Ah, the Second Coming of Scott Ritter....
If you buy into all of this WMD crap coming out of the Bush administration then you need a vacation.
Now then, having read your posts, I am rather amused at your assessment of Saddam's strength.
The Iraqi military has had the wherewithal to invest in one thing: WMD, primarily chemical and biowar weapons. Nuclear weapons are still off in the future, primarily because even the black marketeers are afraid to sell weapons grade stuff to the Mad Hatter of Baghdad.
To simply discount the last ten years of developments in Iraq as "crap" bespeaks a level of ignorance that is surprising, even to me.
WMD are the only cards Saddam has. Here's why: You say that we'll be fighting an army on its "own turf". I say that the Iraqi army, the average conscript Joe formations, are merely underpaid, undertrained mobs, led by generals whose chief characteristic is an uncanny ability to keep thier noses up Saddam's ass. This is not the Army that stormed into Iran in the late summer of 1980. It is a hollow shell. Indeed, when the CIA attempted to use the Kurds in the north to attack the Iraqi V Corps back in 1995, that Corps was only saved by the fact that Anthony Lake, then chief of the Clinton NSC, ordered the CIA agent on the ground to withdraw his support from the Kurds.
Not the first time the Toon f%&ked up, and certainly not the last time.
Anyhoo, the Iraqi army has become a stagnant mess, while American weapons systems have improved immeasurably in the last ten years. The only question I have is the quality of American soldiery coming out of boot camp, such were the detrimental effects of the social experimentation that was a common denominator of the Clinton years.
Iraq's "Army" isn't a national army at all, but a collection of regionally based units that are loyal to their commander. For the time being, the commanders are loyal to Saddam.
Until we offer them a better deal. After all, there is a reason that Saddam keeps executing his generals.
Be Seeing You,
Chris