So much for bloodless war

[RE]

At least through the mid and late 60s  I think the peace movement was less important in US administration thinking than was their concern about Soviet and Chinese reactions to, say, bombing Haiphong. I think that was the referent of "having our hands tied."   This time around the lack of UN backing and concern about Arab popular response limits the US military alternatives, despite what warmongers like Perle and Rumsfeld may try to convey.  From what I'm reading, a combination of unexpected popular resistance along with Sadaam's troops mingling with civilians is going to make it very difficult for the US to follow McCaffrey's suggestions without absolutely ensuring a very bloody occupation.     
Randy 


>From Chris Burford's post:
Not only was he contemptuous 
>of Rumsfeld's quite inadequate projection of the number of troops needed, 
>but [McCaffrey] emphasised Baghdad can be taken. If they use overwhelming force 
>they can break into it. The cost will be 2000 to 3000 casualties on the US 
>side. 2000-3000.

  How long before the media start blaming the peace movement for the "restrained" approach the US is taking?  I bet they will soon say that the reason for the resistance is that the Armed Forces are fighting with their hands tied.  Isn't that what they said after Vietnam?

  Sergio 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030324/95e0a900/attachment.htm>