Quote:
|
Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD: Oh really. Just the other day the scorecard for one battle was 150-500 Iraqi's dead to zero American casualties, that's pretty decisive in my book. The only set back in this whole thing was Turkey. They held up the 4th Infantry Division from opening a northern front at the same time the 3ID and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force where advancing from the south. It's a minor set back because the 4ID are already enroute to kuwait and should be in Iraq sometime early next month. BTW/ the 4ID is the world's most advanced mechanized fighting unit and their delay is seen by some as a major set back. It's not. The Republican Guard have proven to be little match for what the US/UK have on the ground already. |
Senior US generals appear to be disagreeing with you. As posted in a seperate thread:
By Rick Atkinson and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, March 30, 2003; Page A01
Ten days into the invasion of Iraq, the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign is increasingly at odds with the military necessity of preparing for a protracted, more violent and costly war, according to senior military officials.
Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.
This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussei