How Long Will Gulf War II Last?

[curtsibling]

I reckon it will be another 100 hour mega-blitz, minus some 10 hours for the new and improved hardware.

Pehaps add 48 hours if Bush II has the guts to do it right and capture Baghdad too, unlike his dad.



PS
Add on some extra hours if Saddam reveals some hidden nuclear missile and atomises the US task force.

[Jon Shafer]

What happens if the Iraqi divisions fall into the cities (as they will)?

[curtsibling]

Add 10 extra hours as the USAF blasts the hell out of everything!

[JCG]

~1 month until ground and air superiority is achieved, but replacing/purging/co-opting/etc. power structures will take much more time, and I doubt that the sheiks will be too cooperative...resistance in one way or another will continue for X months....

[el mencey]

I digo 4 - 6 Days

[Dis]

I am concerned we have half as many troops as the gulf war.

But they are already preparing white flags, and some have surrendered last week.

The rest of Iraq will fall in 3 days.

Bagdhad will take 2 weeks.

War is over

'nuff said

[chequita guevara]

40,000 fighting troops is enough? What if the Iraqis actually fight this time? The former general I saw on some channel said we have don't have enough troops to hold the rear.

Last time we bombed them for a month and a half beofer moving on them. This time we have to deal with frequent sandstorms, which will slow both the advance and the bombing campaign. Then, the Iraqis may very well resist.

It's gonna take more than two months.

[GePap]

The US and UK can't accept a war of mroe then 1 month politically. A war that long means some sort of resistance, probably serious, which means tow things: a greater likelyhood of "Collateral damage" and the inplication that perhaps many Iraqis aren't as willing to be 'liberated', both situations being great fodder for islamists and anti-American forces in the region.

I think the WH and 10 downing will push as hard as they can for as quick a resolution as can possibly be given, or at least, that they can call a victory.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
40,000 fighting troops is enough? What if the Iraqis actually fight this time? The former general I saw on some channel said we have don't have enough troops to hold the rear.

Last time we bombed them for a month and a half beofer moving on them. This time we have to deal with frequent sandstorms, which will slow both the advance and the bombing campaign. Then, the Iraqis may very well resist.

It's gonna take more than two months.

We have more than 40,000 combat troops (counting CS and CSS pukes). We don't have enough to hold the rear, IF we bypass pockets of resistance, but the Iraqis are royally ass-****ed if they try to fight mobile, so they'll be unable to exploit on a large scale any openings that do occur. What will happen in the rear is that there will be a number of small areas where nominal Iraqi resistance is present, but effectively immobile and unable to project force much beyond the range of what weapons we have. We will just clear security zones around our lines of supply and forward resupply areas, and let the rest of those pockets of resistance rot on the vine, until they tire of holing up or we get around to dealing with them, whichever comes first.

Most of the outward deployed Iraqi divisions are conscript units, so their fighting motivation will be next to none. Cracking the Baghdad will be the tough problem.

[Dinner]

The more I hear about the White House's specific plans the more I don't like them. I just saw an interview with Rumsfield where he talked about a "rolling start". Aparently two infantry divisions called for in the Pentigon's war plan have yet to arrive in theatre and we are also waiting for around 20% of the airplanes to arrive. The big road block is there aren't enough current bases to station everyone in so the White House wants to start the war and then rotate the additional divisions into place during the fighting. As a side note there are still 60,000 U.S. troops in troop ships off the coast of Turkey waiting for the Turkish government to let them in so they can mate up with prepositioned hardware.

This just seems like stupidity to rush ahead. What's wrong with waiting until all the units called for in the war plan are in place and ready for operation? I recall the Air Force tried a very similar "rolling start" during its intial air campaign against north Vietnam and it was a total belly flop. The north Vietnamese populace was very afraid of over welling American airpower but the White House dribbled it out in little pieces and gradually built up the availible forces rather then striking all at once with over welling power. The result was the north's propaganda machine was able to convince the north's populace that American air power was a paper tiger and they could out last it. If they had attacked with over welling force right off the bat (like the Pentigon wanted to but the President vetoed for political reasons) those scared vietnamese could have been awed by the devistating power and the north's propagandaists would have looked stupid.

Is history repeating itself? Is an overly willful President trying to tell the military how to fight a war instead of letting the professionals make the key decisions?

[DuncanK]

We have to think about the economy though. People aren't going to start spending and investing until we start making some progress.

[chequita guevara]

We're never gonna know how many dead there will be. If history is a guide, the US will simply bulldoze them into mass graves.

[DanS]

che: What's that got to do with how long GWII will last?

[chequita guevara]

It occured to me while I was reading the thread.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We're never gonna know how many dead there will be. If history is a guide, the US will simply bulldoze them into mass graves.

They do tend to start stinking and causing a sanitation hazard, you know?

And if the Iraqis are dumb enough to put up a fight, sucks to be them.