Article

2003-03-26 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2003-03-26 04:34 pm|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Thanks... I needed that!

Posted by Capsu78 2003-03-26 16:48:46|| 2003-03-26 16:48:46|| Front Page Top

#2 in defense of Rummy - i think he intended for the war to begin with a wave of "shock and awe" on the first night, that would blow apart the regime. They started the war instead with an assasination attempt - apparently an attempt to kill saddam and keep the Republican Guards in tact. That blew the surprise and the shock - when the Iraqis started blowing oil wells, they had to go in on the ground right away. I think the mistake was to focus on winning over the Republican Guards and to just decapitate the regime, rather than winning over the Iraqi people and destroying the regime. And that was driven in large part by the agenda of State and the CIA, directly against the views of the civilians in DOD. Now the effort to win over the RG has failed, and shock and awe is gone, and we have to destroy the RG slowly and steadily - which may require more troops.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-03-26 16:54:00|| 2003-03-26 16:54:00|| Front Page Top

#3 The American military has always suffered a deep current of McClellanism. The behavior is to ask for more troops and more time and to overestimate the real capabilities of the opponent. In a non-war environment, it is the manager and trainer who gets the promotions. They are risk adverse by their nature. If you want models of risk, look at Grant's campaign for Vicksbury or Sherman's march to the sea. Another example is Scott's campaign from Veracruz and capture of Mexico City. THE military expert of the time, the Duke of Wellington, declared Scott was lost [to fail] when he struck inland to Mexico City. After the dust settled there with the Americans victorious, the Duke then praised his performance. Hindsight is always 20/20. Unlike the traditional broad front strategy, this appears to be a mobile war aimed at the center of gravity of the opponent. There is more going on here than you can see [or are let to see]. We and the talking heads do not know the phaselines of the advance nor are we seeing all the units in operation. I expect a number of the TV personality retired military talking heads to end up with some serious egg on their face.

Posted by Don 2003-03-26 18:03:02|| 2003-03-26 18:03:02|| Front Page Top

#4 Again, why blame Rummy for the Turks' backstab?

Posted by someone 2003-03-26 19:42:53|| 2003-03-26 19:42:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Rummy was wise not to concentrate too many troops before the start of war. The only weapons Saddam has that can hurt us are WMD, and the damage they do can be great only if we concentrate our troops. Since Kuwait was our only staging area, they were vulnerable in the leadup to war.

Now that our troops are dispersed across Iraq, it's time to move more in, and they are.

Posted by paj 2003-03-26 20:14:24|| 2003-03-26 20:14:24|| Front Page Top

#6 Someone... read this quite interesting editorial by Mike Ledeen. Makes sense to me. http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/ml.asp?Issue=NYS/2003/03/26&ID=Ar00106&Mode=HTML

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-03-26 20:18:04|| 2003-03-26 20:18:04|| Front Page Top

#7 Rumsfeld had to launch the smallest attack possible because he didn't want Saddam to get wind the assault was underway and try to jump to a different bunker.

Posted by Michael Levy 2003-03-26 21:20:12|| 2003-03-26 21:20:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Man, I hate to take issue with Peters on ANYTHING military related, but doesn't the military principle of economy of force apply here? In addition to paj's point, I've got to hope that contigency planning for any dramatic escalation on the Korean peninsula is also part of the force deployment equation.
2MRC seems not doable, and I'm worried that "win-hold-win" would rapidly become "win-die-lose".
The forces we have are superior, but can't be in two places at once...unless DARPA has that figured out too!

Posted by bluto6 2003-03-27 01:42:58|| 2003-03-27 01:42:58|| Front Page Top

21:49 Anonymous
21:16 Anonymous
21:12 Anonymous
21:05 Anonymous
10:02 raptor
07:02 raptor
01:42 bluto6
00:21 RW
00:06 Doug De Bono
00:06 Frank Martin
00:04 Brew
00:04 RW
00:02 Doug De Bono
23:54 Doug De Bono
23:50 Doug De Bono
23:47 Anonymous
23:46 Rex Mundi
23:43 Brew
23:30 Anonon
23:28 Rex Mundi
23:25 Brew
23:15 OldSpook
23:02 Brew
22:55 Brew