[Alas Babylon!]

I don't know about that. Siege warfare has been around a long time too. It is good strategy to isolate and cut off an enemy that cannot then attack you directly without losing that attack. I expect my generals to not waste their troop's lives with head-on clashes when, as Dubya said, "We will smoke them out of their holes and then kill them!"

Regardless of time-honored traditions, the American military does what's needed to win even if it's non-standard. Otherwise, the British would've won when we stood line-to-line with them. Hiding behind trees and rocks picking off the British (then the world's superpower) thin red line worked, despite the line-to-line tradition of that era's European warfare tactics.

[flamefront]

Right - seige warfare on Baghdad

The only thing to do is wait them out. this is certainly consistent with symbolizing how the the attack is one of liberation as opposed to occupation.

[plain talk]

Siege warfare has been around a long time too.

Yeah, but the sheeple were more patient back then. There was no CNN and real-time polls to worry about. While you are others are raising valid military points, you have to consider the political angle. W will have a hard time of this if it drags on and on and on ... He will have to do this rather quickly so economy has time to pick back up before 2004 election cycle.

[dvwjr]

Hardly. When Lexington and Concord happened, the farmers picked of the British troops from behind 'rocks and trees' as you put it... After the Continental Army was formed, the US troops learned to fight in the linear lines of the day, to use the bayonet and that is how we fought and won.


dvwjr