To: max_rpf
It occurs to me that our decision not to prepare the battlefield with airpower in a 2 or 3 week sustained campaign, as we did in the Gulf war, may cost us significantly more ground casualties.
4 posted on
03/23/2003 7:18:35 AM PST by
Arkie2
(TSA ="Thousands standing around")
To: Arkie2
"It occurs to me that our decision not to prepare the battlefield with airpower in a 2 or 3 week sustained campaign, as we did in the Gulf war, may cost us significantly more ground casualties." I think that is the price we had to pay for securing the oil fields and from the sound of it we were very successful (only 9 of 500 wells? sabotaged).
5 posted on
03/23/2003 7:22:12 AM PST by
CatOwner
To: Arkie2
The pockets of resistance are Saddam's internal security forces. Their orders are to resist behind our lines, and hide behind civilians.
We have have to root them out.
6 posted on
03/23/2003 7:22:20 AM PST by
tomahawk
To: Arkie2
Maybe a few more casualties. But an air campaign first is what the Iraqis expected. The surprise of the blitzkrieg ground invasion first, mixed with shock & awe will prove to be the best move. If you can't handle 10 casualties, turn off the news.
To: Arkie2
Note that what Reuters reported as "significant casualties" appears to amount to...about ten.
14 posted on
03/23/2003 8:53:57 AM PST by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson