[A Simple Soldier]

We should rememeber a few points:

1) Protected places (hospitals, places of worship, etc) lose that status if one side places combatants and weapons in them. As soon as you put a machine gun position in a mosque, that mosque is now eligible to be attacked. So the Iraqis are actually violating the laws of land warfare.

Now while that is the law of land warfare, in the battle for public opinion in an insta-media world, it is still a a questionable tactic for us to do so. Sad, but true.

2) The USMC did not succeed in Hue City in Tet '68 until virtually all restrictions on fires were lifted. This took awhiile to happen though. When we started using tac-air, artillery and mortars with virtual impunity, the NVA pretty much collapsed.

[Mister Baredog]

Dick Morris is a former consultant to President Clinton,

I have tracked this guys insights for so long that I've learned if he predicts it you can pretty much bet that he's wrong. He loves to predict things but his batting average isn't that good. He is a pretty good pollster.

[Yankee]

More blather from the approprately named "DICK".

[Cicero]

On the whole, he is probably right, although maybe we should wait and see if there is a sensible plan for taking Baghdad.

There was an article posted here yesterday which quoted Clausewitz, to the effect that it's a false mercy to hold back in war, because it only results in delay and in the long run more suffering and mor casualties.

If we hit them hard from the beginning it may be kinder than the sort of stupid gradual escalation that Lyndon Johnson attempted in Vietnam, which caused widespread suffering among the population and failed in the end to achieve its purpose--if indeed LBJ had any purpose.

[rface]

But the political premise, that Americans will rebel against the war if we end up killing civilians, is not true.

I view this as a true statement - we have to win this one the-sooner-the-better