How Long Will Gulf War II Last?

[DanS]

Here's an interesting article saying that to take advantage of the air campaign, we need to hit Baghdad with ground troops within four days of A-Day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30774-2003Mar15.html

If we assume that G-Day starts two days after A-Day, that means we'll try to make it to Baghdad with ground troops in two days.

[GePap]

There is some current news buzzing baou the Iraqis hitting first, once they think we have really decided for war. That might slow things down a couple of days (I mean just that, 48 hours).

The issue I have is how the convoys of fuel wil be protected. We are assuming no resitance up to Baghdad, which is just fine. That syas nothing though about some Saddam friendly forces staying put in the south, waiting tl the tanks roared forwards to then hit fuel convoys.

Another possible issue iw whether the Turks come inot the north to keep Kurds down..that just adds to uncertainty and may make the fighting last a bit longer..somehow.

Still, I voted 2 weeks to a month.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Rumsfeld's read too many Clancy novels.

That's another reason I can't stand Shinseki, as well - his notable contribution to the US Army is giving everyone black berets so they feel all cute. Franks is one of those guys who just salutes and does what he's told - he isn't political, and he isn't a prima-donna like Schwarzkopf.

Powell is out of the loop, since State doesn't actually do anything in this administration.

Last time, you had a much more forceful presence in the Army - Schwarzkopf was vocal, he was backed by Carl Vuono, another no-**** soldier who spoke his mind, and Powell as CJCS was very effective with Bush sr. in getting the Army point of view across wrt realistic ground combat timelines and force requirements.

Now you've got an Airedale (although a good one, you just don't expect mudmovers to think like or understand groundpounders), a Shinseki, who gets crapped on by Wolfowitz and others when he does say anything, and Franks, who just follows orders to the best of his (considerable) abilities.

This level of forces, and the timeframe, is even more scaled down and faster than the ridiculous December plan by the first generation chickenhawks. That plan was derailed by Schwarzkopf and Powell, and they got VII Corps and M1A1's added to the mix and a realistic timeframe with most control under CentCom.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
There is some current news buzzing baou the Iraqis hitting first, once they think we have really decided for war. That might slow things down a couple of days (I mean just that, 48 hours).

If the dumbasses are stupid enough to come out and play, it'll speed things up, not slow them down.

The issue I have is how the convoys of fuel wil be protected. We are assuming no resitance up to Baghdad, which is just fine. That syas nothing though about some Saddam friendly forces staying put in the south, waiting tl the tanks roared forwards to then hit fuel convoys.

Active enemy mobile forces will not be permitted to exist in our rear. Fuel convoys and supply convoys will still have light forces (MP's for traffic control, command vehicles in Humvees with .50 Cal HMGs, and some scout/escort types, plus a variety of Combat Services Support troops) that will be more than a match for whatever non-mechanized remnants will be in our rear. That's not even counting the movement of helos and recon forces making sure that supply routes are open and uncontested.

[DanS]

One of the things that is heartening is that Franks has been working closely with the civilian crew for a year and a half in a high pressure environment. I'm sure they now have a good working relationship.

As I recall, Franks pushed for more troops in the war plan, and received them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then how come he has a theater of operations more than ten times the size of Schwarzkopf's, half the forces, and he's having an impossible timeline "suggested" to him?

Except for the (always hopeful) possibility of Franks hosing the chickenhawks and doing it "his way", I don't find anything heartening in the plan.

It seems to me to be a gross overestimation of capabilities, total contempt for the idea the enemy can do anything to interfere with those plans, and too much reliance on the dumb luck of everything going right.

I'll stick with Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, rather than Perle and Wolfowitz, thank you.

[DanS]

It seems like the civilians have decided that this is a different generation of warfare than Gulf War I. But I guess even fighting the Ethiopians is dangerous, when you are Italy.

Of course, it seems like you think that is a bunch of hooey. I really have no way of judging, except from what I see, discounted appropriately.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The trouble with "new generations" of warfare (and yeah, this is one, but.... ), is that old problems of warfare don't go away, they just take on different forms.

Human factors and FUBARs happen, fatigue, tension and task saturation get to be issues, and since there's no real doubt we can squash the bastards like bugs, why hurry faster than necessary? The more you require simultaneity for your plans to work, the more chances you introduce for them not to work - at least not in the way intended.

To me, there should be two absolutes with civilian "control" of the military - civilians must control if forces are used, and in what circumstances, but military professionals must control the operational level details for achieving the civilian policy goals once the "if" and "starting when" are decided.

Hitler made force dispositions and set timelines, and it didn't do much for him. And he at least had some military experience.

[DanS]

To be fair, at least we aren't cowboying it like Clinton did so many times. And Afghanistan has turned out to be very successful from a military standpoint so far.

I'm more concerned about the diplomacy. Powell is a very forceful figure, and one of the best politicians in Washington, but this is learning on the job for him. It's true that he's been undercut by Rumsfeld et al.

Hopefully, Powell is giving good military advice to Bush and is making himself valuable in a number of ways. It seems like Bush is willing to listen to Powell outside what the Pentagon is giving to him.

[Gatekeeper]

MtG:

And here I thought Tom Clancy was the be all and end all of literature when it came to fictional military writing. I mean, he does look so *striking* in that leather aviator's bomber jacket (at least I think that's what he wears on the backs of the books most of the time).

Gatekeeper

[Dis]

There are so many variables. Much of that depends on Saddam and whether he burns the oil wells. And when he decides to set them off. His best bet is to set them off immediately.

I have heard on the radio- I cannot confirm this though. That he has moved SCUD missles west- possibly to attack Israel with them.

I doubt this will work though. But if he loads them up with chemical weapons then I suspect Israel will have to retaliate. There is the small possibility they would use Nuclear weapons, but I doubt it. And then there is the small possibility this would draw the rest of the middle east into the war, but unlikely.

The main slow down I see is the oil wells. I do think his troops will surrender almost immediately. Hell, some of them surrendered last week

[orange]

I don't know, the actual war for control might be easily won, but civil war and backlash from any strikes on Israel could take years.

[Dinner]

The White House said they want to be in control of 70% of Iraq in the first week. Granted that number came up when it was still going to be a two front war but even so that number sounds like something Rumsfield pulled out of his ass.

I still remember how Kosovo was supposed to last a week or two but ended up being almost three months. I voted for two months worth of fighting which seems reasonable to take control of most of the country though there will still be pockets of resistance and I'm sure Islamic militants will still be sending out suicide bombers now and then.

Lastly, our air power is going to be a whole lot less effective this time around not only because the Iraqis have had 12 years to learn but also since we want to capture the country intact (not going to happen) we won't be able to blow up all the utilities, bridges, and what not.

[Starchild]

Where's the "this all goes horribly wrong and we all die painful, burning deaths" option?

[Jon Shafer]

Ground war: 2 weeks to 1 month.

Air war: ???