Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:Strategically speaking yes Iraq wasn't just losing they were losing by the numbers. But the war decimated the Iranian airforce and their armor. You would think that if Iraq had had even mildly competent leadership they could have won easily given their quantative advantage.

Sure, and they didn't have particularly competent leadership. The revolution was recently completed and the country was still in a state of political turmoil, but that's something that really doesn't apply today.

But would the US and the UK have really backed Iraq if they thought they would WIN? or was a Phyrric victory what we hoped for all along.

Yes, they really wanted Iraq to win. Saddam was our new man in the region. Whereas the other side was run by the Islamic council, who'd just overthrown our previous man in the region, and held US embassy staff hostage for a really long time. We hated the gak out of those guys.

sebster wrote:
Yes, they really wanted Iraq to win. Saddam was our new man in the region.

Sort of, the doctrine at the time was predicated on playing the two nations against each other, especially since our real "man" was the Saud family. We aided both sides, though more went to Iraq than Iran.

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:Strategically speaking yes Iraq wasn't just losing they were losing by the numbers. But the war decimated the Iranian airforce and their armor. You would think that if Iraq had had even mildly competent leadership they could have won easily given their quantative advantage.

Sure, and they didn't have particularly competent leadership. The revolution was recently completed and the country was still in a state of political turmoil, but that's something that really doesn't apply today.

But would the US and the UK have really backed Iraq if they thought they would WIN? or was a Phyrric victory what we hoped for all along.

Yes, they really wanted Iraq to win. Saddam was our new man in the region. Whereas the other side was run by the Islamic council, who'd just overthrown our previous man in the region, and held US embassy staff hostage for a really long time. We hated the gak out of those guys.

Not sure if serious.
I was clearly referring to Iraq when I referenced the lack of competent leadership and numerical advantage. Since Iran was both reasonably competently lead and held a smaller force.
As posted above we were actively in support of the Saudis, and had no intention of allowing Iraq to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, which was her intention. That's why we convinced the Kurds that we would support thier independence avaunt Iraq, while selling Iraq anything they would buy in thier "fight for survival" and blatantly ignored the atrocities the Iraqis committed in hopes that the would drain Iran dry. If you don't believe that the US and to a certain extent the UK manipulate proxy wars to weaken potential threats it's time to get a little cynicism in your diet.

AustonT wrote:

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:Strategically speaking yes Iraq wasn't just losing they were losing by the numbers. But the war decimated the Iranian airforce and their armor. You would think that if Iraq had had even mildly competent leadership they could have won easily given their quantative advantage.

Sure, and they didn't have particularly competent leadership. The revolution was recently completed and the country was still in a state of political turmoil, but that's something that really doesn't apply today.

But would the US and the UK have really backed Iraq if they thought they would WIN? or was a Phyrric victory what we hoped for all along.

Yes, they really wanted Iraq to win. Saddam was our new man in the region. Whereas the other side was run by the Islamic council, who'd just overthrown our previous man in the region, and held US embassy staff hostage for a really long time. We hated the gak out of those guys.

Not sure if serious.
I was clearly referring to Iraq when I referenced the lack of competent leadership and numerical advantage. Since Iran was both reasonably competently lead and held a smaller force.
As posted above we were actively in support of the Saudis, and had no intention of allowing Iraq to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, which was her intention. That's why we convinced the Kurds that we would support thier independence avaunt Iraq, while selling Iraq anything they would buy in thier "fight for survival" and blatantly ignored the atrocities the Iraqis committed in hopes that the would drain Iran dry. If you don't believe that the US and to a certain extent the UK manipulate proxy wars to weaken potential threats it's time to get a little cynicism in your diet.

The goal of western powers in the Iran Iraq war was to make sure neither side won and that both sides lost.

dogma wrote:Sort of, the doctrine at the time was predicated on playing the two nations against each other, especially since our real "man" was the Saud family. We aided both sides, though more went to Iraq than Iran.

I know the theory, I just don't think it fully considers how much the US hated the hell out of Iran post Shah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Not sure if serious.
I was clearly referring to Iraq when I referenced the lack of competent leadership and numerical advantage. Since Iran was both reasonably competently lead and held a smaller force.

Go look up the date of Saddam's coup.

As posted above we were actively in support of the Saudis, and had no intention of allowing Iraq to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, which was her intention. That's why we convinced the Kurds that we would support thier independence avaunt Iraq, while selling Iraq anything they would buy in thier "fight for survival" and blatantly ignored the atrocities the Iraqis committed in hopes that the would drain Iran dry. If you don't believe that the US and to a certain extent the UK manipulate proxy wars to weaken potential threats it's time to get a little cynicism in your diet.

Of course there's cynicism. It's really weird you'd consider supporting a proxy war to punish an enemy for overthrowing as US supporting government, and supporting a proxy war to weaken both sides as having somehow different levels of cynicism.

sebster wrote:
I know the theory, I just don't think it fully considers how much the US hated the hell out of Iran post Shah.

Its not really just theory, its announced policy. This is a good summation of the policy.

As the article says, Saddam was well supported, after he came out of left field, but not trusted.

dogma wrote:Its not really just theory, its announced policy. This is a good summation of the policy.

As the article says, Saddam was well supported, after he came out of left field, but not trusted.

I'm not sure that's what the article says at all. If there's a bit in there about wanting the war to drain both sides, I missed it, it seemed to only reference US support for Saddam's forces. And Saddam wasn't out of left field, he'd been supported by the CIA for two decades before his coup.

sebster wrote:Go look up the date of Saddam's coup.

you might try your own advice on for size the Ba'thists came to power in 1968 for the second time. Saddam was a major force behind the party by at least 1969 and defiantly by 1972. His assention to overt control in 1979 was a change of management not a nationwide political revolution and subsequent governmental crisis.
Go look it up.

sebster wrote:Yes, they really wanted Iraq to win. Saddam was our new man in the region

Since you bull headedly continue to spout nonsense I won't continue to politely dance around this by calling it cynicism. You're wrong, just plain wrong. Saddam put his own hand to a treaty with the Soviet Union in 1973 and was most certainly not "our man" from that point on. Iraqs role as a buffer between the Soviets was not longer valid and the became a buffer between the Pan-Arabaic coalitionists by supporting Arab nationialism which kept the Islamic nations separated and squabbling.
Please continue, or:

sebster wrote: Go look up the ______

I suggest filling in the blank with "facts"

I edited my post, but there are notes about CIA support for Iran. The CIA was shocked, but it went through with it.

Brzezinski, was, obviously, a big figure in this.

AustonT wrote:you might try your own advice on for size the Ba'thists came to power in 1968 for the second time. Saddam was a major force behind the party by at least 1969 and defiantly by 1972. His assention to overt control in 1979 was a change of management not a nationwide political revolution and subsequent governmental crisis.
Go look it up.

Hundreds of high ranking members of government denounced as terrorists and executed, which can be described as a 'change in management', that would have no effect on future government operations. Okay. Remind me not to be around when you get made CEO.

Since you bull headedly continue to spout nonsense I won't continue to politely dance around this by calling it cynicism. You're wrong, just plain wrong. Saddam put his own hand to a treaty with the Soviet Union in 1973 and was most certainly not "our man" from that point on. Iraqs role as a buffer between the Soviets was not longer valid and the became a buffer between the Pan-Arabaic coalitionists by supporting Arab nationialism which kept the Islamic nations separated and squabbling.

You honestly think a treaty with Soviet Russia would be seen on equal terms with overthrowing the previously loyal government.

And, acknowledging your previous statement that Iraq was more powerful than Iran militarily, you think the stronger military would get incredible levels of intel support, in a war that the US wanted as a stalemate.

You make no sense. I don't know why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I edited my post, but there are notes about CIA support for Iran. The CIA was shocked, but it went through with it.

Brzezinski, was, obviously, a big figure in this.

Okay, sure. I have no problem believing there was CIA involvement, I'm just dubious it had the objective of making the war a stalemate. I could even see the CIA writing that was their objective in the wake of the war (in the style of those 'we meant to do that' pieces we see from them after every international balls up). I just think from the fact that they really hated the Revolutionary Council, and that they were giving considerable help to the side everyone recognised as stronger and winning early on, the logical conclusion is they wanted an Iraqi win.

sebster wrote:I know the theory, I just don't think it fully considers how much the US hated the hell out of Iran post Shah.

You're acting like that's past-tense?