Chew on this for a moment.
Let's assume, ignoring the lack of evidence for this point, that Saddam Hussein IS alive. He's hunkered down in some bunker or military complex that's off our radar.
With me so far?
Now, just as our President, he's not going to be looking over military schematics and footage from the front - He's going to rely on his military commanders and advisors to present him with an accurate depiction of the war, and then he'll issue broad directives from there to steer the military commanders in their campaigns.
Now, we're talking about Saddam Hussein. Do you think there is a SINGLE member of his administration who's willing to tell him they're getting their asses handed to them?
Of course not. Saddam wouldn't hestitate to shoot the messenger.
This fact echoes down the ranks - His advisors and commanders are not going to want to tell him the truth, and they're also going to be pissed at the messenger when they get informed. So whomever tells them will likely also embellish or distort, or, perhaps, totally ignore the truth.
This ripples down the command chain, and the end result is simple - As the chain of command in his organization gets higher, they are relying on less and less reliable, or possibly totally false, information. And whoever is at the top, whether it be Saddam Hussein, one of his sons, or whomever is next in line for command, whoever is up there, is going to be hearing NOTHING but good news - Despite the contrary.
It won't become clear to everyone until we're within a 9mm bullet's arc from Baghdad - Only then will it be clearly visible to everyone who is REALLY winning the war.
Anyone else think this sounds totally plausible?
Let's assume, ignoring the lack of evidence for this point, that Saddam Hussein IS alive. He's hunkered down in some bunker or military complex that's off our radar.
With me so far?
Now, just as our President, he's not going to be looking over military schematics and footage from the front - He's going to rely on his military commanders and advisors to present him with an accurate depiction of the war, and then he'll issue broad directives from there to steer the military commanders in their campaigns.
Now, we're talking about Saddam Hussein. Do you think there is a SINGLE member of his administration who's willing to tell him they're getting their asses handed to them?
Of course not. Saddam wouldn't hestitate to shoot the messenger.
This fact echoes down the ranks - His advisors and commanders are not going to want to tell him the truth, and they're also going to be pissed at the messenger when they get informed. So whomever tells them will likely also embellish or distort, or, perhaps, totally ignore the truth.
This ripples down the command chain, and the end result is simple - As the chain of command in his organization gets higher, they are relying on less and less reliable, or possibly totally false, information. And whoever is at the top, whether it be Saddam Hussein, one of his sons, or whomever is next in line for command, whoever is up there, is going to be hearing NOTHING but good news - Despite the contrary.
It won't become clear to everyone until we're within a 9mm bullet's arc from Baghdad - Only then will it be clearly visible to everyone who is REALLY winning the war.
Anyone else think this sounds totally plausible?