War Could Last Months, Officers Say
Well, it COULD. But more likely is about 60 days. If today is any indication, Saddam's military is just as stupid as it was in '91. If they continue in this fashion, 60 days is closer than the implication made by "months".
Excuse me, but didn't you say you've heard McCaffrey et al. "practically every time they've been on" and neither has said anything like the war needs more troops? You did say that and once again, it was a lie you concocted thinking you could get away with it.
So why in God's name should I give the slightest hint of credence to your claim that "60 days" will do it. Its clear you're talking off the top of your head without a clue in the world where the ground is.
Frankly, it is difficult to conceive of a way in which it could have proceeded better -- unless we could have changed the weather. This military is executing like a group of absolute and true professionals; civilian casualties are minimal; coalition troop losses have been minimal; critical infrastructure is largely untouched; there is reason to think Saddam may be seriously injured or dead; there have been no massive environmental problems, etc. That's not to suggest it couldn't get ugly, but thus far, this war has been prosecuted with perfection.
Huh? Are you listening exlusively to FOX again? Just in case........there are a few problems such as errant missiles hitting Iran, an RAF jet and a poor Bagdad neighborhood, a 350 mile supply line maintenance of which has become a bit problematical, problems with Turkey, and the 4th still en route when it should be fighting. Worse we have Iraqis who, instead of greeting us as saviors, are fighting harder than we expected.
Nonetheless, these problems are solvable but to suggest that this initial foray has been "prosecuted to perfection" begs the question: What does "perfection" mean to you?
ted |
