Posted on 03/31/2003 5:44:43 AM PST by xsysmgr
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
CAMP SAYLIYAH, Qatar -- Facing mounting skepticism about their strategy in Iraq, senior Pentagon officials launched the fiercest defense yet of their decision to send in limited ground forces, dismissing reports yesterday of discord between US political and military officials over how to prosecute the war.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Soldiers from the Third Infantry Division made a 10-mile advance toward Baghdad yesterday...
That's 633,600 inches.
"But the perception that the strategy is veering off course persisted." Liberal news organizations like the Boston Globe and traitorous reporters like Peter Arnet are doing all they can to reinforce that misperception. There hope is to undermine the moral of the American public and that manner snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, thus ensuring the defeat to their hated nemesis, President Bush.
"raising the specter of a prolonged siege rather than the swift attack once expected." The Boston Globe is expert at raising specters in the hopes of frightening the American Public.
Well Ken "cakewalk" Adelman didn't help did he?
As wars go, this one is a cakewalk.
It is certainly more of a cakewalk than the debacle predicted by the leftist anti-war press.
Are you under the impression that Adelman speaks for the Bush Administration?
Well...substitute the name Cheney for Adelman if you prefer. Please see Cheney's March 16, 2003 Meet the Press Interview. Plenty of cakewalk-like language there.
I read the transcript of that interview. Not a bit of cakewalk language in there. If you think there is cakewalk language in that interview, go ahead and post it.
Dick Cheney was his typical, prudent, thoughtful, cautious self when making his assessment of what MIGHT happen in the war. Lets see if we are or are not greeted as liberators after we destroy Saddam's agents of terror, i.e., the gangs of thugs and the Republican Guard.
Transcript snippet
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.
Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
What do you expect from the state that produced Ted Kennedy. That alone is enough to scare the living $#!t out of me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.