Dubya is dealing with two motivations here; "responsibility" and a "noble cause". The problem is that he is letting the lesser interfere with the greater.
Before going any further, I should state that I think that Dubya has done 1000% better than would have algore or dashole and 10,000% better than bil or hillary. But then,I thing that most people realize that he wouldn't have to do much to achieve that record. On the other hand, his plan leaves a lot to be desired.
Noble Cause
It is a noble cause to try to limit collateral damage and avoid casualties to Iraqi civilians. It's something that I would applaud Dubya for, if he were to do it within the bounds of his responsibility.
Responsibility
It is one of the President's primary responsibilities, as Commander in Chief, to protect American citizens. That's why we are in Iraq in the first place and I do applaud him for that. If we don't take Sadam out, he will most certainly supply WMD's to terrorists, who will use them against American citizens (and others), so Dubya is fulfilling his responsibility to American citizens by attacking Iraq. But where he fails in in the way that he is proceeding.
It is not Dubya's responsibility to protect Iraqi civilians. It is a noble cause. But, the President's responsibility lies elsewhere. As long as he can achieve his noble cause without increasing the risk to American citizens, then that is a good thing. But, when he allows his noble cause to increase the risk to American citizens, he is abrogating his responsibility as Commander in Chief. This is the problem.
Soldiers Are American Citizens, Too.
In the first 24 hours of "Shock and Awe" we dropped three times as many bombs as were dropped in all of Desert Storm. Furthermore, most of the bombs dropped in Desert storm were dumb ordinance, where everything that was dropped in that first day of "Shock and Awe" was smart ordinance. Yet, with all of that smart ordinance, why is it that we were unable to destroy even half as much as those dumb bombs destroyed in Desert Storm? After that much precision ordinance was delivered, why is so much of the Iraqi command and control still functioning? Why are there any anti-aircraft and missile batteries still functioning in Iraq? It's because Gen. Franks is having to live with a political (not military) decision from Dubya, where Dubya places his noble cause above his responsibility, which places our troops (US citizens) at unnecessary additional risk.
I'm not saying that we should not be trying to limit collateral damage. We should be trying to limit collateral damage. But, when trying to limit collateral damage, costs the life of even one soldier, then we have gone too far. Those soldiers are over there fighting for you and me. I think that it's safe to say that almost every one of them is prepared to give his or her life to defend American civilians, if need be. But, I doubt that any of them is willing to die because we failed to take out a real military target, for no better reason than to save the lives of a few Iraqi civilians.
With our new ordinance, we can adjust the load and target so well, that we could take out an anti-aircraft or missiles battery located on the northwest corner of the roof of a hospital or school, without hurting anyone who was not on the top floor of that building and in that corner. That's limiting collateral damage. Sure, 10 or 12 Iraqi civilians might be killed in such an attack. But, such a battery is a valid military target, that needs to be taken out, to protect our pilots - pilots, who Dubya should be more concerned with protecting, than protecting Iraqi civilians.
FACT: Even if we were to be able to prosecute this whole war without a single Iraqi civilian casualty, those in the Arab world who hate us today, would still hate us at the end of the war. Nothing we do can change that.
The only reason for trying to limit Iraqi civilian casualties is because it's a noble cause, not because the Arab world will view us differently. But, such a noble cause should not be at the expense of the life of even one of our brave fighting men and women. More importantly, it is the President's responsibility to do whatever he can to protect those fighting men and women, whenever possible, even at the expense of some limited collateral damage and Iraqi civilian casualties.
It seems that Dubya is more interested in looking good, by achieving the noble cause of limiting Iraqi civilian casualties, than in fulfilling his sworn responsibility, by providing directives to his generals, that will most limit American soldier casualties.
I'm proud of Dubya for standing up to the UN and going into Iraq in the first place. But, I am appalled that he would have our military avoid certain valid targets, thus increasing the risk to our soldiers, for no better reason than to save a few Iraqi civilians. Dubya is placing his noble cause above his sworn responsibility and that's wrong and it is costing the lives of brave American soldiers.
It's time to take the gloves off.
The noble cause is for intenational consumption, not ours.
He is indeed protecting the american people, but he also has an international audience to preach to.
He is attempting to be isolationist without causing too many international rifts.
I say, Damn good job!