At this point it comes down to the U.S. being able to knock out Saddam relatively quickly. With Saddam gone, U.S. goals - like a popular uprising, at least among the Shia (itself a possibly perilous situation), and Iraqi forces that will walk rather than fight - are more likely.

Lacking that, Saddam has a lot of strategic advantages: he's on home turf where he has proven notoriously difficult to find, much less eliminate; he rules by fear and doesn't have to worry about an electorate or the consequences of using draconian tactics; he has a 1-million strong army (vs. 300,000 coalition troops) that will fight, in some fashion, as long as they fear 100,000 utterly ruthless, 'elite' troops; and, 24 million Iraqis, who have been burned by the U.S. before, at a large and well-known cost, and are unlikely to quickly embrace American 'liberators' if Saddam is gone, and completely unlikely to do so as long as Saddam lives.

Many analysts question whether the U.S. force is large enough to take Baghdad. The long U.S. supply lines, and the failure to open a meaningful Northern front are also a vulnerability: the Iraqis can hit them at will, even with a low success rate, for a long time - a situation not unlike Viet Nam. Saddam doesn't care if it costs him 10, or even 100 to get one U.S. soldier. Baghdad is not going to be easy in any case, and will likely be impossible if Saddam has not been eliminated.

So, if the U.S. has an ace up its sleeve, the time is ripe to play it. Time is on Saddam's side, and he has clearly learned from Gulf War I and recent U.S. military operations, what to avoid. We won't even get into what happens if the U.S. *does* win quickly... that's not easy, either...
Comments 9:50:37 PM    

"Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost." Ritter is no stranger to controversy, and no fan of U.S. policies since he quit the U.N. team in 1998... quoted on a South African news site with a Lisbon dateline.
Comments 12:31:27 PM    

"Difference demands risk, even if that difference is defined as an adherence to tradition, such as is the case with the Times and the Journal. Most modern newspapers fear risk and therefore tread lightly around innovation.

"Referring to the advance of "technology (that) has empowered a lot of writers and reporters to be their own publishers, [Barry] Parr says, "The next revolution is still up for grabs."

"Indeed it is. Change occurs first on the margins. If newspapers don't break out of their huddle in the center, they won't get the opportunity to be a part of it." Weblogs are among the changes at the margin...
Comments 9:51:46 AM    

Chris Gulker's view from Silicon Valley - in words and pictures