Or fewer than expected, at any rate. I wonder how many more surrenders we might have seen had there been a resounding resolution by the Security Council, a broader coalition on the ground, an actual alliance repudiating Saddam and his obstructions and his odious regime?
It always a surprise to those who have not travelled in poor or oppressed countries just how much information is actually available to ordinary people. The people of Iraq know what has happened at the UN, and they know what the spokesmen and politicians of the US or other powers have said. When there was no vote in the Security Council for another resolution against Saddam's government, Iraqis know what that meant.
The world does not stand with the US and so the Iraqi army stands its ground.
. . .
An ugly further thought:
Because the world does not stand with the US on the invasion of Iraq, will the Iraqis make the assumption that the world will overlook atrocities committed against Americans? Has a unilateral approach to the diplomatic issues made the use of chemical or biological weapons in this war more likely? I truly hope that nothing comes to pass that raises these questions from the hypothetical to ones demanding answers.