Are Your Views Changed?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

BTW, I'm not at all surprised by the resistance so far.

Neither am I. This was expected by me. I think people are looking at the suprising success of '91 and thinking it'd be the same thing. This is a vastly different war.

The success of 90 and 91 wasn't surprising at all - it was very well prepared, and based on letting career soldiers do what they do for a living. Civilian's jobs are to set the overall goals and political conditions. As Georgie Patton said, "senior commanders must focus on where, not how, to defeat the enemy."

This war has far too much of it's initial battle plan, timeline and OrBat micromanaged by civilians who don't know **** about warfighting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The success of 90 and 91 wasn't surprising at all

It was to most people. Remember that was one of the reasons the vote on Congress was so close.

[Kontiki]

I think therein lies one of the big problems. There was an expectation of stronger resistance during the first Gulf War, and major precautions were taken for that. This time around, there seems to be the notion that it will be a cakewalk, with no resistance, and that all the troops will just melt away. Even the US military has been over confident - maybe not the higher ups, but I saw a report this morning from an embeded journalist for ABC or CBS (can't remember which one) that said that as far as the troops were concerned, despite what was being said in Washington, they were most definitely NOT expecting the kind of fighting they've been getting into.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US should have at least milked the UN / inspections game long enough to get all the forces in place before starting.

It cuts both ways. If the inspectors remain in there longer and still can't find anything, it will strengthen the anti-war camp, maybe even to a point where Congress would change its mind.

[Frogman]

We are fighting this war with more restrictions than we had in GW1. In GW1, we bombed them for a month before moving ground forces. Also, we hit infrastructure, like power plants, that made a month seem like a long time. By the time our ground forces moved in GW1, the Iraqi troops were weary. This time around, Saddam has protected his troops better and they are still fresh.

I doubt we can win the war in Baghdad without cutting off the power. As far as I can tell, every man, woman, and child will be against us in Baghdad and we will have to subdue the civilian population.

[Straybow]

No views changed here. Doing something for the good of the Iraqis takes a long term perspective. Hussein and sons staying in power is definitely worse than the majority of likely outcomes. The Hussein dynasty has to go before something better can be built, and building anything will take time.

I think we're delivering a message to every 2-bit thieving dictator out there. Mess with the US and we might take you out if there's a good reason for us to get involved. The dictators already hate us, so there's no loss there.

We did it to Noriega when we tired of him playing both sides in the fight against cocaine trade. That was the compelling interest at the time. Now we're fighting against Saddam because we got involved 12 years ago and had to leave the job unfinished. To me, finishing the job is the number 1 reason for doing this.