Do you suppose our intelligence knows where Saddam is at all times, down to the bunker? If not, is there a possibility that we could bomb the hell out of Iraq and STILL not get him? And if so, would that make the U.S. look worse in the end? After all, with bin Laden, the idea is that bin Laden is not the raison d'etre for the WOT, but with Saddam, Bush has made it plain that HE is the target. So if we fail to get Saddam, we fail, period, right?
Based on that, I would suspect that our tacticians are pretty confident they can take him out when the time comes. Does anybody have a different take on it?
I would also point out that we as a country suck at finding one guy. All of the way back to Chief Joseph, Pancho Via, Jefferson Davis, Hitler, Adid, OBL and so one. Our methods and force structure are not set-up to kill one guy!
Going into Bagdad sounds all nice and easy because we kicked their butt's on the open plains. Study the battle for Kafji (sp?) and any Marine who was there will tell you it was a very close thing. We nearly got OUR butt's kicked. That battle lasted for over three days in a relatively small town. I personnally want nothing to do with urban warfare - unless I'm the entrenched force.
That's about 95% correct, I think. The other 5% is that Bush is committed to a regime change, not Saddam's corpse on display.
If we are able to topple his regime, and he's nowhere to be found, the mission would still be accomplished.