Tooting my own horn here - I still believe that part of the strategy was to allow the regime to maintain an
appearance of control (I.E. Iraqi TV/Radio) in order to keep the RG organized for as long as possible. From what I can see it worked, they mostly stayed with their commands, and most of them died between the pincers of the 1st Marines and the 3rd ID as the US Navy/USMC/AF rained hell from the skies. [similar comments posted over the last few days in response to the 'Why is the TV still on?'.. and 'Why are their troops sitting out in the open?' questions]
It still remains a likelihood that a good many were able to retreat to Baghdad, and that a fair amount of street fighting remains. However, I do not believe that thousands of dedicated troops remain to fight. Remember Gen Brooks comment of a few days ago that air superiority was being employed to 'cut off' the retreat lines to Baghdad. We did not allow most of them to fall back into the city.
So can anyone tell me ... if a 'failed' battle plan can allow us to control a hostile country in 2 weeks with less than 100 friendly casualties, what would happen if we had a 'successful' battle campaign?
I haven't read all the posts on this, and so this is the first time I've read your theory, but it strikes me as highly plausible! If the goal was to get the RG, that might have done it.
BTW, can you account for the II Marine Exped. Force, which has not been heard from yet?