Hi Buck,

Bush signs off on the plan. Rumsfeld didn't make the plan, but had input. The plan is crafted by General Tommy Franks and his staff.

Many didn't like it. Many thought Baghdad could be taken by about 10,000 commando style SOTA special forces.

I would much rather have liked to see such a scenario occur - even though it had risks. However when you capture the top people in the know you can use their info to lead you to Saddam - not all want to be martyrs. Had such an operation been approved - and it had been planned - and carried out six months ago, regime change could have been accomplished by now.

You risk a lot of special forces lives and you could probably expect about 1000 casualties in such an operation. But the powers that be and the joint chiefs HATE limited stuff like that. Yes, this stuff COSTS more requires a permanent military and lots of taxpayer dollars. That is why we went with "shock and awe."

US casualties are not being incurred because of a failed plan - but rather due to the nature of the plan.

When you wage a surgical war and take precautions to save Iraqi lives - you endanger your own troops MUCH more than if decisive, overwhelming force is applied.

"Shock and Awe" by its very nature was meant to preserve lives and inspire capitulation among troops and civilians alike.

When folks can go on about there business and not be terrified that THEY are the next targets that their lives are in dire jeopardy - it's pretty hard to get that capitulation.

Shock and Awe is going exactly according to plan - but that type of plan has far more US casualties than does a plan which sets half of Baghdad on fire and creates mass hysteria, fear and the desired insurrection of Saddam's forces and capitulation.

Imperialists of lore would spin in their graves at the "shock and awe" approach.

Since it is now being realized that folks are NOT scared and terrified enough to overthrow their tyrant leader, watch for more indiscriminate bombing of Baghdad over the next week.

Heck Prince Valiant knew how better to make a city like Baghdad capitulate. You would surround a city, set fire to it and let the hysteria and havoc weaken the will of the populace in short order. You let the flames do the work while you wait.

When the army is distracted and fighting off flames - you then make your strike.

Yes an approach like that will win the war in a week - or less. We have the power to make such a reality, but at what cost? Probably about 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

It may be cheap at the price if urban combat eventually creates roughly the same outcome only breaking it down to 10,000 US lives and 90,000 Iraqis.

Insurrection requires fear that exceeds there fear of imminent death by betraying Saddam.

That's a hard order to fill - but a raging Baghdad inferno with thousands in flight to safety could probably do it.

Yes, war is hell.

I still blame France and Germany for insuring Saddam felt secure. They KNEW this would happen - they knew the US would go in alone - and they absolutely didn't care. They all have been selling high-priced banned weapons to him like he was their favorite "stupid & rich" customer. All this could have been avoided if we didn't have self-serving weasel governments as "Allies" and had put up a unified front to Saddam.

Yes Saddam is our enemy - but the governments of France, Germany and Russia are NOT our friends.

SDAI-Tech1