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...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.

[Oerdin]

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: ???

[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.

[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?

[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.