O.K. I'll agree. If we have to kill one half as many people in this Iraq war as we killed in the last one, then it won't be a great campaign. Likewise, if it takes half as long to win it, or 20% of the property destruction it took in the last war, then it won't be a great war campaign. Heck if it takes us 72 hours to do it, it won't be a great campaign. But I think we are going to do it in about 24 hours, leaving most of the Iraq army and infrastructure in place still ready to put up a minimal military defense, with very few deaths on either side. If we do that, then it will make it a great military campaign.
On the otherhand, I did not want to take away from the excellent article posted here. I'm sure when all the dust settles, one will be able to find that similar distortions of truth and out right lies, used against the Serbs, were also used against Iraq.
But, But! If the US leaves the Iraqi military infrastructure intact and immobilizes the Republican Guard, etc... and we do it with minimal civie casualties in 72 hrs, then I will say it was a great campaign. I would give about a year or so for the propoganda dust to settle and clear before evaluating the divide/conquer strategy to start emerging.