[sbelew]

OK, everyone knows these news conferences are a joke.

But I am concerned by the fact that we have rushed in without bombing the bejeesus out of them first. What is the rationale behind NOT having a long sustained bombing campaign? My guess would be we believe the Iraqi soldiers is intermingled with civilians. Any other ideas?

I'm not questioning that we should be there, but I am having an increasingly bad feeling about Baghdad.

[Blue Collar Christian]

This regime is using its own civilians as shields and cammoflage. There complete lack of morals and ethics is ever astounding.

[Steve_Seattle]

"what is the rationale behind not having a sustained bombing campaign"

We HAVE been bombing heavily; all the experts have been saying how much more bombing we are doing now than was done in the first Gulf War.

[HAL9000]

What is the rationale behind NOT having a long sustained bombing campaign?

I'm no military strategist, but guess is that we are going to position our troops around Baghdad, then hit them with a relatively brief - but very intense - bombing campaign just before we move into the city. A long campaign cannot sustain the level of intensity that we will probably see with the heavy, precisely targeted Shock and Awe attack. With good timing, we can attack and penetrate the city before the enemy can regroup.

President Bush and the Pentagon are giving major hints of a short, sharp attack with statements like "the worst is yet to come" and "you ain't seen nothing yet".