U.S. Central Command Denies Any Battlefield Pause

Reuters ^ | March 29, 2003 | Staff

[AntiGuv]

AS SAYLIYA CAMP, Qatar (Reuters) - U.S. Central Command denied on Saturday that there had been any pause in military operations to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"I think that with respect to a pause, there is no pause on the battlefield. Just because you see a particular formation pause on the battlefield it does not mean there is a pause," Major General Victor Renuart told a news conference.

Earlier, U.S. military sources said commanders had ordered a pause of four to six days in their northward push toward Baghdad because of supply shortages and stiff Iraqi resistance.

[LarryM]

Note that he says no pause in military operations. He doesn't say anything about a pause in northward movement towards Baghdad.

[Types_with_Fist]

Is this a "non-denial denial"?

[Iwentsouth]

I think Rueters is just good in there propoganda.

There first release from supposed "military sources" was for the so called arab street.

[Semper Paratus]

Marine Gunny said to reporter, "Then I told my rifleman to go back for some more ammo in case we need it."

"Marines retreat under fire becasue of lack of ammunition".

[goldstategop]

I suspect we'll continue air strikes and special ops around the clock. There is no pause in combat operations as far as those areas are concerned. With the land portion in the Baghdad area its more a matter of waiting til the Republican Guard is softened up enough by air power for the U.S 3rd Infantry and Marines to take them on. Any delay will be relatively brief. A week seems like forever to the 24 hour a day media but what they see is only a slice of the big picture. The war goes on regardless of activity or the lack of it in a particular sector on the war front.

[chilepepper]

I think the "magic line" on WMD use is a bit closer to baghdad. what is the range i wonder of 155mm howitzers which are supposedly what the iraqis would to deliver the nasty stuff??

interesting is how the 101st got into the game so quickly, eh?

[goldstategop]

Rush I believe said on Friday's show to ignore whatever you hear from Reuters. They have an obvious agenda and it ain't necessarily an Allied victory.

[OpusatFR]

I noticed at the briefing this morning that the reporters asked questions that were in the same vein. All the questions dealt with inconsequential aspects of this campaign. One asked about a platoon only getting one MRE a day and some of the others concentrated on attacks on the supply lines. One even asked if Israel had supplied officers men materiel. It all points up to this: They have no understanding of exactly what a military campaign is. (Neither do I, but I am a fast learner.) The briefer tried to explain that there is not action in every theatre at every time but it is ongoing.

What he said is very understandable and clear. Even a military ignoramous like myself understood. Either the journalists are under the not-terribly-bright catagory and cannot extrapolate or visualize the overall picture, or they are so infused in agenda that their reporting should be summarily dismissed by everyone.

I guess that is why support for this campaign is very high and going higher. The agenda is transparent. No reporter could be that stupid could they?

[Polybius]

The war goes on regardless of activity or the lack of it in a particular sector on the war front.

Some journalist should make his way to the Medica Republican Guard Division and ask if they consider being under repeated air attack as a "pause in the war".

[Baklava]

Is anything wrong with a pause? It would seem to me that having our troops well rested and well supplied before they go into Baghdad is a good idea.

[Fireone]

You are correct! IMO, the media agenda should be treated as treason!
These Clintonistas should be embedded in Leavenworth, not with our troops in Iraq.
Again, U.S. OUT OF U.N., U.N. OUT OF U.S. (and media out of Iraq)!
p.s. What ever happened to "war correspondents" instead of "war interpreters"?