I believe that Bush cares too much about the troops safety to expose them to the risk without taking advantage of the darkness. We are making more attacks against the Iraqi radar sites these days and that is surely part of the preparations for the main attack.
If we can eliminate most of his radar sites before the attack, we may put it off those four days but I wouldn't count on it. We would have to be certain that we didn't need the darkness before we would discard it. Most of our offensive doctrine is predicated upon the usage of the new moon to protect our planes from visual sighting and that is a very beneficial policy not to be discarded lightly.
I regards to the 'dark time', an attack could be planned for up to 4 days before the 'new moon' to expand on the number of 'dark' nights available. The new moon is the darkest night, but it is still pretty dark 3-4 days either side of it. It is most likely to attack before the new moon than after it to maximize on total number of 'dark' nights.
If the attack is staged and ready to go at a moments notice, it could be begun before the new moon especially if weather conditions indicate light cloud cover. If it doesn't happen in early September, then early October on or about the new moon is the next most likely target.
I agree that we are watching the staging of Iraqi's defenses and I suspect that if Iraq's radar defense has been sufficently degraded by the time of attack, we may see an attack against their troop concentrations first. Since we may have to face the Republican Guard anyway, if it is convenient to take them out early on at minimal risk, then that would be wise to do.
Bush senior refused permission to use 'bright light' (nukes), but that same restraint may not be present this time around. We don't have to worry about keeping any coalition together this time and since we were attacked on our homeland, the political considerations against using the nukes are also removed. I know that if Iraq attempts to use 'special' weapons, we WILL use ours without hesitation.
We are in a rush program to develop nuclear 'bunker buster' missles to penetrate caves and guarantee the destruction of deeply buried chemical and biological weapons and if we KNOW that Saddam has them deeply buried, we would feel justified to use Nuclear Bunker Busters. We could justify their use in that they are necessary to guarantee the destruction of Iraqs Chemical and Biological stockpiles to prevent the accidential spread of those agents into the atmosphere.
If we have major concentrations of his elite troops out in the open, I would expect a missle attack designed to take out as many as possible from a distance before we have to face them in enclosed surroundings face to face.
I wonder is some of our ICBM's could have been retrofitted with the Commando Vault 'Daisy cutter' bombs for assult against ground troops. It would require a pretty hefty missle to transport that weapon and I don't think our cruise missles are quite large enough for it.
We have converted some of our nuclear cruise missles to convential explosives due to Clintons depletion of them during his 'Monica' campaign so it might be plausible that we might have converted some of the older ICBMs that were slated for decommissioning already. We are flying B52's and B2's nonstop from the U.S. already, so it would make sense to take advantage of converted ICBMs if any are available.
The major disadvantage of using the ICBMs is their travel time and a major launch would be soon be recognized. In either case, Russia at least would have to be advised to prevent their misintrepretation of what was being launched and who their target is.