3/27    Why does it seem to take such a big effort to fight this war against
        Iraq?  Iraq is not a dominant country to begin with.  Supposedly the
        US today has many more smart weapons than in the first Gulf War, while
        the Iraqi military has worse equipment and lower morale than 12 years
        ago.  Yet, it took us several long months just to get our troops and
        supplies ready to start the war.  And with Britain helping and massive
        Iraqi troops surrendering or leaving their posts, we are still not
        reaching Baghdad swiftly and Saddam is still standing.  If the US can
        even win this war easily, what do we expect if another dominant
        country similar to the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan launches
        a war against us in the future?
        \_ Since you bring up WW2: DDay cost the allies roughly 5000 dead and
           I don't know how many more wounded.  At DDay+8 the allies had gained
           about 10 miles in some places and suffered a few thousand more dead.
           Iraq+8 we've lost roughly 100 dead, unknown (to me) wounded, and
           gone about 250-300 miles.  In WW2, the bombing policy over Germany
           was known as de-population.  The idea being that since they had a
           hard time knocking out factories, they'd instead kill the civilians
           who worked in the war factories since neighborhoods make better
           targets and you don't care which house you hit, just more is better.
           In Iraq we're trying very hard not to kill civilians.  Iraqi
           official government media claims 92 civilians which even if true
           makes this the lowest civilian casualty war in modern history and
           maybe ever.  Go read what happened on the German/Russian front.
           Go read about Dresden.  We could Dresden the whole place in minutes
           but we don't.  You know why?  Because we really actually are honest
           to god, the "good guys" here.
           \_ Stop. Iraq isn't WW2 Germany, an overland invasion isn't
              establishing a beachhead, the middle east isn't northern France,
              and it isn't US vs. Iraq. It's US vs. Osama^H^H^H^H^HSaddam.
              See? "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
              \_ Nothing is exactly the same.  Ever.  So let's not ever look
                 at anything that ever happened in history before because it
                 isn't exactly the same.  Good plan.  Buds?
                 \_ Dude, they're bad analogies and distort history. Iraq
                    doesn't have the firepower that Germany did vs. the Allies
                    at that point in WW2. D-Day in France forced the Allies to
                    ship in all supplies as opposed to trucking them over from
                    Kuwait. Hedgerow'ed and hilly Northern France isn't desert
                    and the US claims not to be fighting the Iraqi people as
                    opposed to defeating "the Hun."
        \_ I suggest that you gather a little more information about
           military campaigns.  There are many numerous examples in our
           history.  Also, Iraq had a failry large standing military -- quite
           a large one, iirc.  Check your 'facts'.
        \_ Iraq had the second largest standing army before Gulf War I.
           And why don't you think the US is performing a swift job?  It has
           only been less than 8 days.  Were you expecting a 6-day war?
           \_ With supposedly far superior weapons and air power and
              satellites, and months of preparation, I was expecting them to
              have already defeated all the major Iraqi divisions and already
              in Baghdad going house to house hunting for remaining
              oppositions.
           \_ Really?  I thought Turkey had the biggest army in that region.
           \_ What a stupid data point. Hey idiot, before GWI thousands of
              Iraqis soldiers were still living. Before the tech bubble
              popped, WebVan stock was real valuble, so now it should still
              be worth a lot right?
        \_ Iraq is fighting a defensive war which is easier than in Kuwait
           (where they really didn't have much time to dig in, and the local
           population didn't want them around).  Iraq is much larger than
           Kuwait.  The US forces are using untried tactics trying to reley on
           airpower and special forces to take land.  Oh and most important,
           war is a slow thing.  You don't just get everyone into a 747,
                    Kuwait.
           drop em off and say "Do Your Thing!"  Plus I almost forgot, the
           number of surrendering Iraqis is much less this time around.
           \_ Iraq: area 168,927 sq. mi.
              Kuwait: area 6,880 sq. mi.
        \_ Caveat: I'm not for the war, but...  The war is going slow because
           the troops are under orders not to fire on targets until they have
           clear shots on hostiles.  The Pentagon is being extra careful to
           avoid civilian casualties and any appearance of improper
           behavior on the battlefield.  Given the amount of scrutiny this
           war is under, that's a smart thing to do. --erikred
           \_ is it really?  i'm not sure.  the whole world ouside of the
              u.s. is against this war already.  we can go through the whole
              thing with less than 100 civilian causalities, and the
              rest of the world will cry bloody murder.  the american
              public, meanwhile, will continue to do what the corporate
              media tells them and support the war right up until the number
              of US dead rises to unnacceptable levels.  it seems to me
              that the biggest factor in what the world and the US thinks
              of this war a year form now is whether we win fast and
              decisively, which will be bloody.
              \_ If the Bush Admin is to adhere to the new doctrine of
                 US superiority, then you're absolutely right, the smart
                 thing to do is to end this quickly, no matter what the
                 cost in civilian life/property; that's the only way to
                 secure American dominance.  If they had the slightest
                 doubt, however, that they could blitz the Iraqis into
                 submission, the current policy of reducing civilian
                 casualties makes sense:  you don't want a long, drawn-out
                 AND bloody conflict. --erikred, and you are?
        \_ as some people have mentioned:
           1. military forces are trying to reduce civilian casualties
           2. kuwait has smaller land area.
           3. Turkey didn't allow land forces to launch attack from their
              country
           4. in 1991, Republican guard were centered around Kuwait.
              the coalition outflanked and crushed them in the open desert.
              \_ Wrong. They were based between Bhagdad and Kuwait and not
                 hurt badly during GWI.
                 \_ I define "around" to be the area between Baghdad and
                    Kuwait.  There were Republican Guard units in
                    Iraq ready to sweep into Kuwait.
                    \_ I define that as Southern Iraq. Admittedly, the RG ran
                       back to Baghdad with their tails between their legs, but
                       they weren't "crushed."
           5. Now, we are going to do urban warfare -- more difficult
              to do if you want to reduce civilian casualties.
              \_ We still haven't gotten to the hardcore urban warfare yet.
                 The US has gone around most urban areas.
                 \_ yes.  It will be a tough fight in Baghdad.
           6. Not enough coalition forces at the present time?
           7. Longer supply lines are vulnerable to guerrilla attacks.
           8. Iraqis have tow missiles and new tactics?
           \_ 9. That darn sandstorm.
              10. Iraqis don't like us.
           \_ 11. Iraqi loyalists are preventing Iraqis from surrendering
           \_ The problem is the US set expectations for swift victory. A big
              show of power, "shock and awe," smash up a division or two, and
              *poof* lots of Iraqis would surrender. To do this quickly, the
              US put "light" divisions on the front (emphasis on speed, easily
              transported to Middle East, a "furstest with the mostest" POV),
              not the heavy tank divisions which suck gas, need lots of
              infrastructure to maintain, take a while to setup and are bad at
              urban warfare. Even if Turkey agreed to letting the US in, there
              weren't enough blue water port facilities to offload a heavy cav
              division in such a short time. The tanks on the front now are
              the reserve maintained by the US after GWI. Running an invasion
              based on airpower, swift light troops, low civilian casulties,
              and hopes for a demoralized enemy is kinda... well.. stupid.
              \_ bring back Schwarzkopf?
              \_ I heard that Tommy Franks wanted lots of armor/tanks,
                 but Rumsfeld overturned him?  In any case, the coalition
                 can still bring in armor to Iraq.  The plan doesn't have
                 to be static.
                 \_ The problem is getting the tanks to Kuwait, getting the
                    troops to the tanks, setting up logistic support, and
                    the worst part, manuvering the heavies in while pulling
                    the lights out. Even worse, by the time this all happens
                    it may be an urban warfare situation so the heavies are
                    no good. Did I forget to mention how much extra putting
                    in the heavy divs is going to cost? Big ole bucks...
        \_ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/27/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html
           120,000 more troops are being deployed, many are heavy mechanized.