Today, America has overwhelming military forces who are concentrating solely on Iraq, and Iraq only (you'll notice a diplomatic solution is being pursued with North Korea). A better "parallel" would be the Gulf War, which, you might remember, went a little better than the British debacle during the First World War.
That got you all excited, even the idea that it might be difficult, even. So proud.
Well, well, well, as to your point the relative superiority of the Soviet Union when fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan was similar to the superiority existant in all but one of the British invasions of Afgahnistan. The same was true of the US in Vietnam. This is an issue of relative superiority.
The British refused to give the T. E. Lawrence's Arab allies artillery and other more advances weaponry in order to maintain this imbalance, out of fear that it would one day be used against them.
The history of technically inferior armies besting superior armies is stark indeed. Agincourt comes to mind, wherein 30,000 horse mounted and well armoured French Knights were slaughtered by Henry the Fifth's 8000 (of which on 3000 were knights, if I remember correctly.)
Little Big Horn comes to mind as well. One thing any military historian will tell you is that anything can happen in war. The case of the Maginot Line is a classic. The Somalia case is yet another example of what a serious mistake it is to depend entirely on perceived 'technical superiority.'
If the US really wants to get Saddam they probably will not be able to do it with the aircraft, you are so fond of, as the Osama case examples. People are going to have to go in, and that is when it could get sticky -- unless they just flatten the country entirely.
Or is that what you are suggesting they do?
How quickly people forget that the first Gulf war was fought in the dessert around Kuwait and not in the interior of Iraq, where the British debacle happened.
Frankly I think all this 'regieme change' stuff is all smoke an mirrors, as well as this 'first day assault of Baghdad -- that is beging for it. I think the US will choose the beter part of valour, as always, and operate in the desert and bomb Baghdad from afar. Hoping that someone someone local 'offs' Saddam while they stay at arms length.
Besides the desert is where the oil is. Why go to Baghdad, once you've achieved the primary objective.
[ 17 February 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]