What are your predictions on the upcoming war?

So guys and gals what do you think will happen once America invades Iraq? Will Saddam’s Republican Army put up a fight? Will Saddam use Chemical weapons against our troops? Will we be able to keep the casualities down to a minimum? Will the war last a couple of weeks or will it drag on?

I can imagine that Saddam will go down fighting because there are reports coming out of Iraq that he has ordered his troops to use chemical weapons once the invasion starts. I don’t know how true the source is though.

I have a feeling it could get ugly on both sides. :(

Ten bucks on America.

What are the chanches that Iran may attack our troops while we invade Iraq? Anyone??

There won’t be much fighting on the way to Baghdad, aside from harassing fire. There is an interesting article in the NYT today about how most air defense weapons have been moved to Baghdad & they have positioned artillery around pipelines & oil infrastructure in southern Iraq.

Once the troops reach Baghdad, I’m guessing a sort of siege will result. There will be a feint to trigger all the one-time defenses like oil trenches & chemical weapons. Then a systematic reduction of the air defenses, which will lead to the loss of planes. Lots of special operations raids to keep the pressure on for a while, hoping that Hussein is overthrown and the Iraqis surrender. Air raids will concentrate on any known or discovered bunker installations, hoping to decapitate Iraqi leadership. If urban combat becomes necessary, it won’t happen without massive air support.

Saddam may try chemicals this time, especially since we’re out to get him instead of removing him from Iraq.

Turkey poses complication and necessitates an attack from the South, making this a one-front war. Saddam could flood the river basin and extend the war, driving up the cost disastrously and turning this into a Pyrrhic victory.

However, odds are he’ll get steamrolled. This attack will resemble a 1940 Wehrmacht blitzkrieg more than than the 1991 war. We’ll see a short wave of remote bombardment with cruise missiles followed by a combined-arms strike.

Ground casualties will obviously be higher than the last time around. Sending airborne divisions to seize oilfields isn’t out of the question either.

Saddam’s forces are already demoralized and they were eager enough to surrender last time. This time, realizing that we’re not going to butcher them out of hand for surrendering (always a favorite propaganda tactic by an invaded nation), they’ll be even more likely to give up. These forces don’t have the motivation and die-hard attitudes of the Germans in WW2 nor the Russians during the Cold War.

Allied strengths: overwhelming air power, night combat, mobility, morale, speed.

Probable hitches: massive minefields, logistics, tigris/euphrates basin.

Wildcards: N/B/C weapons, 17 year old girls and their pussywhipped
boyfriends waving peace signs in front of the white house, while chewing bubble gum and twirling their hair around their fingers.


Another big concern is how to deal with thousands of surrendering troops. This was a big unexpected problem last time. And how to guarantee a handful of them don’t have explosives strapped to their bodies. Booby traps will probably claim more US lives than warfare. There are also stories (in Newsweek, and elsewhere) of Saddam comissioning fake US uniforms he’ll use to film US atrocities on his own people. Have a couple Iraqis in US uniforms machine gun some kids for Al-Jazeera’s benefit, and watch the world drama unfold on CNN. There’s a lot of doubt he’ll use chem or bio weapons, until the last possible minute, only because him using them justifies the US invasion to the world and Saddam’s longshot for survival is things getting so messy and yucky that the world somehow forces the US to withdraw without finishing the job. A strong anti-war movement at home might accomplish that, it depends how many casualties result and how long the siege of Baghdad takes.

This will be messy, though, you can see that because, according to the US today, all Saddam needs to do is go into exile and the war doesn’t happen. Any sane and caring leader would do this to spare his people. Saddam is neither.

Over quickly with little or no military US casualities. Mass surrenders of Iraqi troops. Little in the way of civilian deaths, except for one or two incidents like that bunker thing in the first Gulf War.

It’s the occupation and reconstruction I’m worried about. This administration doesn’t have a good resume when it comes to diplomacy.

Neither do you…but we still read your posts.


If there’s a siege in Baghdad, the Bush administration will have to be very, very careful of civilian casualties. I think the Russians have already opened the door to charging warcrimes against the USA if things go bad.

When the troops get to the outskirts of Bagdad, they find Sean Connery sitting on a pile of corpses, picking his teeth with a Bowie knife. He asks "what took you so long, then drives into the sunset.

Anyone think we can prevent Saddam blowing the oil wells? It would seem that the only hope we have is that whoever is given the order won’t follow it. However, that seems a slim hope since he most likely would give that task to his most fanatical troops.

I’ve read that in Kuwait the Iraqis didn’t have much time and just blew the wells at the surface. This time, “experts” suspect he’s set the charges 20+ feet down and the wells will be nearly impossible to cap.

I’m 100% in favor of the war and this administration’s policies regard it, but geez this is going to be a mess.

Another nightmare scenario: There’s a siege around Baghdad and Saddam lets smallpox loose among his own population. Ugh.


An interesting position. :)

Good one. :)

I think that’s really unlikely. Iraq can’t win this one in a straight fight, so they’ll have to rely on popular opinion. That means no preemptive strike, and no NBC weapons.

On the failure of U.K./U.S. diplomacy.

In my opinion, there are too many unanswered questions for me to make any prediction. Will Saddam use chemical weapons? What kind of resistance will the Allies face, either from Iraqi military or civilians? What kind of diplomatic issues will crop up during the conflict within the U.N.? These are just some examples…

Notice you left an out for civilian US casualties, after the retaliatory domestic terrorism that’s inevitable here in the USA.

(And like Janeane Garofalo, nothing would make me happier than for me to be wrong about that. But I’d be surprised if something doesn’t happen.)

I’m not as convinced of this. A war in Iraq will certainly inflame the passions of radical muslims, but they already probably hate us and are already doing what they can to thwart us. It may turn the sentiment of a great number of non-radical muslims against the US, but how does that increase the threat of terrorism? I suppose it will mean there are more people willing to become terrorists, but my impression is that there is no real shortage of those anyway. The problem for the terrorist organizations is not–unless I have misunderstood things–finding people willing to carry out the terrorism. It’s inability to coordinate and gather(particularly since the “war on terror” started), lack of money and materiel, and difficulty with circumventing American security procedures. I suppose the Iraq war might free up more money for terrorism if angry muslims are more willing to donate to the cause, but the big spenders–neighboring Arab governments–seem to be in favor of the war.

Just as I never bought “it’ll stop terrorism” as a reason for invading Iraq, I don’t buy “it will increase terrorism” as a reason to stay out.

(Edited for clarity)

Yeah, I don’t see any US terror strikes coming.

I’m not as convinced of this. A war in Iraq will certainly inflame the passions of radical muslims, but they already probably hate us and are already doing what they can to thwart us.[/quote]

Their hatred can go from your run-of-the-mill hatred to a fiery hot, molten hate that shows up on on infrared scanners. In which case, it will be easy to find and kill them. All the more reason to invade.

On topic, I agree with Jason’s assessment a few posts up. A lot of laying down of arms, bombing, and very little casualties on our side. All leading up to the dicey siege of Bagdhad. It is too early to tell on that.

Idar Thorvaldsen wrote:

"An interesting position. :) "

Well, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, y’know.

Just 'cuz it’s gonna be messy doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. I firmly believe it will work out for the best in the long run.


I think it would be far more likely for the North Koreans to invade South Korea after the invasion starts.

Loyd Case

Swift, largely unopposed takeover of the country. Minimal casualties on either side. Saddam takes refuge in Vatican embassy, is forced out with Guns n’ Roses music.