I was watching Nighline last night and it sounded like the first offensive will only use somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20k combat troops. One mechanized division. That seems too small. It means that the US will intensify the air campaign to make up for inadequate ground troops which means a lot more civilian casualties. The fewer troops you have, the greater the dependence on air forces and the larger the air campaign the higher civilian death tolls. Higher civilian death tolls means more civilian resistance. With fewer troops meeting higher civilian resistance, the slower the invasion and the slower the invasion the greater the civilian death tolls. The slower the invasion, the longer civilians have to move or build up their resistance and the greater the civilian movements and resistance, the slower the invasion proceeds. These are vicious cycles that only re-enforce a bogged down invasion. The slower the invasion the longer the Iraq military has to form up fixed battles of retreat, slowing the entire process even further. If the Iraqi armies can stall the forward movement of the US forces, then the civilians behind them can also build up more resistance.
US ground forces could be in for a very tough fight. If the Iraqi army can put up stiff opposition to stall the invasion, then the international community who are uniformly opposed, will muster even more opposition.
Although it sounds unlikely, this invasion and conquest could stall into a vast quagmire with too few ground troops to win and too much bombing to excuse.
Chuck Grimes