Article

2003-03-27 Home Front

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 Penguin 2003-03-27 11:50 am|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 As a rule, more people is always better. These guys aren't demonstrating any tactical brilliance by stating the obvious.

McCaffrey is working under the burden of having to defend his legacy from Gulf I. I am among several bloggers who have pointed out that a successful Gulf II eclipses Gulf I pretty well.

As for commentators with retired ranks below one star. All these guys were passed over by the selection board. They lacked what it took for promotion to a higher rank. Some was political, but most was an inability to think strategicly, to plan effectively, to be a more well-rounded warrior and a good manager.

I laugh at the captains that are being used as commentators. They might as well be doing man-in-the-street interviews.

Posted by Chuck 2003-03-27 07:45:24|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-03-27 07:45:24|| Front Page Top

#2 Of course none of them have access to the actual OPLAN and know nothing of its flow or phaselines. Even I can detect that there are units which are in country and not accounted for, so stuff is going on we can not see. This is the classical 'fog of war' of which CENTCOM has far more resources to see through than any of the talking heads regardless of their employment background. It would have been far more effective, IMHO, to have retired historians from the Center for Military History or the history dept. of West Point to do the color commentary and fill the air time than many of these technicians. They can set the parameters to the media wanks 'setbacks' with the "as compared to what" reply.

BTW, the lower ranking officers are being misused to discuss operational issues when they should be employed to address the human element at the grunt level. That's where they can add something to the flow of information to a public which is generally ignorant of what it means to soldier.

Posted by Don 2003-03-27 08:36:08|| 2003-03-27 08:36:08|| Front Page Top

#3 It still comes down to second-guessing, and there's no penalty for being wrong. These guys should know better. Bet there may be some "reductions in rank" once this whole war is over. Wesley Clark has proven that he's a real toad, and has absolutely no chance to become president of anything, not even "Main Street, Disneyland".

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-03-27 09:43:55|| 2003-03-27 09:43:55|| Front Page Top

#4 Mac Thomas has a very helpful take on this second-guessing here. This is the first paragraph:
Patience
The main thing remains the main thing.
The war is only a week old, and already the second guessing has begun. The press, having for all intents and purposes claimed victory after the first two days of the conflict, seemed ready to surrender to the Iraqis after the setbacks of Sunday. You'd think it was 1861 or early 1942, dark periods indeed in American military history.

He goes on to comment on the perspectives of some his favorite generals.

Posted by kgb 2003-03-27 11:36:36|| 2003-03-27 11:36:36|| Front Page Top

#5 kgb:
Surely you concede that the prohibition against attacking snipers who have taken up in civilian housing, has increased Iraqi morale. The restraint at Umm Qasr is being treated in the Muslim media (and apologists), as a "heroic" stand that caused Coalition forces to become "bogged down."

Listen to Captain David Waldron (US 3rd Division): "We don't want to hurt people if we can avoid it, but now it has got to be that if you have got a weapon, you have become an Iraqi soldier and we can kill you. This rules of engagement crap is making me lose men." (Oliver Poole, London Telegraph)

The Saddamites' dirty-war tactics have been effective. "Hearts and minds" strategies failed in Vietnam and should be second-guessed here.

Posted by Anonon 2003-03-27 13:05:11|| 2003-03-27 13:05:11|| Front Page Top

#6 Yeah, this hearts & minds stuff is BS. They hate us, they'll always hate us. 99% of the media will take all actions by the US in the worst possible light, and ignore any wrong doing by Iraq (or anyone besides the US). So this is really doing no one any favors.

Posted by Jeremy 2003-03-27 14:19:19|| 2003-03-27 14:19:19|| Front Page Top

#7 Read this somewhere else, but it makes a lot of sense: There's only so much room in Kuwait, and we were only 'allowed' to use a small bit of it. The number of troops we had filled the place up and overflowed a bit. Once the war started, we began pushing in additional units as fast as the situation allowed us. So maybe Franks was acting on the knowledge that he didn't have room for any more troops, and had to phase in additional forces. We now see units parachuting in where the 4ID was supposed to go, and some kind of military buildup opposite Jordan in the western desert. Once again, the 'talking heads' missed a major clue, and started talking before they engaged their thinking process.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-03-27 22:46:27|| 2003-03-27 22:46:27|| Front Page Top

#8 "Dear Barry -

How's that drug war thing going?

Love
The Real Generals"

Posted by mojo 2003-03-28 00:19:14|| 2003-03-28 00:19:14|| Front Page Top

11:11 Anonymous
09:58 raptor
09:00 raptor
06:56 Hiryu
06:54 raptor
02:22 mojo
02:16 mojo
02:12 mojo
00:49 mojo
00:47 mojo
00:40 mojo
00:36 glen
00:19 Tadderly
00:19 mojo
00:16 Anonymous
00:15 Drew
00:13 Atomic Conspiracy
00:09 Anonymous
00:02 Atomic Conspiracy
23:57 Atomic Conspiracy
22:56 tu3031
22:56 Brew
22:49 tu3031
22:47 RW