I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that ideally, we should have started the war 2 weeks later. That could shorten the duration of the war, bu we were at the dead end with diplomacy, and had to move when we did.
That's not true. France wanted a thirty day extension for the inspectors but we refused. Near the end, France made it clear that that figure was negotiable but we blew it off. Bush wants this war and he's got it now.
Any intelligent military operative would have waited until the 4th was thru the Suez Canal but like everything else during the past year, the time frame is not based on any practicalities [with the sole exception of weather] and so screwups continue to occur. Unfortunately, the screwups now could cost people their lives.
So anyway, the duration might have been shorter, but starting 2 weeks early moved up the end of the war. Probably by less than 2 weeks but somewhat.
How do you figure? I don't know that there is any true predictability when it comes to the end of a war.
On a slightly different subject, I have to say that it was a great idea to go with the "embeded" journalists. While they may not have the overview (which the military doesn't want to give away anyway) they bring the day to day life of the soldiers much closer. Also, it shows the world that we have nothing to hide.
Yes, I would agree........they make the war more real.
But there is one "embeded" journalist on MS/C/NBC that gets on my nerves. He is a blond guy, last name starts with "B" I think.
I don't watch MSNBC so I don't know this guy. Forest Sawyers on CNBC is getting on my nerves. While not "embedded", he seems to ask the stupidest questions.........although now, I can't remember what they are. Plus he shows such surprise at what I consider ridiculous things......like that Saddam has hidden weapons in schools. Maybe this makes me evil but I would do the same if a major power was about to attack my country, and I knew they wouldn't bomb schools. Where I come from, that's called being clever.
ted |
