When I first heard our primary military objective described that way, I had a flashback to the early 1940s, recalling a movie of that name starring Bob Hope, Bing Crosby and Dorothy Lamour. Like the other six "road pictures" they made, it had a comical theme, and all the hardships and dangers they faced in reaching Baghdad were pure fantasy.

But that's where the similarity ends, for there's nothing fantastical or humorous about our troops fighting and dying as they battle their way towards that city of 5 million people and Saddam's stronghold. And as I write this column on Monday, whether or not they'll be within the environs of Baghdad by tomorrow, the original target date, is very problematical, what with the resistance stiffening each mile along the way.

One thing for sure, it's not the "cakewalk" that we were given to believe it would be by our military leaders. And while the massive bombing campaign that began last Friday may have scared Iraqis to death, many of them may be so shell shocked and angry that they now view what we call "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Iraqi Conquest," and might treat our troops entering the city, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Now, even though we live in the "Information Age," with satellite communications systems able to instantly communicate pictures and phone calls around the world, I was nevertheless amazed in seeing, in real-time, military operations getting underway: tanks on the move, helicopters taking off, Iraqis surrendering, and our troops gearing-up for battle. I found the images surreal and seemingly as well choreographed as a Steven Spielberg war movie. The images were so vivid, both in the day and nighttime (using night scopes), I half expected to hear someone yell out, "Take1" or "that's a wrap."

But what really blew my mind was observing the number of reporters, producers and photographers (250 or more) from the television networks and cable news channels mingling freely with the soldiers, wearing the same protective gear, sharing the same shelters and food, and riding along with the advancing columns, while holding on to their microphones for dear life. Buddy-buddy as they are with enlisted men and officers, they must feel like they're accepted as "comrades in arms" (sans weapons).

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, said that the media is only providing "partial glimpses into the life of combat," and that "what the American public is seeing are only slices of the war in Iraq." Maybe so, but the "slices" I've seen so far are enough to shake my confidence that this war will be brought to a swift conclusion, as it obviously has investors in the stock market, when stocks went into a tailspin today as hopes for a short war faded.

Incidentally, I think the networks and cable channels should be required by the FCC to give their broadcasts of the war a PG-13 rating and/or to indicate that it is intended for "mature audiences," and may contain "violent scenes." I know I wouldn't want to try and explain to my grandchildren why grown-ups are so intent on killing one another. Personally, I don't believe we need to be kept constantly aware, for instance, of the ever-changing scoreboard on the number of casualties and POWs on both sides. War is not like a spectator sport, where we need to be on top of every play and move.

Kathryn Kross, vice president of CNN said, "compared to the brush-off given to the news media in past armed conflicts, the access granted by the Defense Department in this war is astonishing." As one who fought 52 years ago in the Korean war (excuse me, the "police action"), I can vouch for that. For I never saw "hide or hair" of any reporters or war correspondents in the mountainous terrain where most battles were waged. But I'm sure they were somewhere in that Godforsaken country, probably conducting the bulk of their interviews in a hotel bar in Seoul. That's certainly preferable to freezing their butts off on a ice-cold mountain top and sleeping in a sandbag bunker.