Who's going to win Gulf War II (really)?

I believe that the US will win this "attack" on Iraq simply because they have the biggest military on earth.

Welcome, Dov1953.

I would assume the USA - but I must say that it seems increasingly possible that it will be a mean and dirty struggle - and very costly in all sorts of ways.

By the way Dov1953
Welcome to A2k :-D

I also believe that it's not going to be as easy as the US thought it was going to be. It hasn't been a walk in the park as they expected, but I still think they will win in the end.

gezzy: Who are these people that supposedly thought it would be easy?

Hey, dove, welcome.

As to your question, we will win the battle.

If we help them after the conflict is over, we also have a chance to win the war.

Max
The Bush administration are the ones who said this. The secretary of defense and all stated that this was going to be a 3 day war or 7 days at the least. They thought that most of the Iraq soliers were going to serender, but they didn't!!!! It surely wasn't the walk in the park as they thought it would be!!!

Its the third Gulf War!

The first was the Iran vs Iraq
The Second Irak vs the allies
And now its Iraq vs the US/UK/AUS

Republicans against the war:

Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans

Winners and Losers

Oh PDiddie, that article is four years old! How about a nice, new fresh one?

There. If Saddam sticks with it and holds on ... I think we're in for it!
By the time we pay the bill, most Americans will think it wasn't worth it
to LOSE such life, money and reputation.

Exxon'l be happy though. That's something isn't it? I like Exxon.
They have "A tiger in every tank"!

It's a war. No one wins....

fishin' is correct

Everyone Loses?

SSHHHhhh.... don't let Asherman hear you! link here

He'll give you brain-freeze, with all these ideas that you just
can't figure out how to deny. He writes really well.
Nobody should write that well 'cuz they always win!

I'm still trying to readjust my framework into a socio-spiritual
vocabulary that might form a comprehensible rebuttal to
the historical geopolitical context posed by his elocutions.
Eh, eh, eh ... it hurts to think so much!

Better you just say "In war everybody loses, 'cuz you know,
they could have been friends". . . . Watch out! Debate coming!

gezzy: Please provide a link for the comments of Donald Rumsfeld saying it would only be a 3 to 7 day war.

Not that I don't BELIEVE you, you understand but.....

Good to see ya back around, fishin.

I take exception to your statement, however.

Were the allies not the clear winners in WWII?

War has costs, to be sure.

But that does not negate the fact that there are winners and losers in conflict.

max - "Battle"? You call this a battle?

On March 16, Vice President Dick Cheney said on CBS ''Face the Nation,'' ''I think it will go relatively quickly. . . . Weeks rather than months.'' Also that day, he told NBC's ''Meet the Press,'' ''I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.''

In recent days, however, Bush and his national security team have markedly begun to play down expectations. Asked yesterday how long the war would go on, Bush said, ''However long it takes to win.''

''The civilian hierarchy at the Pentagon really believed this was going to be a lot easier than this is turning out,'' said Jay C. Farrar, a former senior Pentagon official.

Thank you Borg for supplying my earlier response that most wars do have winners and losers. Thank you even more for your kind words.

This thread asks who will win the current conflict. I'm sure no one will be surprised that I believe the Allies will win. I note that there are a number of people who say, with some smugness, that predictions that this would be a short war were all wrong. Many, including myself, did predict a short war -- were we wrong?

This conflict is rooted in the failure to bring the first Gulf War to a decisive conclusion. That makes the conflict over 12 years old, so it can surely be argued that it is a long war. Most of the wars in our history are rather longer than they are short. The Hundred Years war springs to mind, though there are many others. On the other hand, Coalition forces have only been engaged in actual hostilities for a little over a week. That's longer than the six days it took the Israelis a few years back to defeat an Arab Coalition. Long/short, these are relative terms that are totally separate from the question of "who will win".

Saddam is waging two separate wars. One he will lose without doubt, the other is still in question. The first pitts the mostly conventionally organized Republican Guard Divisions against the conventional forces of the Coalition. In sheer numbers the two forces are similar, though the Russian and French equipment used by the Republican Guard (and regular Iraqi Army Divisions) are no match for American and British equipment. The American and British are better trained, better led, and have complete air dominance. The Iraqi CCC+I is at the very least degraded, while the Coalition forces have the best there is. I suspect that a major tank battle will be fought somewhere south of Baghdad in the next few days, and that the Republican Guard will be shattered. I expect they will utilize chemical and biological weapons, but that those weapons will be mostly ineffective against our troops. Iraqi citizens will not be so fortunate. This war will indeed be "short", and the Coalition forces will be victorious.

The second war is one fought using irregular tactics. Vietnam demonstrated that military losses can more than be compensated for by waging a political war for public opinion. In the present instance, it is clear to me that Saddam is pinning all his hopes on this strategy. I firmly believe that the ordinary citizens of Iraq want Saddam and the Ba'ath Party gone, gone, gone. The bloodbath that Saddam carried out over a decade ago when the Shi'a rose against him at our instigation has left doubts as to whether we can be counted on when the going gets rough. Saddam's secret police, die-hard Ba'ath Party supporters, and irregular tactics makes it difficult for those dissidents to make themselves heard.

Saddam wants to convince the world that Coalition forces are directly targeting civilians, wantonly bombing non-military targets, and executing Iraqi's who surrender under a white flag. There story is that the entire Iraqi People are united behind Saddam and will fight to the last stone throwing child against the barbaric invader. How does one tell the difference between a Saddam Loyalist wearing civilian cloths firing on both our forces and civilians, and a genuine patriot who picks up the nearest weapon to defend his home? The answer is that the distinction isn't always possible. I believe that most of the irregular tactics are carried out in defiance of the Geneva Convention (asymetrical war sneers at the idea that rules of conduct and war are applicable to those using irregular tactics). Saddam's defenders will take the opposing view; that there are no prohibited terror weapons, and that the entire Iraqi People stand ready to die against a brutal invasion.

That battle for political victory through propaganda is much more difficult to wage, and may take longer. I think that Saddam will lose that war as well. First, the world's experience has been that the Americans and British are almost too tender-hearted for their own good, while Saddam is doubtless brutal and willing to try any tactic, including killing his own, to survive. Coalition assertions are buttressed by the openness with which we have been conducting the operation, and the painstaking care to avoid civilian casualties. Food, water and other aid is on its way, and it is the Iraqi forces that prevent it from arriving to those who need it. As time goes on, the number of loyalists and irregular troops will decrease, and the real sentiments of the Iraqi People will become more evident.

Some here will argue that Saddam's story is more believable than what they see on television, or are told by Coalition military command and the troops in the field. Only if those who prefer Saddam's story to our own are able to weaken the resolve of the President of the United States, the British Prime Minister, and other Coalition leaders, can Saddam win.

Max
I wish I had a link to give you, but I saw it on the news.

Max
My mistake. What I meant was weeks, not days.