The Times of India reports that the head of Russia's Parliamentary defense committee thinks the US will invade Iraq on 9/11/02. I've been wondering myself if that wasn't going to be the date that kicked off the offensive. Other, more sober analysts say that we probably shouldn't invade until after winter begins, for a host of reasons, most pressing of which is that chemical weapon defense gear is bloody hot and therefore works best in winter. In any case, the story is interesting. (Thanks to Casey Tompkins for the link.)
On the other hand, the Asia Times continues reporting that the conflict began there months ago. They believe that most of the public blather about it from the administration hides the fact that the conflict is already well underway. From their perspective, all that's likely to happen in the following weeks is a gradual heatup of what began long ago. (Link nabbed from Bill Quick.)
One of the other motivations of attacking during/after winter is that engines lose a tremendous amount of power in the desert heat. One of the (relatively) unreported problems in Afghanistan is that the US attack choppers lost up to 50% of their lift in the high altitudes. Similar problems exist in summer desert climes.
This is one of the reasons that the Gulf War "Hail Mary" maneuver worked so well; the Iraquis were certain that the Americans could not handle the problems of the desert.
One of the other main issues facing operations in Iraq this fall is that Anaconda put a severe demand on our munitions stockpile. Supposedly the Joint Chiefs want something approaching 40,000 JDAMS on-hand before tackling Hussein. This won't occur until spring of '03.
On the other hand at least some analysts feel that modern US force capabilities (in terms of quick concentration) far surpass Gulf War standards. This is not to say that we can drop (say) 20,000 men into Iraq and win in three days, but that what took 4 months (from August 3 to December 3 of 1990) to accomplish could now be done in 2-4 weeks. Please note that this does not address the transport of the US Third Army armor to the Gulf.
On the gripping hand the Iraq army is much weaker (according to most of the sane analysts I've read) than in 1990/91...
One of my main concerns has been Hussein's announced determination to force America into street fighting. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with history knows that street fighting in a city is one of the ugliest things that infantry can encounter.
But... Consider that street-fighting also requires immense dedication AND skill. For those old enough to remember: some of the nastiest fighting during Tet was in Hue. The VC were truly dedicated, and it took everything the Marines could muster to defeat them. Thing is that street-fighting was (understandably) not emphasized during boot, so the local leathernecks didn't have a convient technique to handle the situation. Or did they? The contemporary TV show Combat! (situated in WW2) was very popular with the troops. (an aside; this is where Vic Morrow, who died filming the Twilight Zone movie, gained his fame as "Sarge") One of the features of Combat! was an extensive portrayal of street-fighting in Europe during WW2. One of the other features of Combat! was extensive use of veterans of the European street-fighting as technical advisors, so the portrayals were very accurate. So when the Marines in Hue decided to use the techniques shown in Combat! they found them to be very useful...
Point being that dedication lost out to dedication and ability. Skill still counts. Most analysts agree that Iraq has less military skill than 1990/91, and at least some feel that very few Iraquis (even the Tikrit clan) have the dedication to successfully face off against US Marines or Rangers in a street fight.
But it's a helluva way to bet young boys lives...