How Long Will Gulf War II Last?

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by peterfharris
The newspapers tell me that Tony Blair is in very deep trouble with his own party over the Iraq affair....

In summary: I haven't a clue.

Which papers? I worked for the papers and I wouldn't put faith in anything they have to say. They have access to two types of information: the line that is being fed to them by some outside interested party (ie highly biased information) and their own intuition (the **** they made up themselves). Tony Blair's govt. isn't going down, no one else in his party wants his job right now, they'd be in the same straightjacket. If anything over the long run, this is helping his electability. He's postioned himself as part of the New Left in the UK. New Left meaning more to the center right. He's picking up support in the middle there now. Forget the papers, they make big bucks on high drama. He's gold until October and the next election.

I'd say we're 7 days outside seeing what's really going to happen

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by peterfharris
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.

Actually, you'd be surprised how much US urban warfare doctrine and technique have been developed since the disaster in Somalia. Urban fighting against a large force is slow and fluid (it really breaks down to lots of independent small unit actions), so time would become an issue, but it really isn't necessary to bomb cities into the stone age.

At the very worst, you'd have mechanized vehicles like the M1, M2 and M3 shooting up buildings at close range, or you could really do some work with an M109 howitzer boresighting. Breakdown of Iraqi resistance without a lot of civilian casualties (unless they're used as shields by the Iraqi troops) is not only possible, but very likely. The only real impact in the city is that it takes time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
I thought I was pretty clear on what a win was--no widespread resistance. And peace is not war! Wait to criticize our post-war actions until after the war!

Depends on what do you mean by "widespread resistance."

Is the resistance in Afghanistan widespread or not? How do you count people not listening to the central government?

[DanS]

Is the resistance in Afghanistan widespread or not?

No. Not at all. I wouldn't even consider some low level resistance as "widespread" for this poll question.

[Urban Ranger]

The problem is the "central government" has no control outside of Kabul. The country is hardly pacified, so to speak.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Figuring out who is going to do the occupation duty, and how to rotate them, is a real problem.

A similar problem that Britain faced after it occuppied Iraq in 1919.

I think this war will be over very quickly. If there's heavy casualties on either side that will be a very bad outcome for Bush.

The danger is this war will be like one of those inglorious colonial wars where Britain or whoever killed kazilions of hopelessly armed natives, dudes with spears and shields being mowed down with machine guns, that sort of thing. The modern equivalent of that is what could happen in Iraq. Now we have television to beam into our home every sickening moment and stir up public revulsion.

But I think that is unlikely, surely they wouldn't be that studid.....someone please reassure me the hopelessly outgunned Iraqis won't be massacred..........

[catullus]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
I predict a new attempt of Operation "Market Garden":

Well, Market Garden wasn't an absolute success, was it?

I voted 4-6 days. Saddam will disappear one way or another in the first three days, and I think "widespread resistance" will vanish even more quickly than in Afghanistan. But there's no way the country will be controllable by any force in the nearest 5 years. A civil war worse than Afghanistan today, factions supported by Iran and Turkey. Add increased hostility against America in the whole ME. Ugly. Not a place you will want to put troops for a long time.

Try for yourself:
Interactive war simulation

C.
Although I really would have loved to see the US/UK war machine get thoroughly bloodied in this one, I'm pretty sure it won't happen. Too bad.

[Ned]

Originally posted by catullus


Although I really would have loved to see the US/UK war machine get thoroughly bloodied in this one, I'm pretty sure it won't happen. Too bad.

And you can go to h*ll too.

I am amazed here just how fashionable it is to be on the side of a neo-Nazi butcher.

[catullus]

Originally posted by Ned
And you can go to h*ll too.

I am amazed here just how fashionable it is to be on the side of a neo-Nazi butcher.

I was wondering if I should explain my view, but I hoped everybody would understand.
Of course, I overestimated the minds of some people.

I remember being told to go to the same place about 15 years ago, when I marched along Kurdish friends in a demonstration against Saddam after the massacre of Halabja. I was told to go by right-wingers, of course, who firmly supported Saddam then.

I have a near relative in the USAF on his way to the Gulf right now. I want neither him nor his fellow soldiers nor any Iraqi any harm.

But.
I will never support an aggressor. Period.
I supported the alliance in Gulf war 1, because clearly, Iraq was an aggressor.
I can not support the US/UK axis this time, since equally clearly, they are the aggressors now.

I supported Britain in the Falkland war, with no love of Thatcher.

I marched against the Soviet Union, and collected money for the Afghan resistance in the '80s, not because I was "on the side of" any muslim resistance group.

I will stand by Israel whenever she is attacked by her neighbours, as I will criticize her when she is the aggressor (which she, I'm very sad to know, has been the last times).

I would have supported the Soviet Union during WW2, not because of I would have loved Stalin, neither because I would have hated Hitler.
As I would have supported the USA against Japan, unconditionally.

I still am in the reserves, and I will wear uniform and bear arms when my own country is attacked. I will refuse flatly to go along, and rather face court if I perceive us being the aggressor. And yes, in that case, nothing would have made me more happy than seeing my own country's forces get beaten.

This time, "we" are the bad guys.


C.

[Kramerman]

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

The US War Machine. It should be made clear that no one messes with Iraq, unless they wanna feel the wrath.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
But I think that is unlikely, surely they wouldn't be that studid.....someone please reassure me the hopelessly outgunned Iraqis won't be massacred..........

Apparently, you didn't hear much about what 24th Infantry Div. (now renamed 3rd Infantry Div. because Clintonites couldn't count without their fingers) did to the IRG Tawakalna division.

If the Iraqis get caught out in the open, particularly large mechanized or armored formations, there will be hell to pay before they can surrender - the amount of firepower coming down on them will be amazing.

In small, dispersed actions, they had a much better survival rate. Tawakalna kept trying to fight and move with their heavy equipment, and paid a fearsome price for it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kramerman


The US War Machine. It should be made clear that no one messes with Iraq, unless they wanna feel the wrath.

What wrath? The US doesn't have the forces to be everywhere at once, and if NATO member Turkey decides to "act in it's own security interests to protect itself against attacks by Kurd rebels", the US is going to have a hard time.

Iran is mountainous as hell, and a lot tougher nut to crack than Iraq will ever be.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Apparently, you didn't hear much about what 24th Infantry Div. (now renamed 3rd Infantry Div. because Clintonites couldn't count without their fingers) did to the IRG Tawakalna division.

I did and I don't think that kind of thing will be a problem. It was an uneven fight but the IRG chose it.

The problem is fleeing columns of Iraqi troops getting blown to hell like happened on the road to Basra in 1991. That doesn't make a pretty photo opportunity.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What wrath? The US doesn't have the forces to be everywhere at once, and if NATO member Turkey decides to "act in it's own security interests to protect itself against attacks by Kurd rebels", the US is going to have a hard time.

Iran is mountainous as hell, and a lot tougher nut to crack than Iraq will ever be.

Yep. It'd be trouble.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The IRG didn't "choose it" so much as run out of room to maneuver, and attempt to turn and stand, and get cut to pieces for it.

On the Kuwait-Basra highway, they tried to get out with heavy equipment and weapons, and that really screwed them too.

Large moving columns of vehicles just ain't the way to go.