Hmmm... I am yet to understand the possible tactical nature of a military campaign against Iraq.
Modern warfare methods (missiles/smart bombs) dictate initial aerial strikes (protect your ground forces) to cripple/destroy enemy infrastructure ... e.g. ability to see/power grids/bridges etc ...
Saddam lost 3500 military vehicles in the 1991 war (including 1500 tanks) and his air-power is virtually non-existent.
Remember also that Saddam only effectively controls about 1/3 of Iraq in real terms due to UN 'no fly zones' north and south which are controlled US airspace patrolled constantly from the air and monitored by satellite. Skirmishes are frequent.
The question still remains as to just 'what' the US is going to hit to bring capitulation by Saddam as all infrastructure will be needed by a post-war military governor.
The US war talk on the street is predicting a sweet and swift stage show for the media ... I don't think so for the above reasons.
So much as one stray munition will see CNN (et al) at the scene within minutes along with the bleading-heart media spin desperate for every sensationalising opportunity.
Imagine a ground war in Sydney/Melbourne with an AK-47 in half the homes ... whilst this might seem an exaggeration, the world sees a similiar scenario. We can also understand the military for not showing it's hand ... taking on a densely populated area is a totally different scenario to a desert campaign miles from anywhere such as in 1991 and from which the victor can simply vacate after the event.
Bush has used the word "Liberator's" only once publicly to describe the proposed US military action and there are vague mumblings about lifting UN economic sanctions in a post Saddam era along with democratic 'this and that' ...
I can only see a complete shambles looming ... hope I am wrong.
