Well for one thing, observers were looking at what seemed to be building up to a massive scale conflict and Iraq's military was certainly nothing to sneeze at.

We have the gift of hindsight and many today seem to consider Iraq's military forces as weak, incompetent or 'not standing a chance' against US/UN coalition forces both during the Gulf War and the subsequent invasion several years later.

This can be compared to the disingenuous but fairly popular idea that French military forces or Polish military forces were 'weak' because of the results of World War II.

Admittedly, I am not expert on Iraq's military forces but I have some information that can provide some insight for you while we wait for someone more qualified to answer. In all honesty, I wrestled with whether or not I should post since my limited knowledge might not be able to fully answer all your questions, but since there hasn't been an answer yet, I'll try to fill the gap for now!

So what made Iraq's military seem a dangerous and capable enemy for the UN coalition forces??

Well, for one thing Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the world at the time of the conflict. They theoretically could field upwards of a million personnel in their standing army and half again that many in various paramilitary groups. Of course, this was mainly on paper but it still stands that they drastically ramped up their conscription numbers and investment into the military, focusing on using any and all manpower they could find.

And of course numbers don't mean everything, especially in a modern conflict, but the ability to maintain, supply, equip, and sustain an army of this size certainly meant something. If nothing else, Iraq had the sophistication of doctrine and infrastructure as well as command & control capability necessary to make such a large military work smoothly.

Iraq had also just come out of a long drawn out war with Iran. There was no shortage of veterans and many of the officer corps leading Iraqi forces had cut their teeth in real actions during the Iran-Iraq War. Having a competent officer corps is essential for smooth operations.

The special forces and paramilitary units were considered fairly significant shock units that were deeply loyal to the Ba'ath Party and had seen action during the Iran-Iraq War. They had been expanded and given better equipment and apparently US military analysts expected to fight them to fight fiercely and inflict casualties even in the face of their own probable horrendous casualties.

And of course Iraq had tons of equipment. They had over 5000 tanks, close to 1000 combat aircraft, thousands of artillery pieces and thousands more of other various AFVs. Many of their vehicles were purchased from Chinese or Russia arms makers and they were not lacking in spare parts, ammunition, maintenance crews, or fuel. The Iraqi air force was not something they could just disregard as they had proven themselves more than capable flying many missions in previous conflicts and being well trained.

The key worry coalition forces probably had was the vast array of effective anti air weaponry that the Iraqi military had. The Iraqi forces had plenty of anti aircraft artillery (AAA), SAMs, MANPADs, etc. and the extensive AA network posed major threats.

The other major worry for coalition forces was Iraq's notorious use of chemical weapons and SCUD missiles. There was constant worry that Iraq would use one or both, the worst case scenario being SCUDs with chemical warheads. Iraqi SCUD launchers were incredibly difficult to locate and neutralize because they would operate mostly at night, 'shoot and scoot' and during the day would be hidden in extremely effective camouflage, under bridges, inside hardened bunkers, etc.

All these things added together meant that coalition forces were expecting significant casualties, especially in losing air assets as well as fears of mass chemical attacks.

So how did coalition forces inflict such a one sided loss on the Iraqi forces?

It can be summed up in three main things.

Air superiority

The initial air strikes that vastly reduced Iraqi ability to respond directly in the air paved the way for total aerial superiority over the skies in Kuwait. And because of the technology that the USAF fielded in stand off weaponry, it was able to negate much of the risk of flying into the extensive network of Iraqi AA defense. The effect of this cannot be overstated. Coalition air packages basically flew round the clock missions to constantly interdict Iraqi convoys, supply lines, command structures, and key infrastructure.

By the end of the conflict, many Iraqi forces simply routed because of the effect of nonstop air bombardment on morale. Many had no personal way to strike back at the aircraft and it must have felt terrifying to feel so powerless against an enemy that could blow you away with almost certainty.

Information control

Coalition forces had a massive advantage in battle intelligence over the Iraqis. Firstly, after air superiority was achieved, air strikes immediately began to target known elements of the Iraqi command structure. While the Iraqi military had a solid officer corps of upper ranking decision makers and generals, their lower rank officers were doctrinally inflexible and not prone to taking initiative.

This meant targeting communications and command units a priority for coalition forces, so as to 'chop off the head' of the Iraqi forces. They predicted that without clear, effective coordination from above, many Iraqi units would have their combat effectiveness drop drastically.

The other part of this was the integration of GPS as a standard for situational awareness and movement across the battlefield. This gave the coalition forces the ability to know in real time where their allies were and where Iraqi forces were situated, giving them the ability to track and engage enemy units at will.

Meanwhile, Iraqi forces had to operate by maps, landmarks, and high command's coordination to figure out where they were and the location of enemy forces.

And while we talk about GPS, the final big advantage for coalition forces was technology.

Along with GPS, US air force weaponry, avionics, and comms were simply much better than Iraqi technology. Laser guided munitions, radar missiles that eliminated SAMs, better radar, etc.

Coalition tanks outclassed Iraqi tanks by a wide margin, which was more about the electronics than the thickness of armor or size of their barrels.

For example, M1 Abrams had excellent sights and gun stabilizers, along with GPS and their comms net allowed them to engage Iraqi tanks at distance and speed. Iraqi armor brigades were overwhelmed.

So yes, people were very surprised that there weren't a great deal more coalition casualties and they seemed to beat the Iraqis 'easily'.

Hopefully someone more informed than I comes along soon!