[merrin]

Perhaps it turned out that those people (e.g., Ralph Peters) who thought they needed more troops for relief and protection of supply lines were right.

It's unfortunate that this looks bad politically (remember, one purpose of this war was to scare the hell out of our other enemies, which we are not doing), but at least we have a military leadership which can change the plan when it isn't working as well as desired.

Alternatively, it may be a brilliant disinformation operation. I generally don't go in for the "it's all a cunning plan!" theories, but there are just some things about this which make me wonder.

[Dolphy]

It's unfortunate that this looks bad politically (remember, one purpose of this war was to scare the hell out of our other enemies, which we are not doing), but at least we have a military leadership which can change the plan when it isn't working as well as desired.

Alternatively, it may be a brilliant disinformation operation. I generally don't go in for the "it's all a cunning plan!" theories, but there are just some things about this which make me wonder.

I am not buying this, the pause might make sense, but I just don't see Rumsfeld spinning in that way given the last few days. I'll go with a cunning plan, or the real reason for the pause isn't being revealed.

[this_ol_patriot]

Sky News is still working on the announcement part of this, not that they are taking a pause but why they ANNOUNCED it. That is the key. This will actually stir the Arabs up more they say.

[Tree of Liberty]

remember, one purpose of this war was to scare the hell out of our other enemies, which we are not doing

That's an interesting view of warfare. I'd always seen its purpose as to kill the enemy and break their property. Making someone scared doesn't win a war. Obliterating them, and making the survivors succumb to your will does.

[WI Conservative 4 Bush]

I tend to agree with your post. The administration may slip a little in the PR war. But, let's not forget, this is an ACTUAL war. I hate to say it, because it sounds made up, but I was actually thinking today, "What's the rush?" In the past few days, we've been able to take out portions of the RG simply by staying in place. I'm also not convinced that the enemy has all it's marbles upstairs when it comes to a protracted war plan.

Remember, everyone concedes that the key to this whole conflict will come down to the Battle for Baghdad. Does it make sense to bet all our chips presently, on the heels of making an historic push into this country, at the same time meeting sporadic resistance? I agree with the administration that it might be appropriate to soften them up a little more, make some Iraqi fence-sitters sweat it out a bit, and re-juice our guys/gals.

Decisive victories carry some significance, I understand. However, based on the intensity of the past week, I'm not sure I'm ready, from a battle perspective, for the risks of simply marching straight on in. We as a country made a decision from the beginning to try to liberate these people. In a sense, we're trying to protect them, so that they can experience the freedom that will come with victory.

I've not ruled out the ruse theory, either...

GOD Bless America!