Former supreme allied commander of Nato has accuses Rumsfeld of putting allied troops at ris

[Red Dawn]

Says we should have involved 4 Heavy Armored Divisions This mad Dash to Baghdad seems a little risky to me. But unlike Clark I'm not a General..well maybe an Armchair General

 

[UltraQuiet]

I agree with them. I posted this the other day in a thread that got locked.

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.

Edit -- Nobody, and I mean nobody, hopes that I am dead wrong about this more than me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
I agree with them. I posted this the other day in a thread that got locked.

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.

Well I hope that old Dueche Bag doesn't cost more American Soldiers to get killed.

 

[StormRider]

I also have felt that our war plan was too reckless. It's way too risky. We advanced way too fast and have a vulnerable long thin supply line. And we just seemed way too cocky and overconfident with regards to our technological advantage.

I prefer Powell's doctrine of using overwhelming force. I think Rumsfeld is an idiot.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: StormRider
I also have felt that our war plan was too reckless. It's way too risky. We advanced way too fast and have a vulnerable long thin supply line. And we just seemed way too cocky and overconfident with regards to our technological advantage.

I prefer Powell's doctrine of using overwhelming force. I think Rumsfeld is an idiot.

But for the sake of our soldiers I hope that I am an idiot and Rumsfeld was right....

 

[sandorski]

Yea, I've been wondering about this, especially in light of the lack of(perhaps just slow) materialization of the "welcoming Iraqi's". A lot of assumptions seem to have lead up to this war, many having been wrong. More troops/equipment are definitely needed, if something should happen to the current troops causing them to be defeated, Iraq will go apeshit.

 

[da loser]

that article seems like it took words out of everyone's mouth and tried to create a deep division, whether this division is indeed the case, i wonder. i think mccaffrey route an op-ed in the nytimes possibly on this, anybody care to post it? because i've been listening to gen. clark on cnn, and his view isn't nearly extreme, maybe because he's on air, trying to keep up moral, avoid division?

also, that 4 division deal says it was a plan presented by gen. franks, so i assume many plans were in development. I know I don't have the expertise to judge what happened, but I would prefer a single piece by one person rather than bits and pieces coming from everyone, maybe i'm looking for something that is not possible due to politics and i need to read between the lines a little.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Says we should have involved 4 Heavy Armored Divisions This mad Dash to Baghdad seems a little risky to me. But unlike Clark I'm not a General..well maybe an Armchair General

4th ID is rolling into place and airborne is dropping into the north. Hard to bitch about what is going on, when none of us know what is going on.

 

[Jmman]

This statement by Clark wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he wants to run for president, would it??

 

[Tominator]

I think it was Gen. George S. Patton that said something like...A good plan enacted today is better that the perfect plan enacted tomorrow.

The longer we waited, engaged in diplomatic efforts which were useless, the stronger Saddam got.

Clark is retired. The capabilities of our military are much improved since he was privy to info.

People like Clark should shut up and learn.....

 

[rahvin]

The original plan wasn't a single division, it was two. 4th was supposed to unload in Turkey and Drive into Iraq. Without ground passage they are being forced to air lift the division in. It's gonna take time to get them in place. Supposidly troops have also been unloading in western Iraq so there may be a secret deployment going on.

I think the Iraqies are going to be quite supprised when the storms quite down tonight and those armored columns they have out on the move go up in the smoke of hellfire missles and 2000lb bombs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Says we should have involved 4 Heavy Armored Divisions This mad Dash to Baghdad seems a little risky to me. But unlike Clark I'm not a General..well maybe an Armchair General

4th ID is rolling into place and airborne is dropping into the north. Hard to bitch about what is going on, when none of us know what is going on.

True. I have a lot of anxiety over this war and when I read something like that it only adds fuel to the fire. Still, one would think it would be best to go for the over kill, to hell with saving money.

 

[Jmman]

Well, imho, we are less than 50 miles from Baghdad and have suffered minimal casualties. What were people saying before this conflict started? Huge coalition losses? Hasn't happened yet. Let's let our leadership conduct the battle. After all, this is virtually the same group that won the Gulf War, arguably the most lopsided war in history, so let's not panic just yet.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, imho, we are less than 50 miles from Baghdad and have suffered minimal casualties. What were people saying before this conflict started? Huge coalition losses? Hasn't happened yet. Let's let our leadership conduct the battle. After all, this is virtually the same group that won the Gulf War, arguably the most lopsided war in history, so let's not panic just yet.

I don't think it's as much that we can't get the job done as much as it is it will be harder work. Plus if We had Overwhelming Force I think it would demoralize the Iraqi's faster.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, imho, we are less than 50 miles from Baghdad and have suffered minimal casualties. What were people saying before this conflict started? Huge coalition losses? Hasn't happened yet. Let's let our leadership conduct the battle. After all, this is virtually the same group that won the Gulf War, arguably the most lopsided war in history, so let's not panic just yet.

Haven't done much more than drive through empty desert yet either.

 

[rufruf44]

Well, at the very least additional troops means they can secure the supply lines much easier. They seemed to have considerable problem right now.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, imho, we are less than 50 miles from Baghdad and have suffered minimal casualties. What were people saying before this conflict started? Huge coalition losses? Hasn't happened yet. Let's let our leadership conduct the battle. After all, this is virtually the same group that won the Gulf War, arguably the most lopsided war in history, so let's not panic just yet.

Haven't done much more than drive through empty desert yet either.

Desert exists where Saudi ARabia and it connect, and also where it has its border with Jordan. The rest of Iraq isn't a desert. Unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait Iraq actually does other stuff beyond produce oil

 

[Stark]

That guy was on the news this morning and seemed fairly content with the way things are going. He made a point that the decisions weren't his to make, they're up to Franks.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
Well, imho, we are less than 50 miles from Baghdad and have suffered minimal casualties. What were people saying before this conflict started? Huge coalition losses? Hasn't happened yet. Let's let our leadership conduct the battle. After all, this is virtually the same group that won the Gulf War, arguably the most lopsided war in history, so let's not panic just yet.

Haven't done much more than drive through empty desert yet either.

Desert exists where Saudi ARabia and it connect, and also where it has its border with Jordan. The rest of Iraq isn't a desert. Unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait Iraq actually does other stuff beyond produce oil

ok, change desert to empty space.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: rahvin
The original plan wasn't a single division, it was two. 4th was supposed to unload in Turkey and Drive into Iraq. Without ground passage they are being forced to air lift the division in. It's gonna take time to get them in place. Supposidly troops have also been unloading in western Iraq so there may be a secret deployment going on.

I think the Iraqies are going to be quite supprised when the storms quite down tonight and those armored columns they have out on the move go up in the smoke of hellfire missles and 2000lb bombs.

I don't think it's easy/possible to airlift M1A2 tanks; I think they have to come into Kuwait by ship, and then drive up towards Baghdad. Not sure, though. Also, I wouldn't put it past Saddam to stuff that convoy full of civilians and then claim he was just trying to evacuate the city. Al-Jazeera would eat that up, and their Arab constituency is stupid enough to believe it.

 

[Corn]

True. I have a lot of anxiety over this war and when I read something like that it only adds fuel to the fire. Still, one would think it would be best to go for the over kill, to hell with saving money.

I don't think money has been a consideration in this fight. IMHO it appears that Bush/Rumsfeld are attempting to minimize civilian casualties so as to keep their detractors at bay. While I don't necessarily disagree with this strategy, I believe it to be a significant reason that you don't see alot of popular Iraqi uprisings against Saddam.

The Iraqi people have been conditioned to be fearful through many decades of tyranical rule--and I'm sure are quite aware of the fact that Saddam has carefully integrated his elite republican guard into the civilian population. I doubt there will be a whole lot of vocalized and actioned support of our troops by the civilian Iraqi population until they are satisfied that Saddam and his ruling Baath party are gone for good.

I have several friends who have immigrated here from Iraq, who still have family over there, and their opinion is that the Iraqi civilian population would be extremely forgiving of civilian casualties if their freedom comes to pass as has been promised (a promise I'm going to hold Bush to), essentially saying that they believe we are being too careful to avoid civilian casualties. Of course it's easy to say that when they don't have to worry about bombs falling in Detroit..........

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn

True. I have a lot of anxiety over this war and when I read something like that it only adds fuel to the fire. Still, one would think it would be best to go for the over kill, to hell with saving money.

I don't think money has been a consideration in this fight. IMHO it appears that Bush/Rumsfeld are attempting to minimize civilian casualties so as to keep their detractors at bay. While I don't necessarily disagree with this strategy, I believe it to be a significant reason that you don't see alot of popular Iraqi uprisings against Saddam.

The Iraqi people have been conditioned to be fearful through many decades of tyranical rule--and I'm sure are quite aware of the fact that Saddam has carefully integrated his elite republican guard into the civilian population. I doubt there will be a whole lot of vocalized and actioned support of our troops by the civilian Iraqi population until they are satisfied that Saddam and his ruling Baath party are gone for good.

I have several friends who have immigrated here from Iraq, who still have family over there, and their opinion is that the Iraqi civilian population would be extremely forgiving of civilian casualties if their freedom comes to pass as has been promised (a promise I'm going to hold Bush to), essentially saying that they believe we are being too careful to avoid civilian casualties. Of course it's easy to say that when they don't have to worry about bombs falling in Detroit..........

Just the annual Hell Night on Oct 30

 

[shiner]

This strategy of armored maneuver warfare is nothing new. We did the same thing in Germany during WWII. Bypassing pockets of resistance to get to the main objective is part of what is called "Maneuver Warfare" You also have to remember that were it not for our great NATO ally Turkey being an ass we would have had the 4th Infantry Division coming in from the North. The original plan called for that and had it happened it would have changed the Iraqi defense plans. As it is we are having to move the 4th's equipment down from the Mediterranean and bring it in through Kuwait. Should be there in the next week or so and once it arrives the supplemental force they will provide will be more than enough to help support the forces already in country and help provide for better securing the Southern area of Iraq. I understand the strategy they laid out for this and it is a sound one. The only problem was an uncooperative ally, ally my ass, who caused our plans to be modified. If anything is to be faulted it is the decision to rely too heavily on our so called allies in the region for help.

Cut Franks some slack.....he's a good ol boy from my home state.

 

[Kaiynne]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

I don't think it's easy/possible to airlift M1A2 tanks; I think they have to come into Kuwait by ship, and then drive up towards Baghdad. Not sure, though. Also, I wouldn't put it past Saddam to stuff that convoy full of civilians and then claim he was just trying to evacuate the city. Al-Jazeera would eat that up, and their Arab constituency is stupid enough to believe it.

Stuff a convoy of tanks and missile launchers with civilians? Who would be driving it? This statement makes almost no sense at all, it is a perfect example of "On the tv they said Saddam will kill his civilians to make us look bad, how can i think up a way for that to be true in this instance?"

As for Al-Jazeera and their stupid Arab contstituents, I wouldn't have thought anyone would have been stupid enough to even concoct that statement, so maybe stupidity actually has no bounds.

 

[Feldenak]

I've personally wondered why the 1st Armored is sitting at Ft. Hood for this war. 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) is a good division but for mobile, desert maneuver warfare, I want my armored divisions in the mix.