Timing is still everything

Back on July 27, I suggested that US forces in Iraq would try to avoid major combat during the period before the election in order to avoid hitting the psychologically-important figure of 1,000 US deaths during the campaign. Obviously, I was wrong about that. Perhaps they thought that earlier is better than later, so since it's going to happen anyway, let it happen. Or it could be that there was no consideration to the political ramifications at all.

Yeah, right.

The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi - where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest - until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

Supposedly, there haven't been any direct orders to halt or hold off on operations before the election, it's just that the Bushites are "simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season."

Well, yes, I can clearly see what a big difference there is between those two, yes, indeed.