So who said it was gonna be quick?

[Vympel]

Fox News started acting like the White House spokesman the other day when the Washington Times (IIRC) said that the war "could take months"- well, no shit. They repeatedly said "well, who said it was going to be easy?"

Here we are:

Richard Perle: Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

[he was chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board until VERY recently-controversy over his money-making kick-back bullshit]

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder."- July 11, 2002

Ken Aldeman, former US Ambassador, in an Op-Ed Washington Post ad

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

[also a Defense Policy Board member]

Vice-President Cheney

"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

"My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside." (Good call, DUMBASS)

General Myers, Chairman Joint-Chiefs

"What you’d like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable.”

Christopher Hitchens

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.

"The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."

[Darth Wong]

It might also be good to quote some of the early Pentagon statements on "Shock and Awe", since the objective of the tactic to destroy the Iraqi will to fight, so that they would fold easily once the Americans showed the flag. Oops, all of a sudden everyone's saying that we knew from day one that it would be a long, drawn-out war (even though moral justification for the war was that it would be short and decisive, thus limiting civilian casualties).

Some of the jingoistic comments made by certain people on this very webboard from just before the war's onset might also be amusing

[The Duchess of Zeon]

[he was chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board until VERY recently-controversy over his money-making kick-back bullshit]

For the record, he may have been bought by the Saudi government, and quietly removed to avoid creating a treason scandal, though that is at the moment conjecture. We know, at least, that there is heavy circumstantial evidence indicating penetration of at least the State Department by the KSA.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It might also be good to quote some of the early Pentagon statements on "Shock and Awe", since the objective of the tactic to destroy the Iraqi will to fight, so that they would fold easily once the Americans showed the flag. Oops, all of a sudden everyone's saying that we knew from day one that it would be a long, drawn-out war (even though moral justification for the war was that it would be short and decisive, thus limiting civilian casualties).

Some of the jingoistic comments made by certain people on this very webboard from just before the war's onset might also be amusing

Mike, I'd like to know how this war can be defined as anything other than short and decisive so far? Even a war that lasts months would still be short and decisive. The Seven Weeks War was short and decisive. The Nazi invasion of Poland was short and decisive. Wars don't have to last mere days, and rarely do, to be called short - Usually they last less than a year and get called that, sometimes less than two or less than three years is still short, depending on the circumstances of the nations fighting.

And up to this point it has been very decisive. We have occupied southern Iraq, with but a few holdouts. The assault on Baghdad is at the most a month off, and in that month the Iraqis will have to endure constant air assault, while we consolidate and improve our hold on occupied areas - And it may come sooner.

[Cpt_Frank]

It might also be good to quote some of the early Pentagon statements on "Shock and Awe", since the objective of the tactic to destroy the Iraqi will to fight, so that they would fold easily once the Americans showed the flag. Oops, all of a sudden everyone's saying that we knew from day one that it would be a long, drawn-out war (even though moral justification for the war was that it would be short and decisive, thus limiting civilian casualties).

Some of the jingoistic comments made by certain people on this very webboard from just before the war's onset might also be amusing

Mike, I'd like to know how this war can be defined as anything other than short and decisive so far? Even a war that lasts months would still be short and decisive. The Seven Weeks War was short and decisive. The Nazi invasion of Poland was short and decisive. Wars don't have to last mere days, and rarely do, to be called short - Usually they last less than a year and get called that, sometimes less than two or less than three years is still short, depending on the circumstances of the nations fighting.

True, but many people, including members of the current US administration (successfully) tried to propagate the war would last a few weeks at most. I (like many other people) thought this war could be justified if the campaign was extraordinarily short.
However by now it's pretty clear this won't be the case.

And up to this point it has been very decisive. We have occupied southern Iraq, with but a few holdouts. The assault on Baghdad is at the most a month off, and in that month the Iraqis will have to endure constant air assault, while we consolidate and improve our hold on occupied areas - And it may come sooner.

Yeah until now the US forces really have conqured an assload of empty desert

[Vympel]

That's why the 'fastest advance since' hasn't impressed me. Whenever they've hit a place with actual traditional military 'value', the fighting has been pretty much vanilla.

[Cpt_Frank]

That's why the 'fastest advance since' hasn't impressed me. Whenever they've hit a place with actual traditional military 'value', the fighting has been pretty much vanilla.

Yep. Even for Um Qasr, a small town with some 40000 residents they needed 4 days.
I wonder what it will be like in Bagdad.

[Vympel]

Yep. Even for Um Qasr, a small town with some 40000 residents they needed 4 days.
I wonder what it will be like in Bagdad.

Most likely, it'll be a clusterfuck of the first order- this "the Iraqis won't fight" stuff is a massive fad- and all six Republican Guard divisions are around Baghdad. With their backs to the city, and no weak flanks to exploit and no way to get in their rear area (unlike 1991), US forces (probably the 3rd and 4th ID alone) will bullrush head on into them, there'll be a massive firefight, and after a few days, when the RG positions finally break (give or take for possible Coalition reverses)- they'll retreat into the city proper.

Good fun!

[Cpt_Frank]

Most likely, it'll be a clusterfuck of the first order- this "the Iraqis won't fight" stuff is a massive fad- and all six Republican Guard divisions are around Baghdad. With their backs to the city, and no weak flanks to exploit and no way to get in their rear area (unlike 1991), US forces (probably the 3rd and 4th ID alone) will bullrush head on into them, there'll be a massive firefight, and after a few days, when the RG positions finally break (give or take for possible Coalition reverses)- they'll retreat into the city proper.

Good fun!

What sucks is that many people will have to die because of that

The attitude of the Bush administration & the military leaders is also a bit strange. (almost funny if it wasn't about human lives)
Basically they just sit there saying "yes yes everything will proceed as we have forseen no no we have no problems..."

[Oberleutnant]

Yep. Even for Um Qasr, a small town with some 40000 residents they needed 4 days.
I wonder what it will be like in Bagdad.

Isn't the population of Umm Quasr only four thousand? You brought up a good point, though. Baghdad has over four million residents...

[Next of Kin]

An interesting article from the bbc. Could U.S. planning be the reason for a long, drawn out war?

Rumsfeld 'wanted cheap war'
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forced his military chiefs to accept his idea that a relatively small, lightly armed force should go to war with Iraq, it is being claimed.
The New Yorker magazine quotes unnamed Pentagon sources as saying that Mr Rumsfeld insisted at least six times before the conflict on the proposed number of troops being reduced.

In an article to be published on Monday, the magazine says Mr Rumsfeld overruled advice from the war commander, General Tommy Franks, to delay the invasion of Iraq.

The Pentagon has declined to comment on the article.

The BBC's correspondent in Washington, Justin Webb, says Mr Rumsfeld is a famously abrasive character who has been accused in the past of bullying his generals.

He says these fresh allegations are likely to cause a political storm and lead to further difficulties for the defence secretary and his team.

Munitions 'shortage'

The White House continues to say that troops in Iraq are making progress, but the article quotes a former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.

The article says the army is running out of cruise missiles and precision guided bombs, and that there are maintenance problems with tanks.
"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the official told the magazine.

A senior Pentagon planner said Mr Rumsfeld wanted to "do war on the cheap" and thought precision bombing would bring victory.

"He thought he knew better [than military officials]. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the unnamed planner said.

Franks 'overruled'

The article says General Franks wanted to delay the invasion until the American troops denied access to Turkey had been brought to Kuwait, but Mr Rumsfeld overruled him.

It says the defence secretary also rejected recommendations to deploy four or more army divisions and to ship hundreds of tanks and other heavy vehicles in advance.

Instead, Mr Rumsfeld preferred to rely on equipment which was already in Kuwait, but was insufficient, the magazine says.

Our correspondent says Mr Rumsfeld and his team desperately need some decisive victories in battle if the American people are to continue to believe what the White House is telling them - that this war is going roughly according to plan.

Story from BBC NEWS:

[Glocksman]

Like I have stated before, Rumsfeld is really starting to become the Robert McNamara of the 21st century.

[kojikun]

frankly im surprised everyone thinks a week and a half is LONG.

we're not doing a german blitz, and this is still damned fast. we're right outside baghdad with our tanks, and have been blasting it to shit since day one.

[Cpt_Frank]

frankly im surprised everyone thinks a week and a half is LONG.

we're not doing a german blitz, and this is still damned fast. we're right outside baghdad with our tanks, and have been blasting it to shit since day one.

Did you even bother to read the above posts?
Marching through empty desert in a week is hardly impressive.

[Queeb Salaron]

frankly im surprised everyone thinks a week and a half is LONG.

we're not doing a german blitz, and this is still damned fast. we're right outside baghdad with our tanks, and have been blasting it to shit since day one.

I think the reason for everyone thinking it's taking so long is because they're anxious to see the war over. This could be for several reasons: First, people don't want to see any more destruction than they're already seeing on the TV (nevermind pirate media sources like http://www.consumptionjunction.com). Second, they're anxious to see Sadaam overthrown and brought up on war crimes charges and violation of a cease-fire (if there's no statute of limitations on that. The US launched an attack in '98 [IIRC] as retaliation to that violation.) Third, they just want to prove all the above-quoted officials right and establish the USA as a vicious, ruthless, empassioned and formidable force to be reckoned with. If we can make short work of Iraq, imagine what fear we can strike into the hearts of the Koreans or the Palestinians!!

::Sighs:: Sometimes it's embarassing to have bloodthirsty megalomaniacs representing you. But at least we're represented. And protected.

[Oberleutnant]

"Strike fear into the hearts of Palestinians" - were you just being sarcastic?

[Queeb Salaron]

"Strike fear into the hearts of Palestinians" - were you just being sarcastic?

Naturally. It's what I'm best at.

[David]

I seem to recall the prez saying on no less than three occasions before the actual attacks began that it would be a drawn out war, something that was obvious to me before he ever said anything, so I really don't care if a handful of people in Washington were stupid enough to say this would be a cakewalk, or the higher ups for trying to put a positive spin on the situation for a wary American public.

[Queeb Salaron]

David:

You have to admit, though, it's kinda funny if Bush says it's gonna be a long war, and Cheney and Powell both come out and say, "Pay no attention to the little monkey behind the podium. It's gonne be easy."

[weemadando]

Yep. Even for Um Qasr, a small town with some 40000 residents they needed 4 days.
I wonder what it will be like in Bagdad.

Most likely, it'll be a clusterfuck of the first order- this "the Iraqis won't fight" stuff is a massive fad- and all six Republican Guard divisions are around Baghdad. With their backs to the city, and no weak flanks to exploit and no way to get in their rear area (unlike 1991), US forces (probably the 3rd and 4th ID alone) will bullrush head on into them, there'll be a massive firefight, and after a few days, when the RG positions finally break (give or take for possible Coalition reverses)- they'll retreat into the city proper.

Good fun!

Retreat into a city where every fucking building is a potential strongpoint, they've bunkered most intersections, you have a population base with if not a strong support of Hussein, then a definate hatred of the US. Add to this that CAS and artillery is ruled out if the US wants to keep anything resembling public opinion behind them.

Its going to be fucking bloody and not at all nice for anyone involved.

[Coyote]

People. a week and a half has gone by, not "weeks". Many people have said it would take "weeks", some have said "a few months". I guess it depends on what war we're comparing it to-- WW1? WW2? Vietnam? Even the Yugoslav situaion played out over a year or so of buildup, bomb, buildown, threaten...

So far most of the Iraqi army has NOT been fighting. The haven't surrendered but they also aren't fighting. Take a look at the actions of the Fedyeen Saddam and other guerrilla groups: if everyone who wore a uniform for Iraq was now joining guerrilla forces, we'd have far, far, far more irregular attacks than we've seen so far.

I think so far most of the Iraqis realize they can't stand up to US forces so they're doing the prudent thing-- keeping their heads down until something emerges from Baghdad. Either a new government or a resumption of Saddam.

When we get to point where we can clearly demonstrate that Saddam is removed or dead, then we'll see more reaction. Whether it will be favorable or not remains to be seen. Most will, on one hand, be glad to be rid of Saddam but on the other hand will have a great deal of trepidation about what a change and new government will bring.

[Queeb Salaron]

Yep. Even for Um Qasr, a small town with some 40000 residents they needed 4 days.
I wonder what it will be like in Bagdad.

Most likely, it'll be a clusterfuck of the first order- this "the Iraqis won't fight" stuff is a massive fad- and all six Republican Guard divisions are around Baghdad. With their backs to the city, and no weak flanks to exploit and no way to get in their rear area (unlike 1991), US forces (probably the 3rd and 4th ID alone) will bullrush head on into them, there'll be a massive firefight, and after a few days, when the RG positions finally break (give or take for possible Coalition reverses)- they'll retreat into the city proper.

Good fun!

The asshole warsie would argue that we dropped leaflettes on Baghdad warning them that shit was gonna get hectic quick, and they better get the fuck out. They're own damned fault for sticking around.

Which is why I hate asshole warsies.

Retreat into a city where every fucking building is a potential strongpoint, they've bunkered most intersections, you have a population base with if not a strong support of Hussein, then a definate hatred of the US. Add to this that CAS and artillery is ruled out if the US wants to keep anything resembling public opinion behind them.

Its going to be fucking bloody and not at all nice for anyone involved.

[David]

David:

You have to admit, though, it's kinda funny if Bush says it's gonna be a long war, and Cheney and Powell both come out and say, "Pay no attention to the little monkey behind the podium. It's gonne be easy."

Powell?

[Queeb Salaron]

EDIT TO MY LAST POST:
The two lines after the Vympel quote are mine. The quoting function raped me again. ::Kicks it::

[Axis Kast]

I echo Coyote. Nine days, not weeks. Even a "short war" isn't going to be over this quickly.

When we took the first casualty from Iraqi fire and the war didn't end after the first weekend, it became "not a sure thing." We need to start accepting reality. This isn't a movie. We're not done in two hours and a half.