupy Iranian territory went for Iraq...so that option begins to look maybe a little less likely...would making enemies of NATO and Iran be a wise move?

Whereas in 1990 he was able to take Kuwait in a matter of hours.

So, weighing up the different options, I've ended up in favour of option 2/3. As Chico states, the Coalition that threw him out of Kuwait first time round is somewhat busy fighting a World War, so he may think there's a chance that he might get away with it this time.

As to whether he only goes for Kuwait or also goes for Saudi....If he takes Kuwait only, I think there is a possibility that the rest of the Arab World might let that go, meaning Saddam has scored big time, assuming his numerical superiority means he can overcome any Western forces present in Kuwait. (Yes, I know that's put him at War with NATO, but he's not at War with Iran as well, and as noted above CENTCOM's resources are going to be limited)

On the other hand if he continues on into Saudi, then the conflict might widen, as other Arab states send forces to Saudi Arabia to help defend Mecca and Medina from Iraqi aggression. How would Saddam fare against the combined Egyptian, Syrian, and Saudi armies (amongst others)?

Of course, as you say Saddam could choose to do something completely different that's both irrational and illogical. And once the nukes start flying in Europe absolutely anything is possible (perhaps an attack on Western Iran supported by chemical weapons?). Personally I think the most likely outcome post November 1997 is a break up of Iraq into various tribal / religous areas.

Hope that all makes sense...

[Webstral]

Rainbow, your ideas do make sense. In the real world, there is supposed to be a Gulf Coalition force for the purpose of reinforcing Kuwait in the event of a new Iraq. Obviously, events have moved far beyond where they would have been in Twilight: 2000 in January 1997. However, I think it's useful to ask whether Gulf forces would have moved in support of Kuwait.

If the United States has a heavy brigade in place in Kuwait in 1997, a move by Hussein's Iraq is a move towards war with the West. I'm inclined to believe that the Kremlin would want this for the reasons you and others have indicated. I think the West would then place very heavy pressure on the Gulf States to make good on their commitment of arms. What do the Gulf States do?

Surely Saudi mobilizes and sends forces to the border, at the very minimum. Their oil is just too vulnerable for them to sit on their hands. Whether they send troops into Kuwait or undertake air missions against Iraqi forces in Kuwait or even Iraqi forces in southen Iraq is another question. I can't say for certain what the answer is, but I'm inclined to argue that the Saudis will throw their collective hat in the ring with the US in Kuwait. They are obliged by formal agreement, and they are obliged by self-interest. The Saudi oil fields are just too tempting a target for an aggressive Iraq for the Saudis to believe that Hussein would quit after seizing Kuwait, regardless of what the Kremlin and Baghdad may say on the subject. If there's going to be war with Iraq, from Riyadh's point of view that war is better fought north of the Saudi border. The early and energetic introduction of Saudi forces multiplies existing US strength to a greater degree than a tardy and/or limited introduction of Saudi forces. Following this chain of logic, then, I believe the Saudis will commit themselves decisively to supporting the US and Kuwait once Iraqi forces cross the border.

The other Gulf States will probably find themselves obliged to follow suit, to one degree or another. A victorious Iraq, backed by Soviet resupply, will be a bugbear to deal with. If Iraq defeats Kuwait and seizes the Saudi oil fields along the Gulf Coast, then Iraq might be inclined to go further. Failure to act might well be seen as more dangerous than action. Although we should proceed on a case-by-case basis, I think there's some grounds for believing that the Gulf States would send forces to Saudi and Kuwait--if only to protect their own interests.

Another key question is what happens in Kuwait. There are lots of variables here. If Hussein uses the Republican Guard again, how many divisions does he use? How well do they fare against US and Kuwaiti forces in Kuwait? How much does the arrival of Saudi forces (assuming such arrival occurs) affect things? How much does the arrival of other Gulf States forces (assuming such arrival occurs) affect things? To what degree does the threat to Gulf oil affect the US global airlift prioritization scheme? If Hussein bogs down in Kuwait, then he may not have a chance to threaten Saudi oil.

From a dramatic point of view, I like the idea of US/Kuwaiti forces being pushed back to Kuwait City in furious fighting. An intended withdrawal of US forces to the south is foiled by a powerful flanking attack by the Republican Guard. A valiant and perilous airlift effort brings a brigade of the 82nd into Kuwait City. Saudi and Gulf States forces assemble in northeastern Saudi Arabia to Coalition forces fight without the kind of quantitative and qualitative superiority they enjoyed in Operation Desert Storm. Again, though, this scenario is at least as much drama as cold realism.

Webstral

[sglancy12]

As much as I love Frank Frey (and here's where I get to boast about having played Call of Cthulhu with him at GenCon last year), The RDF Sourcebook wasn't exactly prescient about the Persian Gulf. The three big snafus are:

1) His idea that the USSR could get rid of Saddam and Assad of Syria in a pair of coups in 1991 that would bring in more pro-Moscow leaders.

2) The idea that the Mullahs in Iran would get less bat-shit crazy.

3) No Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

However, I can't really give Frank any grief about not predicting the Invasion of Kuwait. Everyone missed that one.

So there are a couple of big questions to resolve in the Persian Gulf. The biggest is: Does Iraq invade Kuwait in 1990? Depending on what happens there, any number of things could change in the canon.

For my alt time-line, I have Iraq invading Kuwait right on schedule. Because Gorbachev was assassinated the previous year, on his way to visit Peking prior to the Tianamen Square Massacre, the guys running the Kremlin are a more reactionary bunch. This confrontation between the Soviet's premier client stat in the Middle East and the West might have lead to the Twilight War kicking off five years early. What stops it from happening is that the Kremiln is seriously occupied trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube in Eastern Europe. The 1989 pro-democracy revolutions that swept Eastern Europe are being put down with force, and the Kremlin doesn't think it can take on the West and clean up it's backyard at the same time.

In my alt time-line, the USSR bluffs the USA and the West, offering the West a free hand to deal with Iraq using a UN mandate (short of occupation, dissolution or regime change) so long as sanctions against the USSR's crackdown on pro-democracy in Eastern Europe are lifted. The USSR knows the US is going to eject Iraq one way or another, and would prefer if it was done under UN mandate rather than as unilateral US action. Why? Because the USSR wants to preserve the "authority" of the UN. The UN's authority is base on public opinion, something that can limit US policy choices, but has never affected the Kremlin.

Worried that a teetering and panicky Soviet Empire might go to war over a US intervention in the Persian Gulf, President George H.W. Bush makes that deal, thus throwing eastern Europe under the bus to protect US energy needs. That's twice in one century that Hungary and Poland get hung out to dry, but the gold medal for getting screwed by the West still goes to Czechoslovakia: THREE times in one century!

The US conducts the Gulf War as it does in our time-line, with the Soviet Military getting a preview of US capabilities. Perhaps this sneak peak helps them perform better against NATO during the later war in Europe?

In this time-line, it is Kuwait where US Forces are based, not Iran. The French Marine Division and air assets would just have to be shifted to Saudi Arabia and Basrah, where they already have forces in place.

In my time-line (IMTL?), the Iranians never calm down and stop with blaming everything that goes wrong in Iran on the Great Satan. So when the Soviets invade and the US intervenes, it's a three-way fight, with the Iranians fighting everyone... including each other as a kind of Civil War breaks out over the issue of whether to cooperate with the Americans or not. Nevertheless, the average Iranian is more hostile to US personnel than depicted in the RDF Sourcebook, which is why more US forces are stationed in Kuwait.

But back to Iraq.

In the RDF sourcebook, there is a Soviet counter-offensive that is launched in July 28, 1997 following a Spetsnaz strike at decapitates CENTCOM's command structure. It catches the US forces strung out, away from the coast. The new US CENTCOM commander, General McLean orders a fighting retreat to the coast, and the Soviets pursue.

IMTL Saddam sits out the war in Iran until the Soviets start that counter-offensive in 1997. On his own initiative, without consulting Lt. General Suryakin or the Kremlin, Saddam invades Iran and Kuwait to attack the retreating US forces in the hopes of getting revenge for the humiliating defeats of 1991.

There are two ways this could go... either it starts off pretty badly for US forces getting surprised on their flank and in their rear areas, but they quickly turn it around and maul the Iraqis... this could also cause Baghdad to catch some US nukes since according to canon, the US and USSR are exchanging tac-nukes in Iran at this time.

OR

US intelligence detects Saddam concentrating his forces and decide there's no point in waiting to get attacked. So they launch preemptive air attacks against logistical and air assets to blunt the attack. This leaves the retreating US forces in Iran without the air support they'd like for a few days or even a week, but otherwise things progress as canon. The attack still goes off, and Saddam gets a bit of a PR boost because the "Crusaders and Zionists" shot first, but his forces still get mauled.

Should we start another thread to discuss what changes occur if Iran doesn't go all warm and fuzzy on the west, as it does in the RDF sourcebook?

Would that 1997 US drive into Iran even happen if the government of Iran was hostile to the US intervention? I kind of doubt that even the bone heads in congress would pressure CENTCOM to pursue the Soviets if the Iranians weren't close allies. If the Iranians are actively hostile, it seems the height of folly for the US Forces to abandon their primary mission (keeping the oil fields out of the Soviet hands) just to score some hits on the Soviet Transcaucasus Front.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Raellus]

I guess I'm a v1.0 purist, in terms of the historical background. I see it as an alternative history that diverged from our own around '89-'91, specifically with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Desert Storm could have happened in that alternate reality but I'm not so sure it would have, if the Soviet Union had stuck around. Despite the various wars in the Middle East, both the Soviets and the West had vested interests in maintaining stability in the region. Leading up to the '73 Yom Kippur War, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union tried fairly hard to prevent a shooting war between the Arab bloc (led by Egypt) and Israel, despite the commonly held (and erroneous) perception that Egypt was egged on by the Soviets and Israel by the U.S.

I'll admit that I don't know as much about the Iran-Iraq war. I know that the U.S. backed both sides (albeit covertly, for the Iranians) but I don't really know if/how the Soviets were involved.

I think that Saddam very well could have invaded Kuwait in the alternative '91, but I think that the combined political and economic pressure the West and the Communist Bloc would have forced Saddam to back down and pull out of Iraq before military action was taken on the part of the Coalition. That's the way I see it. Saddam invaded but pulled out under pressure from both the West and the Soviet Bloc, before Desert Storm.

To get back to Chico's question, I'm not sure I could say what Saddam would have done. If Desert Storm had taken place, his armed forces would have been significanly weaker than they would have if it had not. Perhaps he would be more cautious with how he used his remaining forces.

If Desert Storm had not occured (my preference), I think Saddam would have waited to see how things played out in other theatres before deciding which horse to back. A badly divided Iran would have been a very tempting target. On the other hand, Kuwait would have been easy pickings. As a blatant opportunist, I'm sure Saddam would have pounced on one or the other (or both). Both the Eastern and Western Blocs would have been seriously preoccupied with their own affairs elsewhere and he may have believed that they would be unable to respond to his own regional power grabs.

[headquarters]

What really happened and what is the truth of things - what they told us is certainly not half of it and thick layers of balloney added.

But I have a question - wouldnt either side (NATO Or USSR ) choose to nuke the oilfields to smitherenes if it looked likely that teh other side was going to make a succesful conventional take over ?

Dirty bombs,other types of nuclear weapons to make the operations there too difficult?

(I am thinking post TDM wise -before that any of the scenarios mentioned can happen as far as I am concerned )

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Actually, it'd likely be Qusay. He was gathering power behind the scenes, and ran not only the Special Security Organization (SSO) but also the Special Republican Guard. More importantly, he was being groomed by his father to be the successor. Uday was more of a playboy and a public danger (his psychopathic tendencies being well known in Baghdad), to the point of having made numerous non-Baathist enemies, who tried numerous times to kill him. I remember a news story on the two before the invasion, and one source remarked this way: "How do you differentate between the brothers? Simple: Uday kills for jollies. But when Qusay kills, it's business." And it's no secret that before the invasion, both wanted the other dead. Lots of folks were surprised that the two brothers were found together-and died together.

[Legbreaker]

We all now know that Iraq had a sub par military, however, with both western and Communist sides locked in combat across the world, would Iraq have been strong enough to bully them? Play both sides off against each other?
Could this possibly explain to some degree why their oilfields and production facilities are still in relatively good order in 2000?