I admit I stopped after the first page, but to use a chess metaphor, this article is about how the chess game is over before it starts because black's bishop is doomed because white has a queen. Even if every word is true, it's an analysis so myopic that the value of analysis is a flat zero.
Besides, I remember similar analyses before both Iraq wars. Today you can get away with describing that army with various denigrating terms, but I'm old enough to remember how the Iraq army was the world's third-best at the time of the invasion according to pundits everywhere. (To be honest, I have no idea if it was true, and it's doesn't really matter since I'm specifically talking about the punditry and commentary.) People who know what they are talking about sound sober and realistic, not hyperbolic and bombastic. (And of course merely "sounding sober and realistic" doesn't prove they do know what they are talking about.)
>> I remember similar analyses before both Iraq wars.
As do I. And don't forget the classic "brutal Afghan winter", endlessly discussed in the mainstream media, that was going to prevent the US from seizing Kabul et al. Except, you know, when the US and its Afghan allies took it in less than three weeks.
Oh, but don't forget: "Elite Republican guard" and "experienced from their wars with Iran". There was a whole series of talking points. Philwelch may be correct on the 3rd vs. 4th point, but I am pretty sure the talk was of them being the third/forth best. (Possibly the pundits think they could have beaten China in some hypothetical fight, since at the time neither could have really projected force at the other to speak of.)
I did say pundits, after all, and I'd add those making the analysis for political reasons. More sober analysts knew better, including the ones who actually planned operation, after all. The fact that they were grossly wrong because of their various motivations is sort of my point.
Besides, I remember similar analyses before both Iraq wars. Today you can get away with describing that army with various denigrating terms, but I'm old enough to remember how the Iraq army was the world's third-best at the time of the invasion according to pundits everywhere. (To be honest, I have no idea if it was true, and it's doesn't really matter since I'm specifically talking about the punditry and commentary.) People who know what they are talking about sound sober and realistic, not hyperbolic and bombastic. (And of course merely "sounding sober and realistic" doesn't prove they do know what they are talking about.)