Update from The Economist

I like the British newsmagazine The Economist because, since it resides outside of the American media, it can be regarded as a “disinterested” observer. This update from today “Into Baghdad” is a good overview, but I take issue with this statement:

Any serious fighting in Baghdad could have two consequences. Many more coalition soldiers—perhaps thousands—are likely to be killed. And, in spite of all the talk of liberation, thousands of Iraqi civilians could also die. The allies have shown that they can strike legitimate targets with precision. But taking on Iraqi forces dispersed around the city will involve individuals making quick decisions, and inevitably mistakes, about whom to shoot. [Emphasis added]

I’ve been the gloomy Gus of the office lately by guessing that the war in Iraq will extend into May, much to the derision of my co-workers. But c’mon Economist! Thousands are likely to be killed? There’s not a bit of evidence thus far to indicate this fate will befall coalition troops, unless Crazy Saddam launches chemical weapons. Even then, the allied troops have been well-trained to handle that contingency.

Things are moving fast now. The regime is off-balance, and control is clearly slipping away (n.b., for example, the call to Iraqi soldiers separated from their regular units to join up with whatever regiments they can find.) With victory so close, the American forces will take extra care from here-on-out to keep both military and civilian casualties to a minimum.