[cfr3]

Sadam is going to get rolled out in under a week. Cruise missles and Stealth Bombers will wreck him. Like Outkast said "Bombs over Baghdad".

 

[Xenon]

The campagin and reconstruction will last a year.

 

[Neoplasia]

1-2 weeks to "roll through". Years to rebuild, that country is completely in shambles.

 

[ProdigalMarine]

i'd say about a 6 months or so....why? because of the anti-american BS that Saddam has been feeding his people. he's already convinced like the majority of his people that America is a threat, and that they should defend their country to the best of their abilities, meaning you'll have old men and young men running around with AK-47's protecting their "fearless" leader....on top of the civilian shield, saddam also has his republican gaurd which MIGHT prove a challenge for our armed forces.....you also forgot the fact that its urban warfare....remember mogadishu, somalia?.....i think it might be the same $#!t.....lets just hope it isnt

EDIT: the american media is also BULL$#!T......they hype up everything too much....so all of you that think the war will be over in a week or so, that's just the military propaganda convincing you that it'll be over in two weeks....but in reality, war takes time to finish

 

[Judazzz]

I hope it'll be a short war, but my gut feeling says it might take a lot longer than anyone bargains for...
I believe the regular Iraqi army will surrender quickly, but the Republican Guard might be a much harder nut to crack, since they completely depend on Saddam's regime, have nothing to loose, and will likely fight to death (and it numbers approx. 100.000 troops, 'special' forces included; at least, that's what I heard, but even if it's only half this number, it would be a pretty tough oponent).

And also, it will depend heavily on the efficiency and accuracy of allied bombings and the behaviour of allied troops once the ground war starts: if scores of innocent civilians die by the hands of allied weapons, the Iraqi public opinion (which is not negative atm.) on the allies might make a u-turn, and turns against the liberating army (which will then be viewed as an occupying force), with a guerrilla war or terrorist attacks (generally speaking: an unstable situation) as a result...
This is only speculating from my side on what might happen, but scenario's like these happened before, so don't simply discard it as being non-sense...

And about rebuilding Iraq: that will take many years, and will partly depend on how much devestation the allies will cause during Operation Iraqi Freedom, partly on how well the Iraqi's themselves will cooperate, and partly on the efforts and fundings of the International Community...

 

[ProdigalMarine]

And also, it will depend heavily on the efficiency and accuracy of allied bombings and the behaviour of allied troops once the ground war starts: if scores of innocent civilians die by the hands of allied weapons, the Iraqi public opinion (which is not negative atm.) on the allies might make a u-turn, and turns against the liberating army (which will then be viewed as an occupying force), with a guerrilla war or terrorist attacks (generally speaking: an unstable situation) as a result...
This is only speculating from my side on what might happen, but scenario's like these happened before, so don't simply discard it as being non-sense...

this is why im not for bombing baghdad. im only for bombing certain strategic areas (ie, communications, radar, munition sites). im big on land invasion

.....juda, what scenarios have unfolded in the way that you describe? i haven't heard of any

 

[Xenon]

this is why im not for bombing baghdad. im only for bombing certain strategic areas (ie, communications, radar, munition sites). im big on land invasion

We are bombing Baghdad for strategic areas. The era of carpet combing is gone.

.....juda, what scenarios have unfolded in the way that you describe? i haven't heard of any

er...Afghanistan?? We are still there now battling off guerilla forces.

 

[ProdigalMarine]

.....juda, what scenarios have unfolded in the way that you describe? i haven't heard of any

er...Afghanistan?? We are still there now battling off guerilla forces.

really? hm....gotta read up on afghanistan

 

[Neoplasia]

They launched an offensive last night of about 1000 troops. Largest offensive in a long time in Afghanistan.

 

[Judazzz]

They launched an offensive last night of about 1000 troops. Largest offensive in a long time in Afghanistan.

Yup, and I think it has more than just a military cause: it's also a message to the other bad guys that inhabit the world (N. Korea, Iran, .......) that even though the war in Iraq has started, the US is keeping a close eye on them as well. Pretty clever move, I must say!

And Spikey: I'm just thinking of Vietnam as well, were "search-and-destroy" missions have brought the VC many new members. The following "war of hearts and minds" (to regain the population's confidence and suppport) was used to counterbalance that.
I just hope the US has learned its lesson there: it could avoid the very nasty scenario of an enduring gueriila war starting as soon as Iraq starts to fall apart.......

 

[RHOMKILLA]

I just hope that it ends ASAP. My only concern is that Saddam may be purposely misleading our troops and government into thinking that the advancement into iraq is to easy. I just hope that when our troops get into Bahgdad this bastard does'nt unleash a massive counter attack that we may not be expecting.
I'm sure our boys will take care of business.
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

 

[Judazzz]

I just hope that it ends ASAP. My only concern is that Saddam may be purposely misleading our troops and government into thinking that the advancement into iraq is to easy.

Well, keep in mind it's not only Saddam and the Iraqi media that send out misleading information.... This is a media war, and both sides try to influence public opinion by being very selective about what to broadcast and what is censored away. It's a cheap shot (or very hypocrit, so be more accurate) to accuse the Iraqi's of things your media is equally guilty of. And unfortunately, this is not the only thing.......
The US media from day 1 on said that everything went smooth and without major problems, and that irt would be a matter of days before Coalition troops would be at the gates of Bagdad (I remember senior military staff members say that it would have been last monday or tuesday...)

And now the American public realizes that everything is not going as smoothly as they have been told all the time... It makes you wonder what other topics the media is spewing out disinformation, and what the public really knows about what's going on.....

I'm just wondering why the US media isn't open towards it's citizens: it's is intentionally misleading the American public by denying them the truth, because the hawks are affraid that too much negative publicity and horrific images might cause a switch in public opinion about the war (just think of what happened during the Vietnam war)..... Maybe all those (in most American eyes) annoying treehugging hippie communists get more support once the war drags on for months and months (which direction it seems to be going), and the American bodycount rises.

What a horrible idea, eh, having to admit you might have been deceived by your own government and media......

 

[Neoplasia]

I don't understand why so many people are upset by how the government and military are handling the press coverage. Look at how Iraq is doing it, everything is positive for them, Umm Qasr really isn't captured, coalition forces being driven back, civilians being targeted etc.

Seems logical for the coalition to spin things themselves, without lying. The press does that every day, they aren't unbiased observers, they push their own agendas by wording their stories so suit their needs. I also think that the press has been extremely naive. It doesn't take a genius to realize that even against a lesser opponent such as the Iraqi army it still won't be a cake walk, and all this talk about it being over in a few days is just stupid on their part. The other thing to consider is what happens when one side displays any sign of weakness, no matter how insignificant it may be. Why give your oponent something to work with? All that's needed is a little common sense on their part, which may be a bit much to ask for.

 

[Judazzz]

I don't understand why so many people are upset by how the government and military are handling the press coverage. Look at how Iraq is doing it, everything is positive for them, Umm Qasr really isn't captured, coalition forces being driven back, civilians being targeted etc.

It doesn't matter to me which party is giving a spin (in their advantage) to what is currently happening. All I want is to know what is going on over there, objective and unbiased. I don't trust American, nor British, nor Iraqi media, because I know they are all guilty of bending and moulding the truth to their own goals and needs.

I also understand that these things are unavoidable in situations like these, and I know the reasons behind this. I'm not out to get military secrets or whatever classified information. I just want to know what's going on, wheter its Iraqi soldiers shooting on their own countrymen trying to flee their city, or it's a Coalition bomb exploding in a residential area.

I want to form an opinion of my own, based on the information I get. It's not up to the media or governments to decide what's good for me and what I shouldn't hear: I'm the one to make up my own standpoint. And I think that that is made near impossible to do atm: I don't know what to believe and what to dismiss anymore...

I know things like this happen, but it makes me mad (and sad) that so many people swallow everything the media serves them without questioning that information, without being critical about it... And it pisses me off even more when people judge and attack me (I'm a critical person: studying political and cultural history at the university for 5 years have left their traces on my way of reasoning and thinking :smile: ) based on the opinion they have formed from that information. I want decent and well-informed discussions about what's going on at the moment, but some people seem to make that near impossible by just blurting out what the see on the TV :sad:

Sorry, just venting a little....

 

[Neoplasia]

I don't think it's impossible at all. Personally I feel I have a good idea on what is going on, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle though probably closer to the military's side than the other. The media's just pissed because they can't get anyone to commit to a timeline or give details that can't really be given. Maybe if they asked more meaningful questions than the same ones over and over they'd get somewhere, but they're so hell-bent on these irrelevant issues that they can't get back to business.

 

[Judazzz]

I guess you're right: I'm just used to working with facts, and not with assumptions, guesstimates, rumors, propaganda etc. I do have my own thoughts and opinions about what's going on (I guess you have noticed that already :

: ), but I want to know more....
But the idea that horrible (on both sides) things could happen on without anyone knowing it is at least a bit alarming...

And I second your comment on the reporters: they can make a difference, but fail to do so....

 

[Neoplasia]

News is a business now, it's sex and glitter. Mind you I get Canadian coverage so it's much more rounded than the US media. So that adds to my feeling of having a better picture of it.

Here's how I see it. They are understaffed, but I don't believe they are concerned about it (they're bringing in 100,000-130,000 troops in the following weeks). Understaffed from the view point of a controling force, but that is premature at this point. Something the media doesn't seem to understand; a week in and they expect the country to be in total control, it's impossible and unreasonable to expect that.

There's also a lot of questions on the validity of the war plan. Those things aren't just thrown together haphazardly, it takes months of planning and intense scrutinization before it's accepted. I doubt that the best military in the world is using a plan that's unable to adjust for most scenarios, that's just foolish and they have every right to be offended by those suggestions. Has there been stiffer opposition than they expected? There's not much doubt of that, though I'm sure they didn't expect to be rolled over and have adjusted accordingly, quite well since Basra seems to be contained and Umm Qasr is finally under control. Oil fields are safe, some air fields are captured etc. Under any definition the war is going very well, I just saw an interview on CBC with some guy (didn't catch who he was) who was saying the war is going drastically wrong. I don't know what world he lives in, but when you're demolishing whatever's in your way and containing the rest to me that sounds pretty positive. But again I attribute that to ignorance of combat and unrealistic expectations.

 

[Judazzz]

The dangerous thing about the present-day strategy, as I see it, is that, because the do not clear the area's they 'occupied', pockets of Iraqi soldiers are left behind and given the opportunity to reorganize. Once they've regrouped, they can actually do what they want: they can remain hidden, they can start open warfare, but they also can blend in to the Iraqi population, and start a guerilla-style urban war on the Coalition forces, which may result in a war that drags on for months, perhaps much longer. And unfortunately, that scenario is not that far-fetched.....

And I haven't even started about North Iraq, where five parties are involved (Iraqi, Kurdish, Turkish and American soldiers, and pro-Iranian terrorsit organisations), and no one, not even the US generals can predict what might happen.

I'm not here to critisize the American High Command or the strategy used; but if I can come up with such a (realistic!) scenario, it makes me wonder......

News is a business now, it's sex and glitter. Mind you I get Canadian coverage so it's much more rounded than the US media. So that adds to my feeling of having a better picture of it.

I have acces to CNN: that's my only American news source (but maybe the most important/influential one). Besides that, I can receive Dutch, Belgian, German, French (yuk!), Luxemburg, and Turkish channels (too bad I don't understand most of those people...

).
I agree with you that, instead of CNN, the European channels seem to be more complete in their coverage.

 

[Neoplasia]

We know maybe 10% of what they're planning, and much of that is guessing. I think the strategy for blowing by all those cities was to contain the Republican Guard and lay partial-seige to Baghdad. The Brits and some of the US divisions have the job of cleaning them up.

It's really interesting flipping from the Canadian stations to the US ones, fills in a lot of gaps.

 

[Atlanta Braves Baby!]

sure hope its fast cuz its going to cost us 75 billion for each month we are there!