THERE IS NO POINT SPREAD IN WAR: SDB has a long article about the mistaken mentality that many reporters have regarding the war. He says that because the Iraqi army is causing "more damage than we expected" many reporters are acting as if they're winning. Additionally, the fact that US supply lines are being harassed by irregular forces means that we aren't living up to expectations, and so we're "losing". SDB points out that war is not a sporting event where one side can win just by "beating the spread". Even if Iraqi units aren't behaving the exact way we hoped, we're still prepared for reality and we're still decimating them.
On another note, in the same post he writes:
We hoped in this war it would be possible to cause wholesale surrender of major Iraqi units. That turned out to be less successful than some thought it might, although it may instead have encouraged wholesale desertion in many units, which would be less apparent to us now but no less significant militarily. It was worth a try, but the plan didn't require it. Since many of the remaining Iraqi units won't surrender or sit out the war, we're going to have to destroy them. That means that we're going to have to kill a lot of the men in those units, which means that all hope of a nearly-bloodless war are now gone. And it also means our units will be in combat, which means some of our people will die or be wounded.
I read somewhere a couple of weeks ago (maybe even on USS Clueless) that there is a school of thought that believes that the only way we can ultimately win and meet our international political goals is to actually inflict heavy casualties on the Iraqi army, and to completely break the will of the Iraqi people to fight. That's how we beat Germany and Japan in WW2, and the fact that we utterly broke their spirits was instrumental in allowing us to occupy their territory and rebuild their cultures from the ground up. Since we hope to accomplish similar objectives in Iraq, it may be reasonable to believe that we will need to break the Iraqi people as well.
Mass surrender would be nice from a humanitarian standpoint, but it is essential that when the war is over there is absolutely no question but that Iraq has been completely defeated. We must annihilate their ability to make war, and we must eliminate their desire to do so. This total defeat will also serve as a warning to other oppressive Arab regimes, and to other dictators all over the world. We're through cutting deals, and we're through letting you finance the murder of Americans with nothing more than a wink and a nudge.