By March 29, it had become increasingly clear that the war would be anything but the “cakewalk” the Bush administration had promised. I posted this at 2 p.m. on Saturday, March 29:
Cakewalking for humble pie. The Washington Post scored the big scoop this morning: "Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war."The young Marine was of course correct. And sadly, it would all go rapidly downhill from here.
The piece leads with this stunner: "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." The article goes on to say that top ground commanders want a decent interval to restock supplies, rest the troops and beef up combat power (i.e., add more heavy armor) before taking on Saddam's fanatics in Baghdad.
Sounds like a prudent plan to me. Of course, this flies directly into face of what Team Bush wants: A short, decisive war. The Bushies rightly worry that time is not on their side. As the L.A. Times notes in an analysis piece today, the longer the political clock runs, the messier things are likely to get. The New York Times adds: "Few have openly split with the president, or the decisions made so far. But one does not have to scratch deep to hear the doubts." Prediction: In the end, Bush will bend and the generals will get their delay. A messier victory is far better than a potential military disaster.
The hand-wringing over why the war has not been a "cakewalk" continued today on TV and in the big Sunday dailies. But the best commentary thus far on Bush's dilemma comes from Jimmy Paiz [rank unknown], a tired Marine grunt putting it on the line everyday at the battlefront.
"They was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Paiz told ABC news this weekend. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, isn't it?"
No comments:
Post a Comment