How Long Will Gulf War II Last? - Page 3

SlowwHand · March 16, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

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 · March 16, 2003, 16:18

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 · March 16, 2003, 16:25

You're almost humorous.

SlowwHand · March 16, 2003, 16:30

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 · March 16, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · March 16, 2003, 17:35

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 · March 16, 2003, 18:06

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 · March 16, 2003, 18:42

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 · March 16, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

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 · March 16, 2003, 20:00

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 · March 16, 2003, 20:03

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

SlowwHand · March 16, 2003, 20:04

5 Texas men.

ahenobarb · March 16, 2003, 20:57

Quote:

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 · March 16, 2003, 21:28

Quote:

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.

peterfharris · March 16, 2003, 23:25

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.

ahenobarb · March 17, 2003, 00:17

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 00:49

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 01:33

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 02:46

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 · March 17, 2003, 08:14

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

Alexander's Horse · March 17, 2003, 08:44

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 09:11

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 10:58

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 11:33

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 16:00

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 16:12

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

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 · March 17, 2003, 17:15

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.