When did it all wrong for Iraq?

538 BC

>iraqi army is smaller and less motivated but has better training and equipment
>iranian army is huge, well motivated but lacks equipment and training

It went wrong when the Iraqis didn't knock Iran out swift enough. In time the Iranians could build experience and cohesion, nullifying the Iraqi advantage in training.

>>1789372
In that conflict specifically or in general? If it's the former it was doomed from the start as Saddam underestimated the Iranians ability to pull together and end their post revolution infighting to defend the nation, and overestimated the abilities of his troops.

If you're asking about the country that was doomed from the start too. Putting a whole bunch of ethnic groups that hate each other into one country has never worked well, just look at Africa.

>Foreign nations began imperializing the globe then dipped really really fast and left the natives to their own faculties, meanwhile, also leaving them with advanced technology they didnt discover themselves but were spoon fed

>>1789372
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzpAQu2jDZo

Rather early on. The Issue is that the Iraq attacked 3 cities inside Iran and only one fell. Also they did no were near the amount of damage to the Iranian Air force that they had hoped to do at the start. They over estimated their opening hand. If they had only gone for say two of those cities at the start and then entrenched inside Iran things would of been better for them.

File: with jews you win.jpg (45KB, 331x361px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 331x361px

>>1789372
They were facing the chosen race of G-d.

>>1789372
The lessons from the Iran-Iraq war are instructive here: it was, in a sense, the last "modern" war, fought between massive formation attrition armies seeking to inflict sufficient punishment at scale to break the other side's will to resist. Iraq began with the scent of an easy payoff - a disorganized Iran with a vulnerable province. It thus invaded using shock tactics, and then sought to secure the territory taken by attrition against key cities.

It rapidly asserted the "fatal triangle": the need for fast results made the exploitation of a seemingly limited objective irresistible. The frustration of these fast results lead to the desire to "punish" the other side into accepting the short term situation with attrition, which lead to greater need for a payoff, which lead to more territorial ambition and the search for the next "quick fix" of shock attack.

The Iraqi army at the beginning of the war was a Soviet doctrine, largely soviet equipped, force. On September 4th, according to Iraqi and Iranian defense statements, Iraq began artillery barrages to open lines for the tank invasion, and air strikes against Iranian airports which could be used as forward bases. They also destroyed 7 F-4's on the ground. Iran, then virtually a global pariah for holding hostages in the US embassy, did not appeal for outside intervention, but, instead, relied upon the military equipment that the Shah of Iran, the deposed monarch, had purchased from the US and the West, and a military which, if not particularly friendly to the revolutionary government, was certainly not interested in being overrun by Saddam's Baathist state.

>>1789372
Early on September 22nd 1980, MiG-21 and a few MiG-25 "Foxbat" jets were launched in attacks coordinated with the first ground offensive of the war - a massive tank push ino the oil rich Khûzestân province - over running most of it within the first month. But then, rather than striking for a decisive blow, which his generals thought might well energize the Iranian people, Saddam ordered the Iraqi army to dig in and began to try and hold what they had taken.

The paradigm - of a limited war by unlimited means - is a strange hybrid. The war aim itself, like the war aim of the Franco-Prussian war, and of the original German plan for what became "The Great War", was to seize a particular area and rebalance the geo-political position between two nations. In a sense, Saddam's war aim was very similar to Bismarck's invasion of France or wars against Denmark or Austria - to secure the position of the government by seizing territory and humiliating the armed forces of the other side.

The difference is that France could not see a means to recoup the losses, and instead disintegrated politically after 1871, forming a "Third Republic".

In the 1980 offensive Iraq's operational paradigm was to use attack jets against fixed targets, and then overrun with tank columns screened by infantry. However, instead of, as total war tactical doctrine would dictate, following each period of entrenchment with a new operational strike deeper into enemy territory, the lines hardened.

The Iraqi army laid siege to Abadan, and expected that when this city fell, they would be able to dictate peace and secure a vast area of profit for themselves. It was failed military strategy, and dramatically underestimated the political will of the Iranian regime.

Shock offensive, attrition sieges, were supposed to lead to territorial conquest.

It went wrong from the start. Iraq should be like twenty countries, not one.

>>1789372
Exactly during the war you showcased.
Then again when they failed to take Kuwait.
Then again when they failed to drop the dollar.

File: 1475263292165.jpg (18KB, 647x622px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 647x622px

>>1791390
>Soviet Union and the United States supporting the same side

>>1791521
>United States and Israel supporting opposing sides

>>1791500
>>1791503
Interesting notes, ty Saladin.
Are you getting these from an essay? Pls link


Btw Iraq was fucked from the start because they couldnt handle the Aryan Powers

File: Children_In_iraq-iran_war3.jpg (78KB, 600x798px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x798px

Crazy shit this in this war:

>Iranian human wave attacks with teenage zealots
>Iraqis electrifying swamps to ZAP Iranians trying to attack through them
>Chemical warfare

File: Iranian_soldier.jpg (97KB, 400x603px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 400x603px

>>1789372
>When did it all wrong for Iraq?
You can't beat the Iranian Children's Legion!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Differences_from_other_conflicts

>During the Fateh offensive in February 1987, I toured the southwest front on the Iranian side and saw scores of boys, aged anywhere from nine to sixteen, who said with staggering and seemingly genuine enthusiasm that they had volunteered to become martyrs. Regular army troops, the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards and mullahs all lauded these youths, known as baseeji [Basij], for having played the most dangerous role in breaking through Iraqi lines. They had led the way, running over fields of mines to clear the ground for the Iranian ground assault. Wearing white headbands to signify the embracing of death, and shouting "Shaheed, shaheed" (Martyr, martyr) they literally blew their way into heaven. Their numbers were never disclosed. But a walk through the residential suburbs of Iranian cities provided a clue. Window after window, block after block, displayed black-bordered photographs of teenage or preteen youths.[211]

>>1791523
>Israel supporting Iran

>>1791932

>The greatest Arab army in the world got its ass handed to them by a bunch of 10 year olds equipped with rusty AKs

Kek no wonder these retards surrendered so quickly to ISIS.

>>1791384
That's a really great documentary, shame the journalist who narrated it died from a US airstrike in Iraq.

>>1791390
>Romania

>>1793383
Arab armies are complete meme tier

>>1791601
http://web.archive.org/web/20060329183730/http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002427.html

It's deleted and old, but I had it saved.