300,000 troops just for show?

[Ferocious]

Just to justify spending on the military?

I've been hearing on a conservative talk show about how the objective to topple Saddam could easily be done with 300-400 special ops and special weapons that only they ever use.

But that the regular military generals were furious about this proposed plan. Supposedly Rumsfield wanted this to be a special ops type war....but Bush gave in to the regular military leaders and of course big business.

What do you think?

 

[NewSc2]

I think 300-400 special ops if caught could easily be surrounded/decimated.

Many people don't even think the amount of troops that we're sending in is enough, more would guarantee fewer casualties.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: NewSc2
I think 300-400 special ops if caught could easily be surrounded/decimated.

Many people don't even think the amount of troops that we're sending in is enough, more would guarantee fewer casualties.

People who believe that a few hundred special forces could take out Saddam have been reading WAY too many Tom Clancy novels...

This is reality, not a book or movie... Special forces have their limits...

: ) Hopper

 

[human2k]

Yet, ANOTHER anti-war vs pro-war thread in the making.

 

[NewSc2]

Originally posted by: human2k
Yet, ANOTHER anti-war vs pro-war thread in the making.

uh, not even :\... more like an "are we sending in enough troops" thread

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: NewSc2
I think 300-400 special ops if caught could easily be surrounded/decimated.

Many people don't even think the amount of troops that we're sending in is enough, more would guarantee fewer casualties.

The argument is that they would not be caught, however I don't like the odds, 400 vs 400,000 are not good odds, its more civilians trying to play general. I caught myself doing it last night saying why don't we just bomb bagdhad to peices then send in our troops, of course I have never even been in the armed forces let alone commanded any units. One of my favorite things I have heard so far though is, on nbc or something like that they were talking about the seals and special ops and the reporter was saying, yeah sometimes the seals have to do things the public might not like, earlier we saw a seal sharpening his knife, and he wasn't going fishing. It does however seem to me that we have only lost men to enemy fire when they get too far ahead of the armored convoys, so why not just drive the tanks into bagdhad and let loose? I dunno, just mindless rambling.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: NewSc2
I think 300-400 special ops if caught could easily be surrounded/decimated.

Many people don't even think the amount of troops that we're sending in is enough, more would guarantee fewer casualties.

People who believe that a few hundred special forces could take out Saddam have been reading WAY too many Tom Clancy novels...

This is reality, not a book or movie... Special forces have their limits...

: ) Hopper

True. There are some things only mechanized armored divisions can do, like take and hold ground.

 

[Codewiz]

The whole problem is that regardless of if 300-400 troops could kill Saddam regime, we have to put people in Iraq for a few years to make sure another dictator doesn't take over. Why not go ahead with lots of troops and walk through them. I would personally like to see another 300,000 troops in Iraq. We are spread too thin as it is.

 

[FoBoT]

i think over whelming force is the best policy

when/where are they going to send the 101st Airborne? are they going into the north? or around bagdad?

 

[UltraQuiet]

300,000 troops just for show?

Not hardly. Don't be surprised if that number doubles before this is over with. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of that crack team of assclowns at the Pentagon wanted to do it with 100K. They are equally as impressed with every gee-whiz shiny gadget that comes out as they are with their perceived expertise at running a war. If it wasn't for a borderline revolt by those wearing the uniform, that I have been told included a threatened resignation by Gen. Franks, we would have started this war w/ about 35,000 combat effective troops in Kuwait. Rumsfeld is an egomaniacal micro-managing old man who is convinced he knows more about being a flag officer than the flags. What really needs to happen, if this war is to go forward, is for him to get the fsck out of the way and let Gen. Franks, et al do their jobs. He won't, so I hope GW has about 10 of those 6 month war budgets handy. He's gonna need 'em.

 

[Bulk Beef]

the objective to topple Saddam could easily be done with 300-400 special ops and special weapons that only they ever use.

In Hollywood, maybe. In Baghdad, no.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey if 500,000 troops can get the job done faster then use 500,000 troops. If it saves American lives that's all that matters.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey if 500,000 troops can get the job done faster then use 500,000 troops. If it saves American lives that's all that matters.

Agreed. I have the feeling the 3rd Infantry has all it can handle until the 4th can join the fight.

 

[Alistar7]

they are on the way, together they will form an insurmountable force....

 

[HappyNic]

well, as long as they can finish this war quick,, I don't really care how much troops they send in.. it's already costling up $78 billions. With that much money we can buy Saddam out. Pretty much, we tell the Iraqi , if you Kill Sadam and have proft, we will give you $10 billion in US dollars and a nice house in the US. Saddam would be dead with-in an hour.

Or if the US can somehow get China to lend them a bit of their Troops, the US will have no problem scaring the Iraqi will numbers, lets say about 500,000 PLA soldiers would be fine. They will also pass out Flyers, but it'll be abit different from the US. Chinese version, "Hi, you are on deadly grounds, please leave this area with-in 5 hours. If you are still here when we arrive, you will become our enemy. The cost of your burial and the ammo that killed you will be bill to your family or relatives."

 

[Feldenak]

I'm still wondering where our armored divisions are? Yes, the 3rd ID is there but they are an infantry (mechanized) division, not a 1st or 3rd Armored. It boggles my mind that we are fighting a mobile, desert war and the 1st Armored is still sitting at Ft. Hood.