[Steve Van Doorn]

that figure still sounds kinda high.

[Poohbah]

For a city battle?

Hell, that's how many NONCOMBAT injuries you can expect.

[Kevin Curry]

It's 1.2 percent of the total coalition forces involved in the operation.

[Arkinsaw]

that figure still sounds kinda high.

It all depends on what we do and how we do it and how the Iraqis react.

Some British General said 12,000 casualties.

Al Haig said today that this regime will collapse with stunning speed unexpectedly at some point.

Who is right? Don't know.

[cinFLA]

that figure still sounds kinda high.

Maybe the headline was a little sensational. BM said from "a couple to 3,000". Pretty safe estimate.

"In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties,"

[rotorhawk]

He's talking to a different audience, mostly the planners at CENTCOM. One of his nightmare scenarios is coalition troops getting caught out in the open and unprepared during a chemical attack.

One of the humorous by lines to the Gulf War was that during Desert Shield you could always tell who was in the 24th Mech because his policy was that the 24th would wear the chemical suits all the time even though none of the other divisions were doing so. It was damn brutal wearing those chemical suits during Aug thru Nov but after awhile you didn't care about being covered in charcoal and didn't notice the suit so much anymore.