> I don't think Saudi Arabia was under any significant > threat from an Iraqi > takeover. The Gulf War clearly showed that Iraqi > soldiers (with the > exception of the elite troops) were not overly > anxious to fight and die for > their country. IIRC, they surrended by the thousands > at the first sight of > the international forces.
When Iraq rolled over Kuwait, it was very much a serious concern that they would continue into Saudi Arabia. Saudi clearly did not have enough forces of its own to repel Saddam's "million man army". If the US hadn't immediately and strenuously objected, Iraq might very well have rolled right across Kuwait's border into Saudi. As for the mass surrenders, you forget that the Iraqi force there at the end was not the same one that rolled into Kuwait. In between, they were constantly bombarded by Tomahawks, B-52's, F-119's, etc for what I think was at least month, before the land war began. They had no air support, most of their command and control was decimated, and they were dazed and shell-shocked. Further, the US attacked at less well-defended positions (Iraq was lead to believe a naval beachhead assault was coming and had heavily fortified the beaches), giving a clearer road to Baghdad (which, IMHO, is why Saddam ordered the hasty retreat soon after the ground fighting started). Given all these overwhelming factors, the Iraqi army surrenders are more understandable. If the US had stayed neutral during the Kuwait invasion, do you think the rest of the world would have taken any action further than making a few resolutions? I don't. And I think that Iraq's forces were more than adequate to take on Saudi and most of the rest of the middle- eastern arab nations if they didn't have outside support. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
