Interesting points. Now, the corollary questions: How -much- worse? Long, drug out, lots-of-body-bags-coming-home and nasty political scandal worse, or Vietnam-style lots-of-dead-american-conscripts worse?
-adam On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Andrew John Lopata wrote: > Short answer: yes. > > Long answer: > I'm no expert, but a friend of mine in the military suggested that invading > Iraq now would be a lot different than the Gulf War. He said that urban > combat, which will be necessary to depose Hussein, is the most difficult and > dangerous type of combat there is. The Gulf War was fought on a flat plane > with no obstructions or terrain differences (the desert) where superior fire > power has a great advantage. Other reasons to think that invading Iraq this > time will be much more difficult and likely cause many more U.S. causalities > include: > 1. The troops the U.S. fought against in the Gulf War were mainly recent > conscripts with little training or motivation. Taking Baghdad will require > fighting veteran republican guard troops. > 2. There is no clear objective to this invasion of Iraq besides deposing > Hussein. Ignoring the long-term consequences of this invasion (which is the > usual practice), the short-term prospects aren't good. There is no readily > available alternate government to install in Hussein's place. The resulting > destabilization in the region will likely result in a U.S. military presense > in the country for a much longer time than in the Gulf War. > > -Andy
