Rummy is holding us back

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeezo pete! More Washington Post!

Look, McCaffrey has a pretty serious burr under his saddle, and he's Loeb's main cite. Does this not suggest anything to you?
 
Miami Herald
March 30, 2003

Military Worry: Are We Spread Too Thin?

By Tom Infield, Knight Ridder News Service

WASHINGTON - With another 120,000 troops being ordered to the Persian Gulf, the U.S. military may not have enough soldiers, tanks, warplanes and ships left to deal
with a major emergency elsewhere, military leaders say.

Sixty percent of the Marine Corps' power is already deployed overseas, mostly in Iraq. Half of the Navy's aircraft carrier battle groups and the bulk of the Air Force's
B-1 and B-2 heavy bombers are engaged in the war. Four of 10 15,000-person Army divisions are in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, and elements of three other
divisions are en route to the Persian Gulf.

One Army division is permanently stationed in Korea, but it's not enough to hold off North Korea's million-man army, backed by thousands of artillery pieces that can
fire chemical weapons. That leaves just two divisions in reserve, one in Hawaii and the other, still refitting after duty in Afghanistan, in upstate New York.

Leaders Confident

Leaders of the armed services say they have no doubt that the United States could meet another threat, or even several threats, in other parts of the world, including the
Korean peninsula.

But with commitments in Colombia, a global war on terrorism and peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Kosovo, some military leaders have begun to worry how far -- and
for how long -- their resources can be stretched.

The 240,000 American military personnel in the gulf region could be joined by tens of thousands of others over weeks or months. The eventual total is unknown outside
of the war planners' offices, but some of the new arrivals will relieve those who have been on the front lines.

The total will certainly be fewer than the 500,000 troops that served in the first Gulf War in 1991. But the Iraq war's impact could be much greater. America's armed
forces are much smaller than they were a dozen years ago, but military commitments are greater.

The Army had 18 divisions and 706,000 men and women at the time of the first Gulf War. Now it has 10 divisions and 476,000 people. The Navy had 580 ships then;
now it has 306. The Air Force, which had 165 air wings in 1991, now has 91.

Former President Bill Clinton, along with Congress, cut forces in anticipation of a ''peace dividend'' that would come with the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of
the Cold War.

Sept. 11 Change

Until the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration favored continued downsizing of the Army, and especially of its heavy armored and mechanized divisions,
while wanting to rely more on Special Forces, high-tech weaponry and air power.

The administration still favors what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called ''lighter, faster, more agile forces,'' not more troops. Rumsfeld, in fact, has been
openly criticized by some active duty and retired military commanders in recent days for underestimating Iraqi opposition, betting too heavily on precision-guided bombs
and not sending enough ground troops, armor and artillery to the region.

Even before the start of the war in Iraq, some top military leaders were warning that the downsized force was becoming overextended.

Testifying before a House of Representatives subcommittee, Adm. William J. Fallon, the vice chief of naval operations, said ``today's surge [in deployments] has put a
significant strain on every Navy resource.''

Days before Fallon's testimony, Air Force Lt. Gen. Richard Brown, the service's personnel chief, went before the Senate Armed Services Committee to address what
he called a ''crisis'' in manpower, including the frequent and prolonged mobilizations of Air Force reservists and Air National Guard members.

He said that with the stepped up air patrols over the United States and the war on terrorists abroad, ``we are stressed by the challenges.''

Although it has lobbied for a bigger role in U.S. war plans -- and gotten one in Iraq -- the Marine Corps is stretched thin, too.

99,000 Outside U.S.

Of 175,000 active-duty Marines and 19,000 reservists, 99,000 are deployed outside the United States, from the Middle East to Afghanistan to Okinawa to the former
Soviet republic of Georgia. This includes 64,000 in Iraq and Kuwait.

If a new war began somewhere else, American ground forces would have to come overwhelmingly from the Army.

''We conceivably could help out in another theater,'' a Marine official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``But the Marine Corps, primarily, is a one-theater force.''

Most of the Army is tied down, too, however. Units from seven of the 10 regular Army divisions already are in the gulf region or have orders to head there.

Only the 25th Infantry Division, in Hawaii, and the 10th Mountain Division, which has returned to upstate New York from Afghanistan, are entirely on U.S. soil. The 2nd
Division is permanently assigned to South Korea.

The 3rd Infantry Division, from Fort Stewart, Ga., is leading the battle in Iraq, along with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and the 101st Airborne Division from Fort
Campbell, Ky. And the 173rd Airborne Brigade, based in Italy, has opened a second front in northern Iraq.

The 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., has joined the battle against Iraqi guerrillas near Nassiriyah, and other elements of the division are trying to root out
terrorists in Afghanistan.

Soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, are on airplanes to the gulf.
 
Ok..I think I've posted enough backround info to discuss the issue

The debate here is not if we should be in Iraq, but it's over our defense policy and if it's right for the needs of our nation.

After WWII we built the arsenal of democracy to keep the Soviet bear away from the door. Things got out of hand and as early as 1956, none other then President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex and how much of our treasure it would consume. Outside of some lean years during the Carter administration, DOD rolled merrily along consuming a great part of our GNP. At then end of the Cold War we began dismantling our military machine. Too big, too expensive, who are we going to fight? were all things that were said. Politicians spoke of a peace dividend. No one seemed to think that without the world formed into two camps, it might actually become more dangerous. Some pundits expressed this, but they were ignored at best and ridiculed at worst as everyone lined up for their slice of what was defense's pie.

World events proved those pundits right and we were left with a smaller force engaged in more and more OOTW and small regional wars. We were once again faced with the need to have a credible defense. Only this time against a threat like we'd never faced.

The current Secretary of Defense has a pet theory that we can use our ability to precisely deliver munitions and our advantages in digital communications to allow us to fight and win with significantly smaller ground forces. When the decision to deploy troops to Afghainstan, Army forces had their artillery cut from the deployments. This left commanders with no way to provide immediate fires in all weather, especially at fleeting targets. While we won operation Anaconda, we will always wonder if we could have suffered fewer casualties and lost fewer aircraft if we had taken the artillery. When the 82d Airborne deployed, they took their artillery.

Now we are engaged in Iraq, with a much smaller force then we had the first time. Again we've left the artillery at home. The artillery you see on cable news is artillery that is organic to the divisions and MEUs that have deployed. There is no Corps level artillery in country. Once again, when a commander needs more firepower then he has in his hip pocket, he has to depend on air. Air is great, so are preecision munitions, but when you are pinned down and calling for fire, you need it then...

We have a saying; No plan survives contact. The administration fully expected the Iraqis to fold in a couple of days. And they aren't playing fair..they won't come out and fight set piece battles where our superior capabilities can decimate them in a couple days of intense fighting. Now we are going to have to dig them out. It's ok, we can do it. It will be more costly in blood and treasure then it would have been had they folded in a day like so many expected. Perhaps they would have if we had hit them with overwhelming force right from the start. We won't know, because we never had the forces in theater to do that with.

The nation has to decide if they want a force that can win quickly and with fewer losses or if they want a smaller, less lethal force that can win but at higher cost in blood. It's plain what kind of force the Secretary of Defense wants...

Jeff
 
Intersting read Jeff, thanks for the effort. In GWI, I was a command briefer at Ft. Mac. I had a prettty clear picture of what was going on.

Of the Army divisions involved, only the 1st AD, 24th ID and 1st Cav had any serious fighting. The 2nd ACR had a couple of hard fights, but the 101st did not and the 82nd was trucked into battle.

Seems to me that an extrapolation from that conflict would actually support the "plan" - if we actually know what it is (was). IMHO, 2 divisions in a hard pincer movement would have cracked that nut pretty quickly.

Frankly, my take is that the Turks threw a pretty big monkey wrench into the works. Not sure what plan B is, but should be interesting.

BTW, Powell was an infantry officer, not arty as Business Week reported.
 
Ya know...

There are some assumptions that just won't die a natural death...

For instance, I've lost track of the number of times that, after finding out that I'm in the Air National Guard, I've been asked if I know SSgt xxxxxx, he's in the Air Force. Sigh.

Then there's the folks that, knowing that I'm in the military, ask me detailed questions about a weapon system, my AFSC isn't munitions, in use by another service, etc.

The same thing is true about military strategy. I'm a pretty intelligent and well read kind of guy, and I've spent 18 years in the Air Force, 4 of which have been in a joint environment. The military is my career and the art and science of the military is my hobby. I've gotta tell ya, I could no more plan a military campaign than I can perform brain surgery... well the kind where the patient survives that is. It's not that I'm stupid, I simply lack the training. Officers that achieve flag rank have that kind of training. That's what officers do, they plan and they lead.

Articles in the press that quote an unnamed source in the military? They're not quoting some whistle blowing underdog out to expose some great wrong, they're quoting the poison pen sour grapes of a military member who's using the press to advance their personal political agenda.

One of the reasons that Rumsfeld is hated by some of the senior folks at the pentagon is that he is an empire killer who cancels programs that don't, or won't work. A Defense Secretary that challenges his subordinates in the DoD to think outside the box. Change is difficult, unpopular, sometimes painful, and only history can judge whether the final results are good or bad.

Respectfully
 
Well said, rennaissancemann! :D

Hopefully, your post will be read often enough to be understood by those who "know-it-all" before they post yet another diatribe about the SoD.
 
Hopefully, your post will be read often enough to be understood by those who "know-it-all" before they post yet another diatribe about the SoD.

Never said I was.... If its me your talking about

So, let me say it again. The whole point of posting this article is that I hope the Gov allows the true professionals to use every means at their disposal to achieve victory.

I dont want to see the military's hands tied like it was in Nam. Thats all.
 
El Tejon,
As late as 16 March, Vice President Cheney publically said the troops would be greeted as liberators. As I find the time, I'll dig out some more examples.

Blackhawk,
I find it sad that some conservatives can be so close minded that they refuse to accept any debate about the policies of their own party. I'm sure you were in awe of how the Democrats could blindly support Clinton.


Tamara,
I served under General McAffrey when he was deputy commandant of the Infantry school. I trust his judgement.

Lennyjoe,
It does appear that the gloves haven't come off yet. Given the press' preoccupation with civilian casualties, I imagine they won't come off, even if it costs lives.

All: When the history of this war is written, I am conviced that it will come out that we are attempting to prove that the new way of war works. GEN. Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff) publically stated that it would take more troops then were in the region to win a few weeks back and received a sharp rebuke for this. There is no love lost between Shinseki and Rumsfeld as Rumsfeld went as far as announcing the appointment of his successor a couple years before his term of chief of staff is due to run out. But there are more then unidentified sources speaking out. LT GEN William C. Wallace (ground forces commander) stated the other day that the level of Iraqi resistance surprised everyone.

My point and I think Lennyjoe's point is that we have a lot of capability that we aren't using. Why? I think it's so that the voices for transformation in the Pentagon can test some of their pet theorys. I don't think a shooting war is the time to test this. I think that when we commit soldiers to battle that we owe it to them to provide them everything they need to accomplixh the mission in the most expediant manner. I don't think that we have. I will be retired in a little more then a year, when I reach 30 years service, but I have a son in B-2-29th Infantry at Ft Benning who is just beginning his career. This is an important issue for me, one that goes beyond party politics.

Jeff
 
Looks like you aren't alone in your assessment Jeff.

NBC Severs Ties With Journalist Peter Arnett

Monday, March 31, 2003



NEW YORK — NBC fired journalist Peter Arnett on Monday, saying it was wrong for him to give an interview with state-run Iraqi TV in which he said the American-led coalition's initial plan for the war had failed because of Iraq's resistance. Arnett called the interview a "misjudgment" and apologized.

Arnett, on NBC's Today show on Monday, said he was sorry for his statement but added "I said over the weekend what we all know about the war."

"I want to apologize to the American people for clearly making a misjudgment," the New Zealand-born Arnett said. He said he would try to leave Baghdad now, joking "there's a small island in the South Pacific that I've inhabited that I'll try to swim to."

NBC defended him Sunday, saying he had given the interview as a professional courtesy and that his remarks were analytical in nature. But by Monday morning the network switched course and, after Arnett spoke with NBC News President Neal Shapiro, said it would no longer work with Arnett.

"It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war," NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said. "And it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview."

Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize reporting in Vietnam for The Associated Press, gained much of his prominence from covering the 1991 Gulf War for CNN. One of the few American television reporters left in Baghdad, his reports were frequently aired on NBC and its cable sisters, MSNBC and CNBC.

Leaving a second network under a cloud may mark the end of his TV career. Arnett was the on-air reporter of the 1998 CNN report that accused American forces of using sarin nerve gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill U.S. defectors. Two CNN employees were sacked and Arnett was reprimanded over the report, which the station later retracted. Arnett left the network when his contract was not renewed.

In the Iraqi TV interview, broadcast Sunday by Iraq's satellite television station and monitored by The Associated Press in Egypt, Arnett said his Iraqi friends tell him there is a growing sense of nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain are doing.

He said the United States is reappraising the battlefield and delaying the war, maybe for a week, "and rewriting the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan."

"Clearly, the American war plans misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces," Arnett said.

Arnett said it is clear that within the United States there is growing opposition to the war and a growing challenge to President Bush about the war's conduct.

"Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States," he said. "It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments."

At a briefing Sunday in Qatar, Gen. Tommy Franks ticked off major achievements of the war campaign, including the advance of troops to within 60 miles of Baghdad. But he found himself answering questions about whether he had enough troops to do the job and denying that coalition forces were stalled.

A Republican congresswoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, told Fox News Channel on Sunday that Arnett's remarks were "Kafkaesque" and "just crazy."

"Let's hope that he's being coerced," Ros-Lehtinen said.

The first Bush administration was unhappy with Arnett's reporting on the Gulf War in 1991 for CNN, suggesting he had become a conveyor of propaganda. ARnett was denounced for reporting that the allies had bombed a baby milk factory in Baghdad when the military said it was a biological weapons plant.

Arnett went to Iraq this year not as an NBC News reporter but as an employee of the MSNBC show National Geographic Explorer. When other NBC reporters left Baghdad for safety reasons, the network began airing his reports. NBC said Monday he wouldn't be reporting for National Geographic Explorer either.

The Iraqi TV interview was broadcast in English and translated by a uniformed Iraqi anchor. NBC said Arnett gave the interview when asked shortly after he attended an Iraqi government briefing.

In the April 5 issue of TV Guide, Arnett said he felt he had found redemption reporting on the current war.

"I was furious with (CNN founder) Ted Turner and (then-CNN chairman) Tom Johnson when they threw me to the wolves after I made them billions risking my life to cover the first Gulf War," Arnett told TV Guide.

"Now (Turner and Johnson) are gone, the Iraqis have thrown the CNN crew out of Baghdad, and I'm still here," he said. "Any satisfaction in that? Ha, ha, ha, ha."

He said the Iraqis allowed him to stay in Baghdad because they respect him and "see me as a fellow warrior."
 
News Flash

Guess what folks?????

None of us really know Dick about the planning or implementation of our war effort in Iraq. We can hypothesize, speculate, opine, debate, even muster 'facts' and 'statistics' that lend substance to our hot air.

In the final analysis, though, we are like the seven blind men attempting to describe an elephant by each touching a certain, separate part. This is just more confusion generated by the need for immediate gratification. Slow down, wait and learn. All will be revealed in time.:cool:
 
jmbg29,

I fail to see the connection between Peter Arnett's firing from MSNBC and the debate here. Unless you are suggesting that anyone who doesn't toe the current party line is traitorous. In which case perhaps you aren't understanding the issue. I am not against the war. It needs to be done. It needed to be done a year ago.

I am not happy with the way the Secretary of Defense has chosen to prosecute the war. If you don't believe me when I say we are testing Transformation perhaps you'd believe Phil Odeen former Vice Chairman of the Defense Science Board who is quoted in this weeks Army Times in an article entitled; War: A Deadly Test for Transformation In which he says; "It's a rare opportunity to assess what works and what doesn't and what we have to do differently. No country can afford to ignore the lessons."

Transformation has been a controversial program in DOD because it's changing the way business is done and cancelling pet programs. The tests have also been controversial, with OPFOR commanders resigning because the rules were rigged or the wargame was stopped and restarted with different rules after the pet theories didn't work out as planned etc.

gburner,
You're right in that no one here really knows what the plans are. However if you have a lot of experience in the military and understand how things are done, and have kept up on all the proposed changes to doctrine, you don't have to be von Clauswitz to see that we are doing things differently then out published doctrine says we will and that the way we're different looks a lot like the new proposed way of doing things.

Jeff
 
I fail to see the connection between Peter Arnett's firing from MSNBC and the debate here.
That doesn't surprise me. BTW, it's not about his being fired, rather, it is about him proclaiming that we have failed.
Unless you are suggesting that anyone who doesn't toe the current party line is traitorous.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that you are not alone in being able to second guess those responsible for actually having to prosecute this war.

You can spam this board all day with articles that feature Generals reminiscing about what they couldawouldashoulda done. You can assert that if only we had done such and such, things would have been better.

Could they have used arty in "Operation Anaconda"? Sure they could have. They also may have zapped a whole bunch of our guys with friendly fire from it. Or, they may have had one or a dozen of our heavy lift helicopters crash in the thin air of high altitude in the attempt to move it from one goat meadow in Trashcanistan to the next.

And as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, somebody would piss and whine about it, and declare it a devastating, insufferable, and unforgiveable defeat. That's all.
 
jmbg29,

You obviously have never humped a ruck or had to depend on fire support. This is an important debate and you can cheerlead for your side all you want, but I don't think that you have a horse in this race. I do, my life, my son's life and many friends and comrades already in country, one who was wounded a week ago Sunday.

I don't recall ever saying that we've failed or that we are losing. The time to test pet theories about how to fight a war is before the the bullets fly.

I guarantee you that if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in combat and pinned down, you'll want everything from tac air to bringing a battleship out of mothballs to fire in your support.

Obviously I feel that when we send troops into battle we have a moral obligation to support them with the entire resources of the nation and you don't. War isn't a video game and it's not the place to prove pet theories when you have the capability to do better. It costs lives...

Jeff
 
Never said I was.... If its me your talking about

So, let me say it again. The whole point of posting this article is that I hope the Gov allows the true professionals to use every means at their disposal to achieve victory.

I dont want to see the military's hands tied like it was in Nam. Thats all.
It was not directed at you LennyJoe.
 
Jeff White,
I find it sad that some conservatives can be so close minded that they refuse to accept any debate about the policies of their own party. I'm sure you were in awe of how the Democrats could blindly support Clinton.
Not nearly as sad as I find it when posters respond to things they only THINK somebody else said.

I said I hoped posters would think twice before they posted diatribes about the SoD in the sense that a diatribe is "a bitter and abusive speech or writing." I hate to see invective and mindless criticism fomented from mere dislike of somebody. If a post is fairly grounded, it's most welcome.

I wouldn't call my reaction to how the Democrats could blindly support Clinton as awe, but I get your point. :D
 
Jeff White,

With all of the experience that your post(s) seem to indicate that you possess, it seems a trifle naieve of you to think that this war or ANY in history has not been the testbed for trying something new, whether weapons systems,
integration of arms, vertical invelopment or whatever. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The grunts always pay the freight. You seem tweaked that the war is not being prosecuted per our advertised 'dotrine'. I for one am glad that our military is flexible enough to change strategy and tactics in relation to the realities of the battlefield. Otherwise....well, Burnside at Fredericksburg comes to mind
 
You obviously have never humped a ruck or had to depend on fire support.
Quite correct. That would be because of my not inconsiderable talent in producing battle ready underwater (and some forms of land) mines that are capable of detering/delaying/stopping our enemies use of sea/land power. Not to mention the ancillary benefit of being able to kill/maim hundreds of our enemies at a shot, should they be so stupid as to dare tread where we - the U.S. Navy Minemen - have gone before. Or to paraphrase Zero Wing, "All Your Planet Are Belong To US!"
This is an important debate and you can cheerlead for your side all you want, but I don't think that you have a horse in this race.
I'm not cheerleading. I'm just pointing out that whiners are not unique to this time and place in history.

There is no end to the old litany of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and dare I say Marines, that wouldacouldashoulda had an '03 vs. an M1 vs. an M14 vs. an M16 vs. an M4....... :barf: Or if you like, fill in the gear of your choice.
I guarantee you that if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in combat and pinned down, you'll want everything from tac air to bringing a battleship out of mothballs to fire in your support.
I sure would want all that, and a "Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range."

And I can guarantee you that somebody will bitch if our power-pack craps out on the rifle, or we eat a 16 inch shell for lunch.:scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf:
 
Last edited:
Dood... give it a rest with the cut and paste! :rolleyes:

My take on the war so far (for what it's worth... and guess how much you paid for it! :neener: ) is that at least one of the planners actually read a copy of Achtung - Panzer!. Lord knows the whining about (truly piddling, ineffective) "rear area security" threats sounds suspiciously like the whining that Guderian had to put up with in 1940...

"Heinz! Quit defeating the French so fast! Your supply lines are in danger!"

Gott in Himmel! :rolleyes:
 
Looks like you aren't alone in your assessment Jeff.
NBC Severs Ties With Journalist Peter Arnett

That was kind of low don't you think?

I heard on C-SPAN this morning that several of the IN THEATRE commanders are expressing the same sentiments that Jeff has expressed. Sentiments that McCaffery and others have expressed. The IN THEATRE commanders, not armchairs QB's surfing the Internet. What is one to make of that? There are the ones that are there, know THE plan, and are doing the fighting.

t does appear that the gloves haven't come off yet. Given the press' preoccupation with civilian casualties, I imagine they won't come off, even if it costs lives.

I worry that that may be the case as well. Let's just hit them HARD and get it over with for god's sake.
 
Jeff White,

I served under General McAffrey when he was deputy commandant of the Infantry school. I trust his judgement.

I can respect that.

I am not happy with the way the Secretary of Defense has chosen to prosecute the war. If you don't believe me when I say we are testing Transformation perhaps you'd believe Phil Odeen former Vice Chairman of the Defense Science Board who is quoted in this weeks Army Times in an article entitled; War: A Deadly Test for Transformation In which he says; "It's a rare opportunity to assess what works and what doesn't and what we have to do differently. No country can afford to ignore the lessons."

Just as a point to ponder:

In a 20th century example, a massively modern industrialized nation attacked a weaker "third world" state.

"Proven doctrine" was ignored in favor of new "pet theories". Resistance was "stiffer than expected". Units that were "deemed vital" were left guarding another front. Casualties were "heavier than anticipated". The successful prosecution of the war effort was greatly aided by the opening of a "second ground front". "Too great a reliance" was placed on tacair strikes to replace tried-and-true corps-level arty.

...and yet the German invasion of Poland has hardly gone down in history as one of the great stalemates of all time.

While I have my questions about this whole Iraq op, thus far it makes Case White look like Verdun. I'm willing to wait for the conclusion before I offer confident pronuncements. ;)
 
El Tejon,

Just a couple more examples of the overconfidence the administration expressed before the steel started flying. As I said in an earlier thread before the war started, this attitude was not the right one to put out before the American people.

Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

March 4, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. &ellipsis; Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. &ellipsis; I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."

Given statements like these coming from the administration is it any wonder that it's enemies in the fourth estate are holding their feet to the fire?

Tamara,

I have never expressed that we are losing the war or that there is a remote chance we will lose. I am suggesting that the plan to use less then overwhelming force may not have been the most efficient way to do things. I think that as a nation we owe it to the men and women we put into harms way to provide them with enough forces and firepower to win in the most expediant manner with the least amount of friendly casualties.

Sean Smith,

I don't think that the Iraqis planned to defend their country in the open desert. This truly would have been over with in a couple days if they had. Rather then try to meet our forces in the set piece battle we'd all like to see, I think that they planned all along to withdraw into the cities and try to achieve through political means (significant coalition casualties, large numbers of civilian casualties, outcries by opposition politicians in the coalition nations and recriminations in the UN etc.). The Iraqis have made a gross misjudgement if they think that strategy will work. The American people were attacked on American soil on 11 September 2001. They have a personal involvment in this conflict, one strong enough that they will be willing to pay the necessary price to win. The only bigger mistake they could make would be to try another terrorist attack on American soil. Rather then thinking it's not worth it any longer, the American people would most likely decide that there weren't enough buildings in the entire country to level to even the score.

I guess we can all wait a few years when all involved write their show and tell books to find out.

Jeff
 
Think maybe we should wait until "weeks" have passed after 3/19 before we get our panties all wadded up about how long the war is taking based on the guesses of the pooh-bahs...? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top