Some key statements for "him who has ears, let him hear":
1) THE PLAN from the get go was a "flow" of forces introduced onto the battlefield, and at any given point Franks could say STOP. He instructed the press, and some Freepers, to look at the deployment orders---that they were ALL many months ago. None were drawn up recently.
2) Franks not only "signed off" on the plan, but designed it. He all but said it was nonsense that Rumsfeld overrode anything. He said that he and several others, NONE OF WHOM IS TALKING, know and designed the plan, and it is working. He implied it is working to near perfection.
3) There is no sign of insufficient supply. He distinguished between "Pvt. Franks" who is in the extreme edges of combat who may not have gotten his MRE today, and the supply line as a whole which is effectively functioning and is delivering to pre-ordained points in a timely fashion. The former is a general feature of combat, he implied, not a "problem."
4) This is the one that the press, I guarantee you, totally missed. Responding to a question about the 4th ID, Franks all but said they were never intended to go through Turkey to BEGIN WITH. Those people were right where we wanted them right until the moment we moved them for a very specific reason. Get it? He fixed Saddam's tank battalions in the north while we shot in the south, and secured the oil fields. NOW THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THE IRAQI FORCES HAVE BEEN REDEPLOYED TO THE SOUTH (too late). Hmmm. What does that tell you about our next move?
5) He keeps trying to get these people to understand the plan. The plan is a "mosaic." It involves "options" or "branches" in which ANY of three main attack sources can operate individually against targets of opportunity or in unison---special ops, air, or ground. They "jumped off" when they did because they saw that Saddam had not achieved the ability to destroy the southern oil fields. But apparently there were contingent plans to start with air, or to start with special forces.
6) At any point, he indicated you will see one of the three, two of the three, or all three operating. That does not mean there is a "pause." It means that the plan calls for this to happen in a fluid strategy.
FOLKS, HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE OPAQUE: THIS IS THE MILITARY EQUIVALENT OF THE "WEST COAST" PASSING OFFENSE. YOU GO TO THE LINE, READ THE DEFENSE, AND IMMEIDATELY ATTACK THE WEAKEST POINT UNTIL THE ENEMY ADJUSTS, THEN YOU AUDIBLE INTO THE NEXT "BRANCH" AND KEEP HITTING 'EM WHERE THEY AINT!"
7) There are continued references to allies working with free Iraqis, not only in Basra, but in other cities on a regular basis as part of the operations. I think this is, in large part, how we intend to take Baghdad. One general said last night we expect it to fall from within. Our "special ops termites" will do a great deal of digging first, but Franks seemed totally confident that we would be successful.
8) He referred to the terror base in the north as "massive." Stupid reporter asked why we haven't seen the chem/bio weapons there. He said, "let's see what we find after we get it investigated."
Finally, there is a White House that is scrounging for evidence that it warned the nation all along that this could be a long slog, even in the face of predictions by Vice President Dick Cheney and others that, in all likelihood, the war would be quick and that "the streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy."
Cheney may yet prove to be right, the White House says, but 11 days into the war there is a feeling that the enthusiasm of the hawks got out of control.
The only people who feel this war is taking too long are those who don't know s##t about military history, or those who have an extreme anti-Bush bias.
This article, without sources for most of its conclusions, represents a futile attempt by the left to find something, anything bad going on for our side, and therefore good for their side. Complete Alice in Wonderland distortion of reality.