How Long Will Gulf War II Last?

[Ned]

Catullus, aggressors do not liberate people from oppression, disarm a tryant, Hitlerite, dictator from his WoMD, and ask nothing at all in return.

Get your act together.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think they'd be better off abandoning most of their heavy equipment and going for small team ambushes in the cities and towns. They'd still lose.

The trouble is they are Soviet trained and take great pride in their big guns and tanks, even though most of which are useless.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think they'd be better off abandoning most of their heavy equipment and going for small team ambushes in the cities and towns. They'd still lose.

The trouble is they are Soviet trained and take great pride in their big guns and tanks, even though most of which are useless.

As I think back, the Germans, Japanese, Chinese and Vietnamese did very well against us. What they all had in common were very good infrantry. Saddam seem to like to rely on armor to much to be effective when his opponent has air supremacy.

[Lancer]

AH, I'm still waiting on the French signing on in the UN...like you assured me they definately would do. Care to reconsider your opinion?

MtG, good force structure for your new divisions. I wish the repubs would get off their butts and do something about the mess.

[Kramerman]

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.

It just has to be defensive actions, protecting the borders of Iraq with air-patrols and such. Who said anything about invading Iran? We only need to keep them from entering and holding ground in Iraq. Air power alone would probably be enough to stop that, cause any sizable invasion would just be a big fat target. We wouldnt need our ground forces to do much against an invasion, because we wont have to hold ground, we would be merely keeping others from taking land. And if Turkey takes ground into northern Iraq, we should only warn them to remove themselves, and if they dont... well that will be a delima.

Do you honestly think the Iranian military could successfully take parts of Iraq and hold them under the pressure of American air attacks?

EDIT: and once the Ground forces are done with the major work, some can be recruited up to attack the invaders if Iran somehow manages to hold on under the air attacks. This is a rediculous scenario. Iran would never accomplish anyhting and they know it, so this would never come to pass, unless Iran has a really, really stupid leadership.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kramerman


It just has to be defensive actions, protecting the borders of Iraq with air-patrols and such. Who said anything about invading Iran? We only need to keep them from entering and holding ground in Iraq. Air power alone would probably be enough to stop that, cause any sizable invasion would just be a big fat target. We wouldnt need our ground forces to do much against an invasion, because we wont have to hold ground, we would be merely keeping others from taking land. And if Turkey takes ground into northern Iraq, we should only warn them to remove themselves, and if they dont... well that will be a delima.

Do you honestly think the Iranian military could successfully take parts of Iraq and hold them under the pressure of American air attacks?

EDIT: and once the Ground forces are done with the major work, some can be recruited up to attack the invaders if Iran somehow manages to hold on under the air attacks. This is a rediculous scenario. Iran would never accomplish anyhting and they know it, so this would never come to pass, unless Iran has a really, really stupid leadership.

Of course, they're not going to immediately invade, in the presense of US troops. No need to do that, and remember, they didn't "invade" in 1980. They operated with agents among the Shiite population.

The problem with US military and strategic thinking is that it's too focused on firepower vs firepower confrontations.

First thing, the Turks and Iranians would have vastly different methods and goals. The Turks are pretty universally hated, and their goal is to exert influence over northern Iraq in the name of "security." They have Kurd rebels as excuses, and as long as they play the "we're just trying to secure our borders against these terrorists" game, the US is going to have a tough time through NATO - or is going to have to threaten to use force, against another Islamic country, and all the added love and propaganda that will entail.

On the flip side, the Iranians don't need troops to acquire influence, they have a majority population in Iraq with a common religious background, (the Iraqis are secular more because of systematic oppression of Shia by the Hussein regime, not because they're magically more inclined to be secular), and a basis for commercial and other ties with Basra and with respect to port facilities and the Shatt al Arab waterway.

The prefered Iranian method will be subversion and political, and the US is going to be hard pressed to prevent a majority population from exerting it's newfound political clout without either squashing "democracy" and making Bush's recent speeches out to be total hypocrisy, or without some form of confrontation, that again, can play into the propaganda needs of those who want to rile up the Arab on the street masses with rallying cries of oil, imperialism and war against Allah.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Lancer
AH, I'm still waiting on the French signing on in the UN...like you assured me they definately would do. Care to reconsider your opinion?

No I think they would have got what they wanted if they had gone about things in the normal way. But they didn't. The rest is history.

[Sava]

The military action will be short... the US occupation will be decades and in the trillions of dollars.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sava
The military action will be short... the US occupation will be decades and in the trillions of dollars.

They could always abandon the place, leaving the poor sods to their own devices. Or rather, their neighbours' devices.

[Agathon]

All I can say is, here's hoping as few people die as possible.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
All I can say is, here's hoping as few people die as possible.

[Evil_Eric_4]

S!

I voted 4 to 6 days.
It will be extremely quick and relatively bloodless.
Most Iraqi conscripts wil surrender to U.S. forces(or reporters) on sight.
When we besiege Baghdad(day 3) we will be served Saddams head on a platter by his most trusted leutenants.
Just my opinion--We will see in about a week.

[Gatekeeper]

It would be interesting if some form of democracy and representative government came to Iraq, only to see it become a radical fundamentalist regime via the ballot box. Heh. Algeria had that problem, no?

Gatekeeper

[catullus]

Originally posted by Ned
Catullus, aggressors do not liberate people from oppression, disarm a tryant, Hitlerite, dictator from his WoMD, and ask nothing at all in return.

I really hope to see you right on this, and not find Iraq raped of its resources by axis-owned oil companies in a year's time.

C.

[The Vagabond]

2 weeks until the fall of Bagdad.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
Some items of note. The Kuwait border to Baghdad is some 300 miles/500 kilometers. The top speed of the M1 A2 main battle tank is 41.5 miles per hour. The top speed of the latest armored personnel carrier is also 41 miles per hour.

This information is so irrelevant here, Dan. Do you seriously think they'll ever have a chance to move at the top speed?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
It would be interesting if some form of democracy and representative government came to Iraq, only to see it become a radical fundamentalist regime via the ballot box. Heh. Algeria had that problem, no?

Gatekeeper

Turkey didn't -- and Iraq is closer, geographically and culturally. Let's hope.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


This information is so irrelevant here, Dan. Do you seriously think they'll ever have a chance to move at the top speed?

You're right, of course. They have to register all the prisoners.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Of course, they're not going to immediately invade, in the presense of US troops.

well then, my post is irrelavent. I misunderstood you as saying somethn along the lines of the US could not handle a Iranian/Turkish invasion ...

But for what you said, despite the misunderstanding, i partially agree, but not entirely. Iran could do those things, but it is all speculation even if with seemingly good evidence.

See, Iran, as we all know, has a well known nuclear weapons developement program... thats a no no for obvious reasons. If they dont cut it out in the next few years years or so, the US will have a nice new 300 mile (or somethn like that) border with Iran that would surely be helpful in dealing with them The wisdom of this is unkown to me at this time, but it is certainly a possibility. If Iran gets nukes...... *shivers* I dunno if i would like the alternative tho.

Kman

[Ramo]

But for what you said, despite the misunderstanding, i partially agree, but not entirely. Iran could do those things, but it is all speculation even if with seemingly good evidence.

It isn't just speculation. Iran is already funding an anti-Saddam Shia group in Northern Iraq. It even tried to push its own candidate for the Afghan leadership role, but eventually baced off.

I bet Ayatollah Khameini would love to see an American invasion, because that's precisely what would be in his best interests. He'd have a good shot at making Iraq an Iranian ally or even satellite as well as crushing Iran's reform movement.

[S. Kroeze]

Which sillies thought that this war would be over after ONE week?

This is a charming thread: it perfectly illustrates how gullible the general public is, how easily Rumsfield pulled the wool over their eyes. How uncritical the American media repeat the mirages of this administration. And how unreliable and incompetent the administration is.

For the record: I had voted for longer than two months. Unfortunately it was not possible to select a longer duration. Presently I think it will last longer than three months.
There were far too few different options when the Poll was made.

What a pity there was no Poll about the way the British and Yankees would be received: with flowers, with bananas, with ounces of lead or with weeping and the grinding of teeth...

[Ted Striker]

I don't think Rumsfeld ever claimed to anyone that this would be over in a week...

[GePap]

An earlier post by someone states that Rummy at one point said that he expected 70% of Iraq to be in coolition hands by the end of week 1.

The fact is that the admin. (if not the brass) made such pronouncements as to make it very sensible to think this war would be over in one week. It is important to remeber how the stock market shot up about 8% in one week when the war begun, and oil prices collapsed, because traders thought by friday that the war would be oevr come the next Monday. If all of Wall Street and th oil amrkets expected an incredibly short war, why is main street wrong to have thought the same?

[Ted Striker]

But most of Iraq is in coalition hands.

[DanS]

it perfectly illustrates how gullible the general public is, how easily Rumsfield pulled the wool over their eyes. How uncritical the American media repeat the mirages of this administration. And how unreliable and incompetent the administration is.

Please note that right now, only 17% polled are now proven to be overoptimistic. Apparently, we are all much less gullible than you imagine. So stuff it.

For the record, and to minimize any impact of late voting, the results are:

1-3 Days: 3.85%
4-6 Days: 7.69%
1-2 Weeks: 16.67%
2 Weeks-1 Month: 23.08%
1 Month-2 Months: 19.23%
2 Months +: 23.08%
Hussein gives up: 6.41%

[GePap]

Even Fox news yesterday said 40% of Iraq in in Coolition hands. again, this was Fox News, the "kill them all" channel.

[Ted Striker]

Well, whatever the percentage is, there are several coalition units 50-60 miles outside of Baghdad. I'd say the progress is going well.

[SlowwHand]

Short-sighted question.

More importantly, "How long will the war on terrorism last?".
I'll say it will take 20 years.
People in a panic over 10 days are in for a rough life.

[Oerdin]

For the record I'd like to point out that I voted several weeks ago for 1-2 months. I believe I made a post on page one and several people told me I was crazy to think the war would last that long.

I'm still of the same opinion. 1-2 months before the last of the regular & irregular units are rooted out. I arrived at that figure by taking the government's estimate and doubling it; this worked well for Kosovo so I suspected it would work well for Iraq.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Well, Paiktis is posting so the war must be over. Did we win?