It seems that press conferences with the military commanders and DoD officials have become quite contentious of late. Reporters seem to have the impression that after only 8 days, this conflict in Iraq should be over and done with so that they can go onto their next "big story." Many blame the White House and the Department of Defense for ballying swift and immediate "video game" war results. To bolster their "disappointment" and (as they intimate with the wording of their questions) the supposed falling off of support among American citizens, they claim that the administration give them and the American people the impression that the war would be a "cakewalk," "over in a matter of a few days at most" with "Iraqi citizens meeting us in the streets, dancing and throwing flowers."

I did a little checking this morning as the television talking heads and the print pundits all wept and gnashed their teeth over our "horrible setbacks" in Iraq and pointed to what they claim in their self delusional and proclaimed knowledge of military tactics and misguided beliefs in their superior knowledge of the realities of prosecuting a war is proof that our Pentagon planners put together a flawed plan for the war.

Let's look at some real, hard, indisputable facts.. those damnedable, pesky little things I like to repy upon when making any determination. Here's what they said, who said it and when it was said according to the documented records:

"Military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and unusual measures. ... There is no easy or risk-free course of action."

President George W. Bush

speech in Cincinnati, Ohio

October 7, 2002

"It is not knowable how long that conflict (to disarm Saddam Hussein) would last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

to U.S. troops at Aviano, Italy

February 7, 2003

"On the brink of war with Iraq, Americans should be prepared for what we hope will be as precise and short a conflict as possible, but there are many unknowns. It could be a matter of some duration, we do not know."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

Daily Press Briefing for White House Press Corps

March 19, 2003

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

a few moments later...

"I think it will go relatively quickly.... Weeks rather than months."

(Editors Note: emphasis added)

Vice President Richard Cheney

NBC "Meet The Press"

March 16, 2003

We'll push as quickly as possible for an Iraqi interim authority to draw upon the talents of Iraq's people to rebuild their nation."

President George W. Bush

Iraqi crisis summit in the Azores

March 16, 2003

(Editor's Note: Please notice that every one of these comments came before we commenced this campaign and while we were still in the final planning stages for the planned conflict. These men all had access to that information, but not a single reporter or Congress person did.)

From everything I have heard, seen or read, any overly optimistic prognostications about a rapid-fire, bloodless (for our side), five or six day "cakewalk" originated from one man's intemperate remarks on July 11, 2002. Kenneth Adelman, then a former member of the Clinton Defense Policy Board - not a part of the Bush administration at all - used that term and indicated the entire operation should take "no more than days, less than six weeks

The remainder of the hype came from the same press pundits who now claim that we aren't meeting the predicted results they were told we could expect. There were no such promises except in the minds of those pundits who now use their own words to indicate facts that don't exist and whimper over results that were never foreseen or predicted by those with the responsibility for planning this war.

One current on-the-ground commander, Marine General William Wallace, has been repeatedly quoted as challenging the operations plan for the prosecution of this war by General Tommy Franks and his staff. Wallace now claims the remarks were made as part of an entire discussion and were not accurately portrayed by those who use those selected words to support their case. It really doesn't matter, however.

The United States military is a huge organization. The level of jealousy, envy, political game-playing, inter-service rivalries and chicanery in that organization is without an equal. I am certain that, if one digs hard enough, one can uncover thousands of lower level officers and enlisted men who hold contrary views about how to wage this war and even which MREs should be given to our men in the field. These complainers weren't asked to draw up the battle plans. They, for the most part, have only an extremely limited vision of the entire scope of the overall process. Franks' plan is creative and ambitious. It goes away from the rigid beliefs of many who are still fighting our last great war in World War II and refuse to acknowledge the changes in the world and warfare tactics and techniques that have occurred since then. The naysayers think inside the box and the box for their thinking could be nothing less than a coffin for American service men and women.

I have commanded men in combat and I admit readily that I get more than a bit antsy watching the 'round the clock television coverage of the events taking place over there. I have to force myself to remember that I don't have access to all the data the top commanders have at their disposal. I also have to remind myself that the opinions of conformist thinkers when confronted with something outside the scope of their concepts of warfare are usually wrong. Those who recoil in horror at reports fo American dead dont' understand our fightingmen and women. They knew the risks when they volunteered and most accept those rissks as a natural part of their profession.

Had we listened to such thinking as we have heard more and more of late, we would have never had the aircraft carrier fleet we now have nor the tanks and all the high-end technical wonders we use to limit the loss of American lives. We would still be using sailing ships and mounting horse-mounted calvary charges on neatly organized lines of enemies in predictably established battle formations. Unfortunately for those people, our enemies didn't, and don't, accept those lessons from history and adhere to the neat "War College" warfare upon which the complainers would like them to rely. We have to fight a battle our enemies wage in many new ways and always try to outguess what new and unconventional tactic they will apply next. Modern warfare is like a street fight. There is only one real rule in such set-tos... WIN!

If we had been forced to deal with the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC-TV, CBS-TV or NBC-TV in 1776, I wouldn't be drinking coffee as I type this. It would be a cup of tea brewed with properly British-tax-stamped tea and we would be wondering about the upcoming rugby and cricket seasons. Were we to have had such insanity driving our nation's perceptions in 1941-43, we would not have presided over the defeat of Naziism and Hirohito's plans of conquest. We would not be buying VWs and Toyotas as a matter of personal choice, but because they would be the only manufacturers permitted. You see, we didn't win a single battle of World War II in the Pacific during the first six months of that war and for nearly eighteen months before we even began to see meaningful vistories there. The best we could manage in Europe was to sit in English and upper African bases and plan for June 6, 1944, when we finally began our offensive campaigns. Had we allowed the New York Times, Washington Post and others to have their say over our war efforts then, Rommell's victories al El Alamein and on other sand-swept battlefields in the mideast would have had our people whimpering in defeat.

I would point out to all that the American military never lost a single battle in Viet Nam, though you could never have known that from the media at the time. The South Vietnamese Army was struggling, but were having some success with the Vietnamization of that war (1973-75) until our (at that time) Democrat-controlled Congress withdrew all funds for arms and ammunition they needed to carry on their fight to remain free. We did not see the fall of Saigon on April 15, 1975. That happened in late 1974 when our Congress passed a death sentence on millions of Vietnamese men, women and children, just as they did to the Shi'ites and Kurds of Iraq in late 1991 after Desert Storm. President George H. W. Bush urged those people to rise up and throw off the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. They did. We dint keep our word to support them. Why not? That's when our Congress and State Department pansywaists forced him to abandon those people to Hussein and his henchemen.

Those people are now a lot like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the annual "first kick" of the season. They won't "celebrate" our promises until we prove we will keep them this time. I don't blame them.

After all, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Gerrold Nadler, Chuck Schumer, Charles Rangel and their henchmen have already begun making public clucking noises similar to those we heard from their side of the political spectrum in 1991.

Were I an Iraqi Kurd or Shi'ite, I sure as heck wouldn't think it meant we were going to organize an Easter egg hunt for them.

Our nation cannot afford to back off, back down or back out on them or anyone EVER again. Should we do so because we don't have the intestinal fortitude to do what is right as we used to do as a matter of course, then there will be many more September 11^ths in our futures.