Replies

I think SnA has failed. 4,000 Iraqis - ca. 1%. The resistance is much heavier than in 1991, although the Iraqi military is described as less effective. The reporters also say that they don´t think of the Iraqi people as "shocked". We HOPED that SnA would have been successful, but it was NOT. Now, the WH and Pentagon prepare the public for a long war (some months). That´s ok - for me. For the media, it´s something they can write and comment about!

P.S.: I´m not talking about the media in Europe. It´s said that the US press also attacks the strategy.

Post P.S.: Military experts say, that it´s not a change in strategy but in tactics. A little difference.

Michael

both the US and the European press has been doing this all along.

No one has ever said this would be short or easy, except for the infamous "unnamed sources".

Within 7 days, the coalition has pushed through several hundred miles with minimal resistance.

In 1991, we bombed Iraq for a long period of time before the offensive even started!

It is again the PRESS which claims the Iraqi military is less effective, not the Pentagon!

The PRESS says that the Iraqi's are not shocked, but the PRESS is not free to report in Iraq - each and every one of them has a "minder".

Mass Surrenders and desertions (4000 in 7 days is a lot considering the lack of engagement!).

The US Media ALWAYS attacks the strategy - do you not recall the EXACT same type of reporting before and during the Afghan Conflict??