The only real flaw I found was that the media is relying heavily on their "imbedded" mouthpieces (to be expected), and are calling in military retirees to fill in the blanks. These strategists are a nice touch, but they miss the fact that these are not frontline combateers in today's military. These are, and remain retirees. What they have to say is of value, don't get me wrong, but add the salt, please. They are comparing what's happening in the field with what used to happen. Things have changed.

On the other hand, things have also remained the same.

What is currently going on is a conventional armor drive to Baghdad. Expected. Surprisingly expected (for me) is that the media is continuing to harp on the fact that the supply line for the push is tenuous, with sections susceptible to enemy fire. Of course it is, and expectedly so. This is not an Atari game. The drive inland was swift, and runs immediately deep inside Iraq, and north of the previously targeted no-fly zones (AKA enemy territory). This will leave a long, thin line of support that requires constant security.

That the desired security was not present when the supply line was drawn by the armor push seems to be incomprehensible to most media reps I've been listening to (CBS, MSNBC, CNN). It seems the media fully expected a regiment to be stamped into position, complete with hot meals served up by their First Sergeant, foxholes pre-dug and individual PCs with email accounts to home. It doesn't happen that way. War takes time, and securing your back may often take longer than driving a tank (under fire, mind you) from Kuwait to downtown Baghdad.

I remain amazed at the few lost lives the Coalition Forces have suffered, as well as the marksmanship of our pilots and gunners -- AKA application of smart weapons technology and US military training.

Cheers,
Dan (cleaning house for the Middle East has always been a dirty, thankless job)