We are currently experiencing a most remarkable example of all-out media manipulation. The war on Iraq has begun but because the political situation has not progressed quickly enough they're pretending that it hasn't happened.
Using terms like "preparation for a possible war" - I thought preparation was what you did before you start bombing (?) Then we have "aggressive shift in strategy" and "escalation of action". Of course, they have the ultimate term of distraction in "no-fly-zone". Something imposed on Iraq, if I am right, without specific basis in any UN resolution and covering about half of the country.
The US's own self-imposed terms of engagement for the "no-fly-zone" were very strict and limited to strikes on anti-aircraft batteries only after they had attempted to lock onto US aircraft. The press releases actually go as far as mentioning that the new targets include surface to surface missile and "other" sites - outside of their own rules of engagement.
This is actually a moot point. The the initial stealth take-out of missile batteries during the darkness of the new moon is the necessary first phase of any modern US war in this kind of geographical location. Everything on the military side of things is running according to schedule. The political side, it seems, is lagging behind. When that finally catches up and this "action" can be presented with a ring of "legitimacy"
I guess they can start calling it "war" as opposed to "preparation for war".
When it's announced as a "war", as in Gulf War 1, we receive a proud announcement of the number of sorties each night. Funny the way that detail is missing for "preparation for war". Expect further sorties tonight and tomorrow night during which time 101st Airborne and special forces will likely be dropped into many positions deep inside Iraq to prepare the advanced ground-war positions - being covert, that would never need to be reported anyway.
Remarkable how the public idea of a world event can be formed so easily just by the name given to it.
Using terms like "preparation for a possible war" - I thought preparation was what you did before you start bombing (?) Then we have "aggressive shift in strategy" and "escalation of action". Of course, they have the ultimate term of distraction in "no-fly-zone". Something imposed on Iraq, if I am right, without specific basis in any UN resolution and covering about half of the country.
The US's own self-imposed terms of engagement for the "no-fly-zone" were very strict and limited to strikes on anti-aircraft batteries only after they had attempted to lock onto US aircraft. The press releases actually go as far as mentioning that the new targets include surface to surface missile and "other" sites - outside of their own rules of engagement.
This is actually a moot point. The the initial stealth take-out of missile batteries during the darkness of the new moon is the necessary first phase of any modern US war in this kind of geographical location. Everything on the military side of things is running according to schedule. The political side, it seems, is lagging behind. When that finally catches up and this "action" can be presented with a ring of "legitimacy"
I guess they can start calling it "war" as opposed to "preparation for war".When it's announced as a "war", as in Gulf War 1, we receive a proud announcement of the number of sorties each night. Funny the way that detail is missing for "preparation for war". Expect further sorties tonight and tomorrow night during which time 101st Airborne and special forces will likely be dropped into many positions deep inside Iraq to prepare the advanced ground-war positions - being covert, that would never need to be reported anyway.
Remarkable how the public idea of a world event can be formed so easily just by the name given to it.
