this is from a recent Stratfor (Strategic Forcasting) newsletter - it anticipates an earlier start for an intensive bombing campaign and lays out the reasons why...

Which brings us to timing. Blix is supposed to file a definitive report by Jan. 27. The United States will push to make that a negative report. Washington also will use the interim period to perpetuate the atmosphere of resignation that has gripped most third parties in the last few weeks. We expect the U.N. Security Council will declare Iraq in breach of the resolution and will develop some vague language under which the United States can launch an attack without an actual U.N. endorsement. That will do
for the United States.

All forces for a ground assault have not yet moved into place. Britain still is moving equipment in, as is the United States. U.S. reservists and National Guardsmen are being told that they will be mobilized around mid-January. Many of these will replace regular troops that are going overseas and others will be providing increased security in the United States. But others, particularly Marines, will be sent overseas, including to Iraq.

If they are mobilized in mid-January, they will not arrive for several weeks -- and they will need several more weeks of training in-theater for acclimation and integration into the war plan.

The United States on several occasions has made it clear that an air war can begin before all forces are in place. That appears to be the strategy. As long as the U.S. Air Force is ready in Turkey, Qatar, Diego Garcia and other air bases from which strategic bombers can operate, and as long as both carriers and platforms capable of firing cruise missiles are ready, the air war can be launched. The current speculation is for the air war to begin within days of the Jan. 27 deadline. We expect that to be the case: The days from Jan. 29 through Feb. 3 will provide excellent conditions for air strikes.

An air war would take four to six weeks. The issue is not early suppression of enemy air defenses or disruption of
communications; both undoubtedly can be achieved on a strategic and operational level within the first week of operation.

However, in anticipation of a ground war, the United States first will attack Iraqi ground formations, including armored, mechanized and infantry units. Attacking large formations is inevitably a time-consuming process involving the delivery of munitions to targets. Also, a large number of missions will need to be carried out, battle damage assessments made and targets revisited. The goal will be to render Iraqi formations incapable of resisting.

We would estimate a minimum of four weeks for the anti-ground force mission. That would move us into March for the ground war, with March 3-5 providing a reasonable window of opportunity. The weather in early March remains acceptable, with increasing possibilities of spring rains and flooding. Washington would like to have the operation completed by mid-March.

It should be noted that the actual commencement of ground
operations need not be as clean as in 1991. There are persistent reports of Israeli and other special forces operating in western Iraq, which is lightly held. There are similar reports of U.S. forces operating in northern Iraq, where Turkish forces are ever-present. Thus, the war could include effective operations in western and northern Iraq while the air war goes on in January.

The real issue will be in the south, where the British are
leaking promises of an amphibious attack. Stratfor's war plan, Desert Slice, which appears to be the model being pursued here, views an amphibious attack at the Shatt al Arab as likely, if the United States cannot squeeze enough force into Kuwait. However, during Desert Storm, an amphibious assault was not carried out but was merely threatened in order to hold Iraqi troops in place along the coast. In either case, the attack in the south must take place before any flooding is possible.

Allied forces must develop a multi-axis line of attack, including a swing to the west to supplement any movement north along river lines. Air power will be critical in breaking up Iraqi formations on already unpleasant terrain. That means that the southern attack is likely to be the last axis implemented.

This returns us -- as it has over and over again -- to Baghdad and the fundamental imponderable in the war: morale. There is little that is less quantifiable, less predictable and more critical in war than morale and its twin, training. It cuts both ways: An enemy's morale and training sometimes are wildly overestimated, sometimes wildly underestimated, but rarely are they correctly evaluated.

The battle of Baghdad depends on morale and training more than on any other single factor. If even a relatively small force decides to stand and fight and has basic fighting skills, then taking Baghdad will become a brutal, bloody process. If the Iraqi army shatters under the bombing and ground assault and simply fails to resist, then taking Baghdad still will be complex but will not be a problem.

In 1991, the United States overestimated the morale and training of the Iraqi army, assuming that the blooded force that fought Iran would put up a better fight. Of course, the forces deployed in Iraq were cannon fodder, deployed for destruction. The United States did not engage Republican Guard units in Baghdad. The current assumption is that the victory of 1991 in Kuwait will be replicated throughout Iraq, using the same basic combination of forces. That might well be true, but it will not be known until after the battle is won.

That is why the United States needs to fight earlier rather than later. After mid-March, rains turn some of the country into a quagmire. Later still, the temperature rises, frequently making operations in MOP-4 chemical protection suits unbearable. The temperature in July can reach as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Whoever said that summer is not a problem either has never worn a MOP-4 suit at Fort Benning or Fort Bragg on an ordinary summer day or knows that the Iraqi chemical weapons stash doesn't exist
or won't be used. You do not fight in the Iraqi summer if you don't have to.

So, given that no one knows how long the battle for Baghdad might last or if the United States and Britain will have to pull into siege positions for an extended period, launching the battle of Baghdad as early as possible is a military necessity. Its very unpredictability requires that the battle be waged as early as possible. That means that the commencement of the war cannot be put off much past Feb. 1.

If it is, the entire war could start to slide into April and May -- and that means that if the Iraqi army doesn't simply crumble in Baghdad, the war could extend beyond what the United States wants. Given other requirements, follow-up operations in the region and the intensification of activity in Afghanistan, the last thing the United States wants is to tie forces down around Baghdad.

All of this argues for an air war beginning in late January or early February, operations in the west and north beginning a week or so later and an attack launched from Kuwait by early March. A lot of slippage will not be a good idea here.

Foreign Office briefings to selected journalists are talking about mid-January. It seems a little early to me, especially given the analysis above, however this is what the FO are saying at the moment.

The reason why I'm suggesting that they may well start the war against Iraq arond February 21st is because apparently there are 'new moons' over Iraq around January 4th, which means pitch dark nights making a military offensive easier under the cover of darkness to confuse the Iraqis (but far too soon for US/UK military to launch the full blown ground war), Febuary 3rd (still too soon) and March 2nd (enough time and Iraqi weather still cool enough for a ground offensive). Apparently this ground assault will preceded by approximately a week of bloody all-out air strikes against Iraq - hence February 21st? for the start of at least the air attack of this awful upcoming war. It looks like the first two comments do agree to a large extent about how the opening stages of the war of the war will be carried out, if not to the exact timing. I think the main message is to remain on our guard at all times and to be prepared for the war to start at any time and to have our various anti war actions and mobilisations ready to go at very short notice!

Israeli elections are on January 28th, and America doesn't want to fuck them up -- right-wing Likud would be losing in the polls because of the corruption scandals, except that there's the war with Iraq in the air. But thats when America wants to be striking, I wouldn't think they would waste too much time. My guess is January 30th. The moon will have waned enough by then not to make any significant difference, and the Blix report will have been read and tossed to the side by then. Happy new year!

they'll do the same as they did in afghanistan.
as Iraq still has some infrastructure it will take them a while to destroy every large building, bridges HOSPITALS and other prime "military targets".
when the whole country is fucked then they will send the ground forces in. Probably be spring by then.
I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't play the stock market just a teeny bit and bomb the oil fields.
That would put a few bob on the price of oil.
A certain family of well known nazis will make a huge pile and the world could be thrown into even more turmoil as we just happen to depend on their black gold.
They win a bumber dividend and half a million Iraqies pick up the tab, rest of them will be eating depleted uranium big macs by the end of the summer ... Profitz UP !!

Just to get 'em all going

Iraq has given Bush nothing he can use as an excuse to invade, so Bush needs to make an excuse, a' la FDR, to get the war going. This is the PR run-up.

 http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id={3BDA8569-0EE8-4CCE-B8A2-08D0DBA53ACE}