>In fact, the US is rapidly trying to raise expectations of the odds facing
>them-- throwing out estimates of US casualties of 12,000-- just so when the
>losses are less they can trumpet their success now, a quick propaganda
>switch, but it's stupid of the left to help them change the expectations
>game yet.
what they know: it would be impossible to 'win' if we won by rolling over the entire country in a snap. public opinion in the US wouldn't have tolerated it.
if you want to impress the ME at what tought shits we are, doing it against a target that puts up a fight is the best way to do it. Had we just kicked total ass right away, we wouldn't have looked tough at all. It's the 9.11 effect.
shockenawe wasn't for Iraq, it was for us: boost support for the wonders of our airpower and flying death machines. the Lily Pad strategy was for our consumption, too.
liberate iraq rhetoric showed up at the end of the lead up to war, not by accident, but by design.
>The Iraqi forces are being overwhelmed by the most sophisticated army in
>history and any resistance is impressive, but they will lose.
>
>The real story is that the existence of any resistance by broad sectors of
>the population shows the lie that this is a war of liberation. It is that
>political message that is toxic for the Bushies, since that kills the last
>justification for their flouting of the Security Council.
I think they're banking on propaganda to turn the people (at least some of the people) of Iraq into enemies too. The rhetoric of liberation has quickly died away among rightnut chatterheads. it is turning ugly. Iraqi behavior is evidence of the completely irrationality they share with their leaders: ungrateful barbarians that deserve to have their regime changed violently.
kelley