This seems to suggest a different story from what the administration keeps telling us...

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1

I don't know if the New Yorker is considered un-bias. Maybe if we weren't just 10 days into this thing I'd believe some of this stuff.

I believe it.

It's obvious that the Power Doctrine isn't being followed in this war. The differences between deployments now and those of the first Gulf War are staggering.
Especially when you consider that the aim of the first war was to liberate a significantly smaller country, and that Kuwait only had 3 international borders to worry about, Saudi Arabia (allies), Iraq (foes) and whichever border lies halfway across the Gulf.
This time around, along with the smaller force, you have to consider potential foes such as Iran and Syria. Syria has today aligned itself with the Iraqi regime. Iran has stated that it is neutral. But if both countries decided to go onto the offensive, then you could bet that Turkey would also make a land grab. Then Jordan and Saudi positions could possibly cave too. Not a pretty proposition.

Now somehow I doubt that the planners within the military are too fond of a relatively small force being in such a precarious position. I can't believe that this is their preferred approach. However good guided munitions are against fixed or armored targets, they aren't that useful against hordes of fanatics using guerilla style tactics.

That all being said, so far I think that Rummy's gamble is paying off. I think that the progress that has been made is fairly remarkable. All the negativity about progress has come about from public naivity bolstered by Media Mediocrity.
WWI lasted 4 years. WWII lasted 6 years. Vietnam and Korea weren't exactly week-long wars either. War is bloody. People die in them. Typically it goes on for as long as people are prepared to die for their cause, or until all such people are dead. Who would be naive enough to believe that all the fervant long-term supporters of Saddam would change their minds in a week? Or that (regardless of the military dominance) coalition forces could hunt down and kill all of them within a week? Come on.
The media can't deal with that. The big news channels would like the war to be fast and furious. Compelling to watch, with never a dull moment. Preferably broken up into ten minute long chunks, "This segment of The War brought to you by 'SuperSUV - offroading ability to tackle the most demanding of deserts.'" Just how much airtime have CNN, Fox News and the like allocated to *non* war- or terrorism- related news in the past week? 10%?

Read through the bias, and compare what's left with stuff from other sources -- a lot of what's in the New Yorker article seems to be backed up by other media reports. For example, supply lines *are* stretched thin -- how often does the US military have to ration meals to one a day by the end of the first week of a war?

Seymour Hersh is an axe-grinding, anti-administration, muckracker.

God bless him.

From My Lai to the present day, I would say that his track record is pretty good -- 80 percent or better (I haven't read all of his stuff, but I have read a lot of it). I doubt he makes a lot of friends, and there were some muckracking bits that seemed to hang by thin threads or which turned out not quite right (Gen McAffrey's alleged massacre during the '91 Gulf War as a case of the former and the Kennedy-Marilyn letters in his Kennedy book as an embarassing example of the latter), but I think Hersh is driven to get the dirt. I like him.

There isn't really anything about the referenced Hersh New Yorker piece that seems that shocking. Like Rumsfeld *doesn't* think he knows better than every-f*cking-body else? And much of what he is saying has been sourced and echoed elsewhere.

New Yorker never seemed like much of a political mag to me. Has it gotten more political or am I just noticing political content more?

Having an opinion of your own does not mean being biased.

In the last two days I found many signs (in various sources) that fingerpointing has started, Rumsfeld seeming to be the target of choice (he is a bit of an outsider in Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle etc clique). I am not gloating: prolonged war with lots of urban fighting (and anything resembling popular support for SH) would have even more catastrophic consequences than envisioned three-day cakewalk (and not only obvious immediate cost in life on both sides). Cakewalk was envisioned: Wolfowitz stated only several months ago that 40000 troops should be enough, and remember how stock exchanges fell on Monday, after three or so days and first US casualties.

If I were religious, I would say 'God help us all'...

If I were religious, I would say 'God help us all'...

Ditto...

I saw a piece on ABC News coverage the other night of how the network news is covering the war and how they fill time. Like the split screen style of some retired General on the left and a "live" view of something not even remotely related to what the person on the left is saying. And they gave a rundown of which network has what Generals as their "experts." It was quite amusing as it poked fun at the media, Andy Rooney would've done a better piece, I think... A light hearted poke at themselves was a bit refreshing, though.

. I am not gloating: prolonged war with lots of urban fighting (and anything resembling popular support for SH) would have even more catastrophic consequences than envisioned three-day cakewalk (and not only obvious immediate cost in life on both sides).

I heard a journalist/expert tonight say "that if you were to go by Hersh's piece (in the New Yorker) you would think that we had lost the war". I went back and re-read it. I didn't get that impression, but I can see how somebody might.

I'm with you. I couldn't gloat at any difficulties. By the same token, I still see a fair amount of uncertainty ahead. Over soon? Who knows?

I read with interest this report in Forbes (left wing magazine!) which only reinforced my cynical suspicions about the administration's shifting justifications for the invasion. No WMD?.... Oh, Oh, .....Liber-A-tion!

Don't get me wrong. I still leave open the possibility that our former buddy Saddam (hey, Saddam, YOU SUCK!) could unlease a poison gas attack so as to go down in flames. I just never trusted the reason-du-jour of Bush/Cheney.

Hersh cites a former CIA dude Robert Baer in his article. Baer has his own piece in the latest Atlantic Monthly entitled The Fall of the House of Saud . Very interesting. Depressing. Our stalwart allies....ummmm....corrupt, decadent, hypocritical playboys with whom the Cheneys and Condoleeza Rices seem to have formed an inseperable (deadly?) economic embrace.