Various links. (I don't know whether to get into another spate of war-related links or not. I liked being away from net over the weekend. But some stories just wanna be told)
New Yorker: Seymour Hersh on the battle between Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.
On at least six occasions, the [Pentagon senior] planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his deputies were presented with operational plans, ...he insisted that the number of ground troops be sharply reduced. Rumsfeld’s faith in precision bombing and his insistence on streamlined military operations has had profound consequences for the ability of the armed forces to fight effectively overseas.
Definitely not an "everything's going well" treatment. That, combined with this story quoting three senior admin officials on Bush being sheilded from nay-sayers and dire forecasts, does not inspire confidence. [via Talking Points Memo]
On the other hand, the "They'll welcome us with open arms" thinking hasn't taken into account the "They'll kill us if we protest, while the Ba'ath are still in power" perspective, as told in this ArabNews article and this story by a human shield who changed his mind after talking with Iraqis.
Stars & Stripes: US Won't Fight Dirty, Air Force JAG says. JAG is Judge Advocate General, or the legal person. US to stick to internationally accepted laws of combat.
International Herald Tribune: US Casualties trickle in, but is this the calm before the storm? Another in my Medicine and War news finds.
OC Register: Battlefield Treatment Goes Higher-Tech. "Battlefield medicine has the same basic objectives as civilian care: stabilize the injured, then quickly transport them to hospitals. In the field, matters are complicated by bullets and artillery shells."
Recent Comments