I think it might have been our intention to get "over-extended" and invite an organized counter offensive: So that it can be crushed.
Make the Republican Guard believe they got us trapped, let them think they are winning, hope that in an attempt to win a decisive battle that "could turn the tide of the war" that they will expose themselves in a major military maneuver...Then re-enact the Battle of the Bulge by "fighting your way out", but this time use Warthogs, Laser bombs, and MOABs to Destroy forever, Iraq's ability to make war against its neighbors.
In the meantime, target the Iraqi leadership, and hope that when enough Baath party loyalists are eliminated that somebody will take over who isn't dumb enough to use chem-bio weapons, (which they will not use by the way--so long as they think they are winning without them) and who will see the logic in a complete surrender and survival.
The key to the whole plan is destroying forever, Iraq's ability to make war against its neighbors.
Imagine an Iraq without any military at all...Its easy if you try.
An Iraq completely dependent on the United States for its self-defense. (And as such, peaceful just like Western Europe.)
Then sit back and wait for Iran et al to make the next move.
Scott
Current Events » in reply to One more point: The danger of a strategy that is flexible
I'm not sure it wasn't planned that way...
