War will last for Months: How do you feel now?

N_Quire

This is not going to be a swift war as the non-military journalists and pundits had expected. Perhaps some politicians such as Cheney are to blame too for trying to sell the idea of a swift war before it all started.

It now looks as though the war is going to drag on for months. How do you feel about that? Is your support as strong? Will Bush be able to keep the public's support over the long haul? I hope so.

BoulderHead

I haven't made up my mind yet.
Just as weak as ever.
He may not, but I haven't been following the news either(as usual). I picture a seige around Bagdad where eventually the toll on civilians due to bombardment, starvation, etc. may soften hearts considerably. I think that if it plays out to this point that orders to storm the city will be given.

kat

Maybe I'm dating myself..
but..
I still...
consider...
months...
to be..
a...
quick...
war...


Isn't it?

N_Quire

Boulderhead wrote: "I picture a seige around Bagdad where eventually the toll on civilians due to bombardment, starvation, etc. may soften hearts considerably. I think that if it plays out to this point that orders to storm the city will be given."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see a scenario where we want Saddam to try to use chemical/biological weapons so we have a good reason to destroy his forces without having to worry too much about civilian casualties.

It seems the concern with civilians is preventing the coalition from fighting as it really wants to, and it might be causing the war to drag on.

I guess all will be revealed in the battle for Baghdad.

N_Quire

Kat, I think if it goes on for more than three months, it will be the longest war since Vietnam (which lasted more than 10 years).

amp

not the war. they are just caught up in middle of a vendetta. I believe GW's polls will start dropping lower the longer the war goes on. He will probably do something else or commit the U.S. to another iladvised policy (I don't know what) to make them climb again.[g)]

Njorl

I don't think anything that's happened in the past week has changed my opinion about the possible length of the war. People put too much stock in the resistance of a few fanatics. The real fighting hasn't started. It is about to.

It might be quick, or it might take months. I would never have supported a war that had to be over quickly. Too much can go wrong. Only an idiot would have supported the war, and then change their mind because it wasn't a death-free war. The press might have expected victory without fighting, but I haven't run into any real people who thought that.

Njorl

LURCH

Agreed. Furthermore, I (reluctantly) agreed with the reasons for this war. They have not changed. It makes me very sad to think that the death-toll will be higher and the suffering greater as the war grows longer, but I still see no alternative that isn't worse than the war. Saddam is a criminal. What do you do with a criminal? You Arrest him. What if he won't come peacefully? Take him by force. But if he really, really resists a whole lot... it still must be done.

Bubonic Plague

What i feel is irrelevant, the war will still go on. The best i can do is give support to the soldiers fighting in Iraq.

damgo

I never really bought the they-will-shower-the-occupying-troops-with-flowers stuff, so it doesn't change much. My main hope is that it will make Bush&Co. wise up a little, and maybe pay a little less attention to certain people *cough*-Rumsfeld-*cough*-Defense Policy Board.

Alias

Human Rights Watch says Saddam is responsible for murdering over 250,000 people.

They can take as much time as they need destroying that sorry son-of-a-bi-atch and his band of thugs.

kat

I believe that number to be on the low end, I think estimates as high 1 million may be closer to the truth in the end. There are estimates of over 200 thousand missing alone.
Unfortunately, Saddam and his "thugs" apparently also view the Iraqi people as nothing more then a tool of war. So..I can't say that I feel okay saying..take your time if taking your time means more death/suffering longterm.

Alias

You're probably right. I was just thinking that maybe by taking their time, they might save more civilian lives. Which ever works best, I guess.

russ_watters

I agree with Alias though I must admit it now appears to me that it will take longer than I initially expected. I expected about 2 weeks after the start of the ground campaign. I still think though that it will be less than a month.

BoulderHead

They didn't get to do all that bombing like back in Gulf 1, and that has an effect on a soldier’s willingness to fight. Having lived through the embarrassment of all the defections/surrenders which occured the first time I would not be surprised if less of it happens this time around. House to house fighting isn't going to be either enjoyable or fast, especially if the citizenry takes part in the fighting.

russ_watters

The early start to the ground war was calculated to reduce the number of oil wells Saddam could torch. It must be remembered that though the first Gulf ground war took only about 100 hours, it was preceded by nearly a month of air war.

amp

New Yorker Magazine- 4/7/03- Seymour Hersh, Rumsfeld micro-managing war on Iraq. Undercutting military planners. I think he's going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?