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