[efnwriter]

I believe the "attack to gain negotiation" scenario is plausable for Saddam based on American history. It was the thousands of body bags returning from Vietnam that ended the political will to fight in Vietnam. The US never lost a major battle and could have escalated and easily wiped out North Vietnam, but, as Bernard Fall said:

To win, "the people and the military must emerge on the same side." [Bernard Fall Street Without Joy Stackpole 1961 p.375]

We already are hearing about polls in the US showing the American public's support for attacking Iraq waning based on expected casualties. I heard an interesting comment the other day, to paraphrase - There is no war fervor in the US. Instead, we as a nation are "discussing" the beginnings of a major middle-eastern war with the passion of the pros and cons of a domestic farm bill.

[VaBthang4]

"We already are hearing about polls in the US showing the American public's support for attacking Iraq waning based on expected casualties."

Give us a link to one showing support below 60% based on high casualties.

[VaBthang4]

"This article is way out in left field, which isn't surprising considering the author quotes Debka as a source. Iraq is not going to invade Jordan and Israel because they can't move mechanized infantry across the open desert with the US and Israeli air forces attacking them from the air. Their tanks would be turned into smoking wrecks just as in the first Gulf War. They might be able to pull off some kind of end run around US forces into Kuwait and harass the Kuwaitees for a few days until we kick them out again with air power. But this idea of Iraq conquering the Middle East is rediculous."

You seem awefully quiet on responses that directly show your article to be nonsense.

Can you address the points I and others have made?