| Author | Message | ||
     bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 6972 Registered: 5-2001 |
I don't think anyone planned that it would take us six months to reach Bagdad. Aa Tjohn points out during Desert Storm just about everyone, including Cheney, believed if we did overthrow Saddam there would be major instability and insurgency. In any event, no matter how long it took to unseat Saddam the failure to plan for an insurgency and for instability was a major error in judgement. | ||
| Thenewguy Citizen Username: Thenewguy Post Number: 31 Registered: 4-2004 |
"Don't confuse hummers with tanks. " It would seem to me you need troops on the ground to control a city. Tanks do not bring in ground troops. Nor can tanks alone hold a city, or any theater of combat, without ground troops. "Once we have control of a city other vehicles including transport vehicles are brought in. " The CIA indicated there would be a guerilla war, and the military prepared extensively for urban combat. So it seems to me that you would need armored vehicles to bring in troops to fight in the narrow confines of a city. Lib or no lib (I am neither) a miscalculation with respect to our preparedness seems apparent. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2782 Registered: 12-2001  |
Based on Desert Storm and based on advances in military technology since then, the rapid collapse of Iraq did not really surprise me. I was pleasantly surprised that Baghdad fell without the street fighting such as occurred in Fallujah. I would suggest that most military professionals expected the campaign to go about as it did. If it got ugly through the use of chemical weapons, it would have cost more lives, but the general pace would not have changed. Again, military professionals know that chemical weapons are not particularly useful against prepared military targets. In fact, I would suggest that anybody who thought it would take more than two months to occupy Iraq knows nothing about war. Our complete control of the air and our unprecedented ability to immediately and precisely destroy absolutely every target that could be identified insured that this war would be one-sided like none ever before seen. Finally, with regard to military affairs, I value the opinion of embedded reporters only slightly more than I value the opinion of politicians and I don't value the opinion of politicians in the lease. This is one area where I have read enough, learned enough and still know enough to form my own supportable points of view. All things considered, however, if the Iraqi Army had resisted our advance seriously and effectively, the only difference would be that our soldiers would not have had an opportunity to bask in victory before the environment turned hostile. I suppose that we might have learned a lesson from the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia. The conquest of Yugoslavia and then Greece was brilliant and fast. And then the Nazis found themselves with some territory they couldn't really control even with their unrestrained brutality. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 482 Registered: 6-2004  |
straw is right. the silly, silly, libs have it all wrong as usual. Rummy had the troops prepared perfectly. is it his fault those damned Iraqis didn't know they were supposed to be throwing flowers and chocolate? I'd have thought even a moron liberal would know that humvees don't need armor to protect themselves against rose petals. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 535 Registered: 2-2004 |
Straw, You said: As I said no one anticipated the war being won as quickly as it was. (the heavy combat aspect that is).. This decisive destruction of Saddam's kingdom actually set us back since we never planned on it happening as fast as it did. You're either lying or grossly ill-informed. Which is it? | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2783 Registered: 12-2001 |
The phrase "lying or grossly ill-informed" doesn't even begin to describe the constant restatement and distortion of facts practiced by the Bush Administration and its closest supporters such as Straw. I suppose next Straw will say that we were actually expecting a real hard, slow slog such as Grant's move South in the summer of 1864. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2893 Registered: 8-2003 |
Those opposing the first Gulf War anticipated 10K body bags. They did the same this time. I'm sure the Administration counted on far more casualties as this time we were marching to Baghdad. What horrible mis-planning they did with 1,300 dead being the real number. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2784 Registered: 12-2001 |
The horrible planning was getting us into a major military commitment that shows no signs of winding down any time soon. It isn't a couple of brigades such as we have in the Balkans. It is the bulk of our Army. The current situation is unsustainable. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 6978 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cjc, if the Pentagon were planning for 10,000 dead they were also planning for 40,000 to 50,000 wounded at least, given the KIA/wia ratios in modern combat operations. The casualties would have been about 1/3rd of the deployed troops. In WWII, a much more desparate situation, units that suffered ten percent casualties (killed and wounded) were considered combat ineffective and were rotated out of combat at the first opportunity. They may have ordered 10,000 body bags for the worst case scenario and also for use with enemy killed. However, I don't see even Rumsfield going ahead with the small force we used if he thought there was any chance of 1/3rd casualties if only for practical reasons. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 483 Registered: 6-2004 |
I can NOT believe that George W. Bush would have launched an invasion of Iraq one year before an election if he really thought 10,000 soldiers would be coming home in bags during the initial combat stages. If that had actually come to pass, we'd have president-elect Dean getting ready to move into the White House next month. In '91, when Iraq actually had an army and weapons, thousands of casualites would have been much more likely. | ||
| Addy Citizen Username: Addy Post Number: 323 Registered: 12-2003  |
Iraq knew from day one that they couldn't win a ground war against the US/UK. The US/UK knew from day one that an insurgent war and/or civil war in Iraq would be a reality. Rumsfeld gambled on a rosy view of the future despite the realities. He failed us. He failed Bush. And he's still and he's still prancing around like a pompous windbag arse. | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4121 Registered: 10-2001 |
"In '91, when Iraq actually had an army and weapons, thousands of casualites would have been much more likely." This statement is just so stupid in so many ways. 1)In 91 he says Iraq had a "real" Army, not so this time around. Dumb. 2) In 91 the administration assumed taking down Baghdad would lead to thousands of dead Americans. This time around the administration never thought this would be the case..dumb again. 3) In 91 the administration knew Iraq had weapons that were "dangerous". This time around there were no weapons which I assume Mapleman will tell you the administration knew..dumb again. It amazes me that some of you people have no problem clearly looking at every issue after the fact and drawing conclusions that before hand would have been impossible to guess. Somehow you make war sound sooo easy to predict. You people are fools. For some reason Mapleman would have you believe Saddam was a terrible threat in 91, but somehow not in 02. And this was understood by everyone, except the President. dumb, dumb, dumb. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2785 Registered: 12-2001 |
In 1991, I had suspicion that we would easily destroy the Iraqi military. After all, in the 1980's, Saddam had done nothing more clever than to demonstrate that the tactics and stalemate of WW I could be repeated with modern weapons. Meanwhile, our Army had been training for forty years to fight Soviet hardware and tactics. I was surprised only by the lightness of casualties. I had also wondered if Saddam's air force could manage a suicidal assault on one of our carriers, but that was beyond his capabilities, even with luck on his side. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 484 Registered: 6-2004 |
straw, I wouldn't throw the word "dumb" around if my reading comprehension was as poor as yours appears to be. If you read what I wrote, I said "much more likely" in '91. No doubt that the likelihood of casualites in '03 was far, far, far less than in '91 (which even then wasn't at all a certainty). Weapons inspections and the effects of economic sanctions would have indicated that to anyone who was paying attention. And yes, I knew Iraq was not a serious threat in '02. I have a PC and a cable modem. I read lots of articles in news sources from around the globe which turned out to be (guess what!) CORRECT. Maybe I should have sent a Comcast mailer to W so he could have got himself high-speed internet service too. My intelligence in '02 was apparently better than his. On the other hand, maybe it would have been a waste, since he's a guy who doesn't read the news. | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4122 Registered: 10-2001 |
"And yes, I knew Iraq was not a serious threat in '02. I have a PC and a cable modem." holy stupidity | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 485 Registered: 6-2004 |
sarcasm is lost on you, isn't it? | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4123 Registered: 10-2001 |
nice try. I guess you had a chance to review the foolishness of your argument. And yes your arguments have been silly and without merit. Not a surprise though. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 486 Registered: 6-2004 |
coming from a guy who continues to defend the indefensible incompetence of Rumsfeld, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4124 Registered: 10-2001 |
boring | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 536 Registered: 2-2004 |
Back to my question: Straw, You said: As I said no one anticipated the war being won as quickly as it was. (the heavy combat aspect that is).. This decisive destruction of Saddam's kingdom actually set us back since we never planned on it happening as fast as it did. You're either lying or grossly ill-informed. Which is it? |
