Iraq 1991 Completely hopeless?

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,162
Connecticut
As various writers have noted, the 1991 gulf war was among the most lop sided in military history. Iraq lost up to 4,000 tanks while the US lost around half a dozen--all to mines. The Marines picked off hundreds of Iraqi T-62s etc while the latter failed to get a single hit on any Marine vehicle.
The outcome may have been assured no matter what Iraq tried. But was there anything it could've done (other than getting out of Kuwait on time) to mitigate the scale of the disaster or give a somewhat better account of itself?
I've given some thought to this but would like to see what others have to say.
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,787
UK
Pull out from Kuwait, and sign a deal with President Bush Sr. to either step down and be tried, or to liberalise his country and keep his presidency.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,930
Spain
Irak played to make a rich war.. if they would have done a "poor war".. they have killed and destroyed many tanks and airplanes.. as Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechenya, Somalia proved in the last 40 years...but they wanted to play a rich war against USA (only Russia-India-China can play in that level of "rich war"...

If Irak would have done a "Poor War"...maybe they have won as Vietnam or Afghanistan or Somalia did...but they played a "rich war" when they were a third country...
 
Last edited:

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
The Iraqi Army would find few places to hide and play such a "poor war" in the desert. There were no jungles or rigid terrain for them to emulate the Vietcong or Mujahedeen. Their best option was to blitz into Saudi Arabia and deny the coalition a gathering point or be obliterated by unmatched US armour and air supremacy.

The Iraqi did not have time on their side. Unlike Vietnamese guerrilas and Afghan fighters, the Iraqi had set objectives to defend. They had to stay in open areas to guard key points: oil, Kuwait, and borders of Iraq. These are wide spaces that allow entire tank formations traverse. Once the coalition found a breeding ground, the fate of the war is sealed.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,930
Spain
The Iraqi Army would find few places to hide and play such a "poor war" in the desert. There were no jungles or rigid terrain for them to emulate the Vietcong or Mujahedeen. Their best option was to blitz into Saudi Arabia and deny the coalition a gathering point or be obliterated by unmatched US armour and air supremacy.

The Iraqi did not have time on their side. Unlike Vietnamese guerrilas and Afghan fighters, the Iraqi had set objectives to defend. They had to stay in open areas to guard key points: oil, Kuwait, and borders of Iraq. These are wide spaces that allow entire tank formations traverse. Once the coalition found a breeding ground, the fate of the war is sealed.
I think Mr YouloveMeyouknowit,

You think it is not possible to do a "poor" war in Desert.. it is possible to do it. Irak is good to do a Poor war as it is doing from 2003 to nowadays... in Cities, roads, and in desert and mountains...as it is done by Somalia...or by Frente Polisario or by Lawrence in Arabia in 1916-1918.
 
Last edited: