Despite what Eric Cordian and others have said here, I think it unlikely that there will be a big body-bag outcome for the US. The force balance is so overwhelmingly one-way, and most Iraqis really don't want the current Ba'athist government. A lot of them will give up quickly. Could be wrong of course.
I've half a suspicion that the US will skip the long airwar phase (after all the Iraqi airforce mostly defected to Iran in 1991 & we've been bombing the shit out of their fixed air defences every second Saturday for 10 years) and move straight into a land advance, perhaps with the Brits in front (see if that Chobham armour really does work), with the smart bombs et.c used to knock out the enemy just in front of the advance, in a sort of computerised version of the old moving barrages of WW1. Large-scale House-to-house fighting unlikely. But some ponderables: 1) if they really only want to rule Iraq directly for 6 weeks or 2 months that means EITHER they hand over to an international peacekeeping force (bloody unlikely given current PNAC drumbeating in Bushite circles) OR else the new Iraqi government is essentially the successor to the old, with the civil administration and most of the military still intact. And in a 1-party plutocracy like Iraq, that means with the Ba'ath party still intact, maybe even including Saddam's Tikriti friends & relations. They run most military & large business organisations & huge parts of civil government & media. So no real change then - the dog barks too loud so we shoot him and replace him with another dog from the same kennel. Only alternative to that that can preserve an Iraqi state is US (or just possibly UK - after all we've had a lot of practice) direct rule for /years/ We don't just dfeat Iraq, we conquer it. Bush still claims the USA is not an imperialist power. 2) What happens if the US forces liberate somewhere (Basra would be first) and they locals say "thanks very much for liberating us, now we are free we are going to declare a Republic and hold elections and have our own constitution modelled on yours..." Do the Americans have to say "thanks very much for the flattery, but don't you move a muscle until we can get you ragheads back under Baghdad where you belong"? 3) what about the Kurds? What about the Kurds? Does the US force them to rejoin Iraq? Does the US continue to deny them Kirkuk and other cities of their homeland? Does the US allow Turkish troops to invade northern Iraq (i.e. remain in there- there are probably some already) Is this the end for US support for Turkish domination over the area? If the Turks refuse to play ball, is it the end for US support for Turkish membership of NATO? 4) And what about those Iranian "People's Mujahideen" who supported the wrong side in the first Gulf war and have been camping out in eastern Iraq for 20 years? Their strength is often exaggerated, but they do have tanks and they have no-where else to go. Their backs are really against the wall (OK, the river, but its the same thing). Once upon a time they were better soldiers than any units of the native Iraqi army. Do they fight to the death? Or just surrender? What does the US want with a whole load of heavily armed neo-communist militant Iranian Muslims? Send them back to Iran to face the music? I don't think so.
