[zog]

--just can't see them doing desert storm v. 2.0. Nope, I think this time it will be strictly foment and support rebellion inside iraq. The resources don't exist for it anyway, so they have to something completely different. I more expect large scale internal fighting to break out in at least two if not three fronts inside iraq, with the US providing tactical cover, and very little troops on the ground.

I also think-wild card here-that any action will come before the end of march because of japan's financial crisis.

[Tallguy]

just can't see them doing desert storm v. 2.0.

You're probably right, but there will be a need for "holding forces." I think several brigades might be required to deter Saddam from sending his tanks into Saudi or Kuwait. Without some significant forces Saddam might be tempted to let his remaining tanks roll into his neighbor's oil fields. While I'm confident that he probably couldn't do it, I wouldn't want to bet my oil supply on it. Saddam should be reminded the battle of Khafji where a pair of his armored brigades were essentially mauled by a single Marine OP calling on indirect fire.

[VMI70]

I more expect large scale internal fighting to break out in at least two if not three fronts inside iraq, with the US providing tactical cover...

I'm not sure that strategy will work, at least not with the Kurds. We already screwed them once, and I read in an earlier thread that they are not too keen on being the fall guys again.
As far as internal rebellion goes, if I were the rebels, I would want rock-solid assurances that the USA is in for the duration, unlike our performance at the Bay of Pigs. People have a long memory when it comes to this kind of thing.

All that being said, I trust President Bush and his team implicitly to carry out our end of the bargain. I surely hope the dissident Iraqis and the Kurds see it that way.

FReegards,