[jlogajan]

Actually this was what bothered me more: "It is reported that ground and air troops are to go to war at the same time"

Another factor to get ground troops moving right at the beginning is to allow them to disperse and limit pre-emptive or retalitory WMD attacks. They are all bunched up on the borders -- it would be wise to thin them out a bit and have them on the move -- much harder targets to hit.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Oh, I agree, and for other strategic reasons, also, given the type of threat. But if this is a leak, there is still risk in telegraphing parts of our strategy.

But it could also be disinfo.

[WOSG]

bringing in troops on the ground from the get go is a FINE idea, that is the essense of combined arms assault.

It will shorten the war and save lives. The troops on the ground can bag the surrendering Iraqi forces, our armor can readily smash any opposition, the apaches can go in

Our ground forces will also secure the oil fields and
capture secondary cities prior to baghdad.

IMHO air-only would be a big mistake, as it would leave our own ground forces vulnerable to WMD attack and leave saddam open to hiding forces in civilian areas and blowing up oil wells. The more ground we capture the less we have to bomb.
Troops on the move on the ground can stop those activities and thus save lives.


IMHO, we could be within baghdad's perimeter in 3 days, and another week could finish the job and topple saddam. that is the hope anyway.