How Long Will Gulf War II Last?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by 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.

The only error in this is that Bush the Sr. was only trying to appease the illustrious U.N.; and well, you see how that goes.
Suffice to say, Bush the Jr. won't be repeating mistakes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, he'll be making lots of brand new ones, and proving once and for all he's neither the man nor the leader his father is.

[SlowwHand]

You're almost humorous.

[SlowwHand]

I can still hear the ringing of "Read my lips. No new taxes!".
You bet. Excellent. Marvelous. Splendid.
I voted for him, once.

OTOH, Jr. hasn't sidestepped, backed up, not stuttered once over his intentions.
Just because some people wet themselves at this late date, isn't Bush's fault.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I can still hear the ringing of "Read my lips. No new taxes!".
You bet. Excellent. Marvelous. Splendid.
I voted for him, once.

It takes a real man to admit when you're wrong.

OTOH, Jr. hasn't sidestepped, backed up, not stuttered once over his intentions.

Just like the Führer said: "There vill be no retreat from Stalingrad!" He was right, too.

Just because some people wet themselves at this late date, isn't Bush's fault.

Perhaps that's the problem, the pro-war crowd is using the wrong organ. They can't seem to distinguish actual thinking from wetting one's self.

Keep 'em coming, cowboy, you're pretty humorous yourself.

[Lancer]

Of course, it won't be the US/Allies contoling Iraq from the back of tanks. We won't have to hold every square inch of the place. The Iraqis will quickly begin governing themselves, and we'll be bringing the troops home, not stationing them there. The follow on units of the NG will police the peace until a democratic Iraqi government is ready to take over, and we've pumped a few billions in oil out to pay for cleaning up the mess, and hopefully to repay for the expense of the US taxpayer.

No big deal, everyone loves to get excited.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's why US plans call for a five year occupation, right?

And of course, the Iraqis will be glad to govern themselves. They have a long history of having military strongmen do just that, going back almost to the beginning of the Kingdom of Iraq in the 1920's.

And no, we're not going to pump oil out to "pay for cleaning up the mess," (a - it's their oil, b - we'll have made the mess, and c - they're not obligated to pay for our invading them) unless we want a declaration of war with the entire Islamic world.

[Lancer]

I'll admit my opinion isn't common. It will be interesting to see which of us is right, if either. We won't have long to wait.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lancer
I'll admit my opinion isn't common. It will be interesting to see which of us is right, if either. We won't have long to wait.

If Bush keeps the NG and Reserves activated for long-term occupation (long term to a reservist with a soon to disappear civilian job and a family who can't make the mortgage on E-5 pay isn't very long), he's going to be committing political suicide. Figuring out who is going to do the occupation duty, and how to rotate them, is a real problem.

[Lancer]

Truthfully, I'm surprised Bush hasn't increased the number of active divisions. Pulling out of Korea and Germany would help...but we need maybe 5 more min, asap.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

As I can see I am the only one here trying to be trully optimistic and vote for 1-3 days

[SlowwHand]

5 Texas men.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Oerdin
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?

What I read into the rolling start is quick devasting hits all about the center. But a sustained line of aerial bombardment just in front of advancing US troops. We'll be slowed down by those who are surrendering to us, Saddam's inner circle will go belly up by their subordinates. Saddam gets the Mussolini treatment. The writing is on the wall and they know it.

Bigger worry is the North, what are Iran and Turkey's intentions there? If Iraq starts imploding, what keeps them out?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lancer
Truthfully, I'm surprised Bush hasn't increased the number of active divisions. Pulling out of Korea and Germany would help...but we need maybe 5 more min, asap.

I figure six more, composite mechanized and light.

What I'd like to see for a basic TO&E is:

Mech brigade HQ
2 battalions M1A2 armor
2 battalions M2 mech infantry
1 battalion heavy mech recon (like an ACR without the air, but in battalion strength)
Armored engineer company (reinforced)

Light infantry brigade HQ
4 batallions light infantry
1 engineer batallion (light)
1 light recon battalion (light infantry and humvees)

Aviation brigade
3 transport helo squadrons (2 med, 1 heavy)
1 scout helo squadron
1 attack helo squadron (reinforced)
1 air assault infantry batallion (airborne/air assault qualified)

Artillery brigade
1 MLRS battalion
1 M109 battalion
1 M106 mortar battalion
1 mountain howitzer battalion.

Then HQ units, MPs, signals, supply, maintanence, all that REMF stuff.

We can't pull out of Germany - those units are already in or on the way to the ME theater, and any move in Korea right now might be misread by Kim, and cause the **** to really hit the fan.

My biggest point of opposition to the war is that Bush & Co. are totally unrealistic about the necessary force structure and size to achieve their aims.

They know there's no way in hell Congress is going to approve missile defense, and all the new Clancy-esque high tech crap Wolfowitz, etc. wants, and approve a new bunch of knuckledragger formations, plus the chickenhawks are convinced based on their collective mass of military experience that ground forces are passe, and all we really need are some special forces and airpower. The Congress won't act on it's own to create those divisions, and the chickenhawks will never request them.

Plus, that sort of expansion of the Army takes time - you can't just rock every newly minted E-5 out there and tell him he's now a platoon sergeant, and tell all your new Spec. 4's that they're now squad leaders. It takes time to expand the training, provide the equipment, and get the mid-NCO manpower in place.

[Egbert]

I would not hazard a guess. It woulds surprise me if Saddam left Iraq voluntarily, not much else would surprise me. The war could drag on for months if Iraqi forces fight in the cities with the support of the civilian population (unless the USA was prepared for saturation bombing of Bagdad, Tikrut and other places with enormous civilian casualties). Many US advantages are reduced or nullified in urban warfare so it seems possible that a US attack on Baghdad may actually be repulsed (the Iraqis appear to have no chance fighting in the countryside due to US advantages of airpower, firepower etc etc). The US should grab control of the countryside very quickly, the cities may be a problem.

During the occupation guerilla warfare is a possibility (a la Afghani or Vietcong). Suicide bombers are not unexpected.

The newspapers tell me that Tony Blair is in very deep trouble with his own party over the Iraq affair. A change of Prime Minister in the United Kingdom seems possible, perhaps the UK would then withdraw from the invasion with the consequent removal of their 40,000 man contingent (a serious loss of very good soldiers). Could all this happen so soon given that Bush seems keen to invade within the next few days???

In summary: I haven't a clue.