It looks more and more like they REALLY REALLY thought they were going to get Saddam in that first attack and that would end things before it even began.....they clearly had good intel....I would not be surprised if Saddam is dead....But when you say that Saddam is irrelevant (and they have said it recently) you minimize the likelihood that the Generals will just give up wehn they know they will not be part of a new iraq  Alan Jacobson <alanjacobson@sbcglobal.net> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I just don't understand the US strategy: In GW-I they bombed Iraq for a month, in GW-II they threatened to drop the hammer but instead used a ramping up process instead. They committed to the ground war before all the key combat units were in place and completed their desert conditioning. One report said that there are only 400 US tanks engaged. The attack units are moving faster than their supply and support can move. They have only limited security for their supply lines, which stretch for hundreds of miles along very few highways clearly known to everybody. They thought they could control the reportage by embedding the corporate media without considering Al-Jazeera's role as an alterative source. They claim control of areas like Nasiriyah and immediately have to retract the statement because fighting breaks out, i.e. not really under control. Even looking at the situation from their point of view, it seems like their main plan was a best case scenario (the Iraqi army would melt away, there wouldn't be any security concerns in their rear, etc) and now its a mess. Alan Jacobson </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">Yahoo! Platinum</a> - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">live on your desktop</a>!