U.S. Land Advance Could Pause for Weeks - Military

Reuters | March 30, 2003

[HAL9000]

CENTRAL IRAQ (Reuters) - Some U.S. troops said on Sunday they had been told a pause in land advances toward Baghdad could last several weeks. They said they were digging trenches, laying mines around camps and camouflaging vehicles, but that the aerial and artillery bombardment on Iraqi positions in and around Baghdad would continue unabated.

"It looks like they are going to be in this position for at least two weeks, the sergeant says," said a Reuters reporter with U.S. forces in central Iraq.

"They're going to send in the aircraft to do the work before the grunts (foot soldiers) go in. It's going to be more air strikes, at least for a couple of weeks probably."

Another Reuters reporter was told that the pause could last as much as 35 to 40 days.

[Malsua]

Quagmire Alert!

In reality, the forces will pause likely until the 4th ID is boots on the ground and rolls up to Baghdad.

Bringing in additional forces to crush Baghdad isn't a bad thing.

[Squantos]

Reuters is pretty much full of sh*t. Talking heads have repeatedly asked their embedded presstitutes about the stand down or "pause" and it ain't happening based on their first hand observations ......

Stay Safe Hal !

[ambrose]

U.S. Land Advance Could Pause for Weeks - Military

This story is based on something said by an unnamed sergeant. This is what passes for journalism at Reuters...

[Jen]

I knew this had to be from Reuters before reading it. Sheesh.

Reuters - Useful idiots or just idiots? You decide.

[Iwentsouth]

Another arab propoganda piece by Rueters.

We will go in when ready.

[Young Rhino]

Newsflash: Reuters could actually write a pro-U.S. piece...but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

[hoyaloya]

Although the "skeptical" media will bemoan this "setback," I for one would be perfectly satisfied if this were the case. Why advance when we can bomb any defenses into nothingness at a distance?

I suppose there are political ramifications, the potential for chemical or more suicide/terror attacks, but I think those risks are outweighed by the benefits of pulverizing their troops around Baghdad. This has been an extremely successful campaign thus far - why not turn the battle of Baghdad into something akin to the battle for Kuwait?

[xm177e2]

A pause is not the same as a quagmire. If we take the time to consolidate what we've got in the South, that would be a GOOD thing, rather than continuing this foolish rush to Baghdad. Let's keep reaming it from the air, and liberate some villages in the South (with is what we came to do... liberate villages, right?) Iraqis need to know we will stay with them, and guard them from the Fedayeen.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... This story is based on something said by an unnamed sergeant. This is what passes for journalism at Reuters..."

No kidding.

[Malsua]

A pause is not the same as a quagmire.

Heh, yes. I say "quagmire alert" in reference to anything in which the NYT will spin as a defeat for the troops, but in reality is a non-event.

[TheLooseThread]

Reuters = crap.

But this article can be used to illustrate a point. NOBODY knows the military plan (except the planners). The military moves in and everyone says "oh no! aren't you supposed to do strategic bombing for a month first to soften up the targets! oh no! our military doesn't know what they're doing!"

So... for all we know the plan was to make a rapid 1 week movement into iraq to secure the airbases in the south and west. Then spend the month doing the softening up. If that had been the plan then it is a pretty darn good one. Air bases only 200 miles from the lines allow rapid cycle times for air support. Otherwise the cycle time is slow because of the distance the air has to travel. Our buddies the saudis and turks haven't helped. A plane that takes half as long to get to target and back is like having twice as many planes.

The point is that unless you know the plan you can't evaluate how things are going in relation to the plan. duh. All you CAN do is objectively evaluate results to date. So far? Amazingly low coalition casualties (of course 1 is tragic and not worth all in iraq) and massive enemy casulties.

How can any non-moron say that either things are going bad or that the plan is not working?

[Russell Scott]

Why does Yahoo use Roto-Reuters as their news service?

[Ruth A.]

I think it is called a seige, not a pause. After the hard press and sandstorms, our troops deserve some rest.

[BurbankKarl]

Fox is talking about it now.....but, remember....

"40 days and 40 nights"

(and 40 virgins)

[mc10]

Thank you dear God!

[Spruce]

[peeve23]

This is not difficult....certainly not rocket science:

1. They rushed to CUT OFF Baghdad. They rushed to cut off Basra. There is nothing going in and nothing coming out that we are not in control of. This is an ages old tactic, and it blows my mind that this can't be seen.

2. Once the knights would surround the castle they would bring up the seige equipment, the catapults, and the battering rams. Now the troops await the word that a breach has been made by the fire support elements: precision munitions, artillery, clandestine ops, etc.

TO TIGHTEN THE SEIGE WHILE OUTSIDE THE BESEIGED CITY IS NOT EXACTLY HARD FOR ANYONE TO FIGURE OUT!! Why can't the media get it? You don't go rushing into their strength and get decimated.

It's not stalled, paused, stymied, stuck, quagmired...you name it.

It has accomplished it's initial objective of reaching the city. IT IS TIGHTENING THE NOOSE! CUTTING OFF RESUPPLY...CUTTING OFF HOPE!

[Terp]

Why does Yahoo use Roto-Reuters as their news service?

Heres the others they link to. AP, New York Times, USA Today, NPR, AFP [frog news service] and Oneworld.net.

Do you see any pattern here [grin]. They could rename them all the "Left Wing Weasle News Agencies".

Terp

[laz17]

For God's sake, I'm sick and tired of hearing of this "pause". Does anyone really think our advance would just keep going any further toward Baghdad before the RG divisions ahead of it were degraded sufficiently by air power? There IS no delay! The only "problem" that I can see is that our advance may have gotten to where it is faster and sooner than had been planned. Now they have to wait for the 4th ID to get there and for the RG to be bombed down to 50%. Big deal. Baghdad's not going anywhere. By the time the 4th ID is there the RG will be in a world of hurt, and then we'll move in on Baghdad.