Former UK foreign minister - Robin Cook - the war was badly planned!

[chequita guevara]

The 4th ID was originally planned to go to Iraq, but according to the news, it was originally intended as part of the occupation, not to help in "liberating" Iraq.

Runsfeld's job is to push the military to do what they think they can't do. The military always prepares to fight the last war, not the next one. They're slow to see the potential uses of new technology, and it's either military necessity or civilians who force them to try something new. Course, Rumsfeld may be wrong about the capabilities of American technology. It's not like the contractors haven't been giving the US military shoddy products for a couple hundred years. It wouldn't be the first time we based a strategy on technology that should have worked.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
According to this week's New Yorker magazine, military officials are accusing Rumsfeld of incompetence in planning the campaign:

The regular Army in particular, and the USMC to a lesser extent, can't stand Little Red Rummy-hood.

I predicted a while ago that, should the war not go off as an instant and spectacular success, Rumsfeld would be the fall guy. This would seem to be the beginning of that, perhaps, if the story is correct.

He's the link in the chain of command between Bush and Franks. Franks is loyal and close to retirement, but he and the regular army won't take any fall for Rummy, any more than they would for Aspin.

Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.

The guy's a moron.

Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said.

Much of the supply of Iraqi targets worthy of Tomahawk cruise missles have been expended, and aircraft carriers are running out of targets worth PGMs. Tanks and other equipment require maintenance when they're used, and that's why divisions have divisional maintenance units.

"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said.

Bull****. At least we know why this guy is a former official, unless he's just giving Hersh disinfo. The Iraqis don't have a chance in hell of doing significant damage to our units.

[chequita guevara]

Iraq's infantry is no match for our own, and their armor can't move except during a shihar or they'll get obliterated from the air. Even if they do make contact with American armor, they're dead. The best use for Iraqi armor would be attacking the American rear, and there's not much of a chance of that happening.

[Ted Striker]

In defense of Rumsfeld:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed what he called the critics' "hyperventilating" and called reports that he vetoed plans by top officers for a larger invasion force "fiction."

Rumsfeld told ABC's "This Week" that Franks developed the plan with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, adding that "it's a little early for postmortems." Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the number of troops on the ground is "exactly what Gen. Franks wanted." (Full story)

"A lot of good things happened and a lot of bad things were avoided because Gen. Franks decided to put forces on the ground fast and early," Rumsfeld said.

[Spiffor]

First, I thought the wild optimism shown by the US military at the beginning of the war was mere propaganda. We were to think the Iraqis would massively surrender and welcome USUK troops as liberators.
We were to think the "decapitation" attack would make Saddam's regime collapse with the first bomb.

I have n ow discovered with horror these beautiful speeches were not propaganda. They were the hypotheses on which the attack was planned. This war was badly planned, plain and simple.

[chequita guevara]

No matter how the war turns out now, no political gain will come of it for the allies.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This war was badly planned, plain and simple.

How is that? Because we haven't won in the first week?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The 4th ID was originally planned to go to Iraq, but according to the news, it was originally intended as part of the occupation, not to help in "liberating" Iraq.

Which news? The intent with 4 ID was to operate on a second front from Turkey, which meant that 4 ID wasn't assigned to deal with Baghdad. Instead, it would stabiliize the Kurd held areas in the north, secure the northern oilfields around Kirkuk, deal with IRG Adnan and IRG Nebuchadnazzar, and participate in securing Kirkuk, Mosul and Tikrit. Not taking down Baghdad, but hardly "occupation" duty.

Runsfeld's job is to push the military to do what they think they can't do.

How can he do that, when like so many SecDef's, he's grossly ignorant of the capabilities and limitations of the forces. The warfighting role of the SecDec is being the spokesman for POTUS and the NSC to the theater commanders, and the more general role is being the lead for the administration in procurement issues with Congress.

The military always prepares to fight the last war, not the next one. They're slow to see the potential uses of new technology, and it's either military necessity or civilians who force them to try something new.

Nice slogan, but it's been bull**** for decades. The current military (a) runs advanced training centers which are designed on the basis of doctrine of potential enemies. (NTC at Fort Irwin, UWTC? at Fort Benning, etc.) The OpFor units assigned are graded on how well they shred the trainees who rotate through. (b) The US Army has an O-10 level command, TraDoc, specifically to develop and test new warfighting doctrines and evaluate them against OpFors. (c) The USMC has a similar function, at O-9 level, since the USMC has a lot few O-10 slots allowed it. (d) It's the military, not civvies, who has wanted integration of GPS and digitial information systems with combat forces, and which has pushed for a number of programs, from the M109A6 Paladin upgrades, the A2 upgrades of the Abrams, the development of mast sights on the Kiowa Warrior and Longbow Apache, as well as numerous other technical improvements. (e) It's again the military, not civilians, that have led the push for smaller, local unit usable UAV's and robotic and electronic recon devices.

Course, Rumsfeld may be wrong about the capabilities of American technology. It's not like the contractors haven't been giving the US military shoddy products for a couple hundred years. It wouldn't be the first time we based a strategy on technology that should have worked.

Considering that we're pretty much dominating the Iraqis, it seems to work ok. There are big issues with the future of the army, and a return (with wheels) of the dreaded "light tank" concept, but that is driven by Pentagon chair-warriors and their pet contractors, but generational procurement games are really a separate issue.

Originally posted by spiffor
I have now discovered with horror these beautiful speeches were not propaganda. They were the hypotheses on which the attack was planned. This war was badly planned, plain and simple.

Which is why after ten days, we own the air, the Iraqi air farce hasn't flown a single sortie, right? Or why, despite our vastly inferior forces with their endangered supply lines, the Iraqis haven't moved to do anything about it. Or why we own Iraqi airfields and have advanced over 200 miles in ten days, pinning the enemy defenses down in front of Baghdad.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara No matter how the war turns out now, no political gain will come of it for the allies.

Why not? Most people don't have a memory for public events beyond last week. We can still **** it up during occupation, but the protests so far have been a joke, and there's no real evidence of significant lasting repercussions.

Ted -

Of course Rumsfeld's going to deny it. Admitting it would be career suicide, and he knows the senior commanders in the military are never going to publicly contradict their senior in the chain of command with a war on. Franks, Myers etc. have no choice but to publicly support what Rumsfeld says, no matter what that may be.

[Dinner]

It is worth pointing out that the Joint Chiefs have said from the very beginning that they believed it would take one month to defeat the Iraqi military and occupy the country. They fully expected sporadic terror acts to occur long after that one month window but the main phase of the war was/is projected to last one month.

One quarter of the way through that one month seems a wee bit early to start crying about the war not being over.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No matter how the war turns out now, no political gain will come of it for the allies.

There will be gains made but they will be of the long term sort while the down sides will be of the immediate sort.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zylka
Someone told me to do a Google {snip by MtG} to gain insight into the current situation in Iraq

...boy was that a mistake

by MtG: Yes it was.

Oh, ZYYYYYLLLLLKAAAAAA....

If I EVER catch you posting a link, or information what to search for or how to find an image or link even vaguely similar to that one you mentioned, you will be banned for not one, but two months to save me the trouble of having to search and read every one of your posts.

Similar will be defined by me, and I'm talking level of grossness, not similarity in specific subject matter.

Do we understand each other?

Good, I'm glad we do.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
How is that? Because we haven't won in the first week?

Because you have to bring 120,000 extra troops after having discovered the resistance is tougher than you thought ?
I'm not claiming the war would have been won in one week. I'm merely saying your strategy widely underestimated the Iraqi resistance, and widely overestimated the warm welcome your troops will get. I thought the wild optimism at the beginning of the war was pure PRopaganda. It seems it was the strategical hypothesis.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Oh, ZYYYYYLLLLLKAAAAAA....

If I EVER catch you posting a link, or information what to search for or how to find an image or link even vaguely similar to that one you mentioned, you will be banned for not one, but two months to save me the trouble of having to search and read every one of your posts.

Similar will be defined by me, and I'm talking level of grossness, not similarity in specific subject matter.

Do we understand each other?

Good, I'm glad we do.

I only wish you had done that before I did the search. Now I'm scarred for life.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I only wish you had done that before I did the search. Now I'm scarred for life.

If Zylka, of all people, says something was a mistake, take his word for it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because you have to bring 120,000 extra troops after having discovered the resistance is tougher than you thought ?

The press has grossly botched that one by double-reporting a lot of numbers and units. Most of the 120,000 were already planned for deployment and many of them were already reported as having deployment orders. A lot of the 160,000 US ground forces in theater are included in this number, so most are not "extra" but were scheduled to either come in through Turkey (62,000) or as follow-on forces coming through Kuwait.

I haven't yet seen any indication of totally new forces, except the 1,000 + troops from 173 Airborne Brigade

I'm not claiming the war would have been won in one week. I'm merely saying your strategy widely underestimated the Iraqi resistance, and widely overestimated the warm welcome your troops will get.

What's been under and overestimated is a complex group of related issues. Basically, the Iraqis aren't going to risk their lives displeasing the Baath party, SRG and ISSS *******s, since we're not actually (initially, at this point so far) occupying their cities and rooting out their *******s. The average Iraqi has the choice of the coalition troops passing through, or the thugs with the guns that are staying right there in town.

A great example was the "spontaneous anti-American demonstration" set up in Safwan and widely reported on al Jazeera. Now, if you have a lot of anti-American sentiment, you'd expect a spontaneous mix of messages: **** you, Yankee; Imperialist go home; death to infidels; death to Bush, what have you. A whole bunch of people repeatedly chanting in Arabic "we are ready to give our lives for you, Saddam" ought to ring a few alarm bells as to the genuineness of the sentiment.

I thought the wild optimism at the beginning of the war was pure PRopaganda. It seems it was the strategical hypothesis.

I think it was more a dichotomy between the civilian ideologues who made these pronouncements (primarily Little Red Rummy-hood and the Big Bad Wolfowitz) with the military folks who had to go along, because you don't contradict the civilian bosses, and the more cautious "dinosaur" types who were roundly dismissed by the ideologues.

Right now, although it's spin central, my sense is that this is finally making the (proper) transition from the war of the chickenhawks to the war of the professionals.