Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq

[steell]

I think this shows we probably need more heavy transport aircraft so we can move more equipment more quickly.

The Air Force has been telling Congress this for at least 30 years (that I know of). Congress controls the money for the weapons systems and determines what the military gets. As an example, the A-10 was built in the district of a powerful Senator, and that program could not be killed, so the Air Force ended up with lots more A-10's than they could possibly use (IMHO they should belong to the Army anyway). So if you also think we need more airlift capability. complain to your Congress Critter

Edited to correct spelling, someday I will learn to type

 

[Zipp]

I agree as well reguarduing the the imbedded reporters,It was a bad decision. As far as the war progress goes,I think we're doing just fine.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: steell

(IMHO they should belong to the Army anyay)

It sounds like a good idea to make them Army assets, but in reality its alot safer to have all air assets organized the way they are now. Its a bear to have lots of chiefs; centralized coordination becomes really tough if you disperse the forces too much. Its becoming outdated to think of each branch of service as independent. When in the field they are all coordinated together anymore.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: CrazyfoolRumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

I hope you are kidding. Rumsfeld should have went in with overwhelming power. The fact of the matter is that those additional ground troops could be dealing with the cities that the original force bypassed AND secure the supply lines, while the main force assaulted baghdad. We would have to wait days for the assault to begin and maybe end, but instead now we are waiting weeks and looking like idiots. For Gods sake, he held back an entire tank division, and now we gotta wait till mid April for that same division to arrive with their equipment. Rumsfeld put our troops are a greater risk than they should be, and he is smart for this? Leave the war planning to the generals I say, not to high and mighty civilians who think they know what they are doing.

You got nice armchairs, Mr. quarterback?

Rumsfeld is not standing in the way of anything. Where does all this liberal bullcrap come from anyway?

Yes, god forbid anybody EVER question the leaders. My apologies.

You didn't just question the man, you insulted him and insulted anybody who thinks that guy might know a little bit more about the situation than either you or me.

I am not arrogant enough to claim to know more about that situation than the Secretary of Defense of the USA.

Perhaps you do know more than him, but I seriously f***ing doubt it.

Judging from your previous posts you sound like another american-blind-sheep who will follow and listen to whatever their government will tell them. Just look at the recent American history and see for yourself how many times officials in government lied, and how many times they put on a brave face even though they knew they were in a deep booboo. I?m not saying Runsfeld is not smart, he most likely is, but keep in mind that the biggest mistakes and miscalculations in the world were made by smart people who had too much power.

(Sorry about the last post, I screwed it up.)

And your experience planning a war, and invading another country comes from what?

Yes, god forbid anybody EVER question the leaders. My apologies

LOL...any one who questions the goverment is considered an "outside the box thinker" by thier peers, because you question the goverment without the insight or information they have, you are not the "blind sheep" you consider the rest of us to be. So I ask you what insight into the enemy military do you have? What experience do you have sending thousands of troops off to war? How many wars have you planned and executed?

Let me say this, and I have stated this in another post:

If and invading force landed on our shores say in Savannah Georgia, and in less then a week they pushed within 50 miles of washington DC and by that time we had only killed 40 of thier troops.. this whole country would be sh!tting it's pants, and I would say that invading force was pretty well put together wouldn't you?

 

[MadRat]

*KA-CHING!*

 

[Napalm]

Let me say this, and I have stated this in another post:

If and invading force landed on our shores say in Savannah Georgia, and in less then a week they pushed within 50 miles of washington DC and by that time we had only killed 40 of thier troops.. this whole country would be sh!tting it's pants, and I would say that invading force was pretty well put together wouldn't you?

LOL!

Iraq is the size of California, and it has been starved and disarmed for 12 years. Before this invasion, many of you apologists openly bragged about how U.S. troops would roll over the Iraqi's with the "shock and awe" campaign and that the U.S. forces would be welcomed as liberators. This has not even come close to passing.

To the apologists who say this is going well, I ask you one question: What single city do U.S. (oh, yeah almost forgot - Coalition of the Willing) forces control in Iraq? The answer is a big fat zero. While I am at it, how about a second quesiton: What do coalition forces control? The answer is sand.

If I were Bush right now, I would be lining up that moron Rumsfeld and his sausage-hearted crony Cheney and I'd start asking some very difficult and pointed questions...

N

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Napalm

Let me say this, and I have stated this in another post:

If and invading force landed on our shores say in Savannah Georgia, and in less then a week they pushed within 50 miles of washington DC and by that time we had only killed 40 of thier troops.. this whole country would be sh!tting it's pants, and I would say that invading force was pretty well put together wouldn't you?

LOL!

Iraq is the size of California, and it has been starved and disarmed for 12 years. Before this invasion, many of you apologists openly bragged about how U.S. troops would roll over the Iraqi's with the "shock and awe" campaign and that the U.S. forces would be welcomed as liberators. This has not even come close to passing.

To the apologists who say this is going well, I ask you one question: What single city do U.S. (oh, yeah almost forgot - Coalition of the Willing) forces control in Iraq? The answer is a big fat zero. While I am at it, how about a second quesiton: What do coalition forces control? The answer is sand.

If I were Bush right now, I would be lining up that moron Rumsfeld and his sausage-hearted crony Cheney and I'd start asking some very difficult and pointed questions...

N

We control the port city for sure, as supplies are going thru there now. Alot of folks, including myself, were hoping for this to fold up like a house a cards, and it did not. Since it did not fold up like a house of cards, we now rely on overwhelming force and that takes more time.

We also control and are operating from 6 airbases from within Iraq. Like it not, this is still going quite well.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Napalm

Let me say this, and I have stated this in another post:

If and invading force landed on our shores say in Savannah Georgia, and in less then a week they pushed within 50 miles of washington DC and by that time we had only killed 40 of thier troops.. this whole country would be sh!tting it's pants, and I would say that invading force was pretty well put together wouldn't you?

LOL!

Iraq is the size of California, and it has been starved and disarmed for 12 years. Before this invasion, many of you apologists openly bragged about how U.S. troops would roll over the Iraqi's with the "shock and awe" campaign and that the U.S. forces would be welcomed as liberators. This has not even come close to passing.

To the apologists who say this is going well, I ask you one question: What single city do U.S. (oh, yeah almost forgot - Coalition of the Willing) forces control in Iraq? The answer is a big fat zero. While I am at it, how about a second quesiton: What do coalition forces control? The answer is sand.

If I were Bush right now, I would be lining up that moron Rumsfeld and his sausage-hearted crony Cheney and I'd start asking some very difficult and pointed questions...

N

You forgot to mention the fact that we also control the air (sky ) and alot of bridges too so in keeping with ATOT and ATTWATME traditions - YOUR WHOLE POST IS INVALID

The problem is that you and the media do not understand that "securing" and "total occupation" are two different things. We secure our objectives - and guess what? Total occupation is in the plan (ie. ridding towns of ALL resistance) but we have to have all our ducks in a row before we can complete that mission.

CkG

 

[Napalm]

This is going well???

Ken Addleman predicted before the war that "this will be a cakewalk". His words not mine. This most certainly has not been a cakewalk.

Richard Perle said to Robert Novak that he thought a very small force would be required to get the job done. Now after denials by Powell that his was needed, they are slowing things down because the supply lines are extremely vulnerable and more troops are being sent in. These troops are expected in a month...

This is going to be long and ugly and anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete and utter fool.

N

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Napalm
This is going well???

Ken Addleman predicted before the war that "this will be a cakewalk". His words not mine. This most certainly has not been a cakewalk.

Richard Perle said to Robert Novak that he thought a very small force would be required to get the job done. Now after denials by Powell that his was needed, they are slowing things down because the supply lines are extremely vulnerable and more troops are being sent in. These troops are expected in a month...

This is going to be long and ugly and anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete and utter fool.

N

Obviously his was not the popular opinion as we went with a larger force that was capable of cranked up or turned off if needed. The 4TH ID was to be in place but it got delayed by Turkey. The 100,000 that will joining in over the next 30 days was already planned to go if additional forces were needed.

 

[Wheezer]

napalm,

lets look into the past shall we?

WW2, Korea, Vietnam...THOSE my friend were long wars.

This has only been going on for 2 freakin weeks and alreaedy according to people like yourself we have already lost.

Tell me, do you supporrt the troops? If your answer is yes then STFU.

How can you sit there and tell anyone that you support the troops who are out there fighting and dying and then turn around and let the crap spew from your mouth?


Basically you and others like you are in effect saying

"I support you, but I do not have the confidence in you that you will win"

How the hell is that supporting the troops?

 

[Napalm]

Obviously his was not the popular opinion as we went with a larger force that was capable of cranked up or turned off if needed. The 4TH ID was to be in place but it got delayed by Turkey. The 100,000 that will joining in over the next 30 days was already planned to go if additional forces were needed.

You think that the U.S. has gone in there with a large force??? Try this on for size: look up the number of troops that were used simply to expel the Iraqi's from Kuwait 12 years ago. Then look at the meagre force that has been sent to take over the whole fickin' country.

Forget for a moment whether this is an ethical invasion - if you are going to do something you do it right - you use "decisive force" as Powel has advocated. This war has been fought on the cheap because of the pig-headedness of Rumsfeld and many young Americans and British troops will loose their lives because of it. Now that they have started it, they had better send in a massive force and finish it - otherwise it will be body bags galore.

Ain't war a blast?

N

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Napalm

Obviously his was not the popular opinion as we went with a larger force that was capable of cranked up or turned off if needed. The 4TH ID was to be in place but it got delayed by Turkey. The 100,000 that will joining in over the next 30 days was already planned to go if additional forces were needed.

You think that the U.S. has gone in there with a large force??? Try this on for size: look up the number of troops that were used simply to expel the Iraqi's from Kuwait 12 years ago. Then look at the meagre force that has been sent to take over the whole fickin' country.

Forget for a moment whether this is an ethical invasion - if you are going to do something you do it right - you use "decisive force" as Powel has advocated. This war has been fought on the cheap because of the pig-headedness of Rumsfeld and many young Americans and British troops will loose their lives because of it. Now that they have started it, they had better send in a massive force and finish it - otherwise it will be body bags galore.

Ain't war a blast?

N

I'm sure that if more troops are needed they will be sent. It's not like we are suffering from Heavy Casulties or have lost one battle.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Napalm

Obviously his was not the popular opinion as we went with a larger force that was capable of cranked up or turned off if needed. The 4TH ID was to be in place but it got delayed by Turkey. The 100,000 that will joining in over the next 30 days was already planned to go if additional forces were needed.

You think that the U.S. has gone in there with a large force??? Try this on for size: look up the number of troops that were used simply to expel the Iraqi's from Kuwait 12 years ago. Then look at the meagre force that has been sent to take over the whole fickin' country.


Our military is technoligically stronger than it was 10 years ago. We can remove far more threats from the air today, than 10 years ago. The Iraqi forces are smaller and the defenses are much less than they were 12 years ago. All things being equall the force ratio is probably close to the same.



Forget for a moment whether this is an ethical invasion - if you are going to do something you do it right - you use "decisive force" as Powel has advocated. This war has been fought on the cheap because of the pig-headedness of Rumsfeld and many young Americans and British troops will loose their lives because of it. Now that they have started it, they had better send in a massive force and finish it - otherwise it will be body bags galore.


Why dont you ask the Iraqis if we are using decisive force against them. I think you would be quite surprised at the answer.


Ain't war a blast?

no war is hell.

 

[Napalm]

Wheezer:

STFU? Who are you?

I do not support dictators who run torture states and I do not support the thugs that keep him in power. However, I can't support this invasion because the U.S. is not a global police force - remeber, Iraq was invaded not because Saddam is a bad guy, but because the U.S. said he had WMD that posed an imminent threat to the U.S. on its own borders. I do not support an arrogant U.S. Administration that has pissed away all of the good-will and support following 9/11 - how could they in two short years do something so utterly moronic and incompetent?

I support a U.N. invasion of Iraq if there is any evidence of WMD. I also support the invasion by the U.S. and Britain if there is any use of WMD. And regarding supporting U.S./British troops - I wish they did not have to be there and I sincerely hope that none of their families have to deal with their deaths because of the dyslexic Bush, the sausage-hearted Cheney, the arrogant Rumsfeld and the puppet-master Wolfowitz.

Is my position clear enough for you, junior.

N

 

[Napalm]

Red:

15,000 posts has mellowed you. I remember when you'd come in here guns-a-blazing... Now you are nothing if not civil.

Have they got you on blood-pressure meds or something??

N

 

[etech]

dyslexic Bush, the sausage-hearted Cheney, the arrogant Rumsfeld and the puppet-master Wolfowitz

I'd say that the 'reasons' for your postion are quite clear.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

dyslexic Bush, the sausage-hearted Cheney, the arrogant Rumsfeld and the puppet-master Wolfowitz

I'd say that the 'reasons' for your postion are quite clear.

Like you I have a lot of Anxiety aboput this war. Though I am in support of our actions I'm not totally at ease with it. I understand how you feel though I might not agree with it. I also understand how others who are against this war feel though I'm not in total agreement with them. I surely don't consider them Anti American and it pisses me off when DittoHeads who never had a thought of their own make blanket statements labeling all who might not agree them as "Pro Saddam"

 

[Napalm]

I'd say that the 'reasons' for your postion are quite clear.

LOL - do you think I would support this thing if cardboard-boy Gore, or Cigar-boy Clinton was in power? Further, Tony Blair is a left-wing politician leading a Labour party in Britain and I still think that he is wrong. So don't try to make this about differences of opinion with people that I do not respect...

N

 

[UltraQuiet]

Don Rumsfeld == Robert McNamara

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Napalm
Wheezer:

STFU? Who are you?

I do not support dictators who run torture states and I do not support the thugs that keep him in power. However, I can't support this invasion because the U.S. is not a global police force - remeber, Iraq was invaded not because Saddam is a bad guy, but because the U.S. said he had WMD that posed an imminent threat to the U.S. on its own borders. I do not support an arrogant U.S. Administration that has pissed away all of the good-will and support following 9/11 - how could they in two short years do something so utterly moronic and incompetent?

I support a U.N. invasion of Iraq if there is any evidence of WMD. I also support the invasion by the U.S. and Britain if there is any use of WMD. And regarding supporting U.S./British troops - I wish they did not have to be there and I sincerely hope that none of their families have to deal with their deaths because of the dyslexic Bush, the sausage-hearted Cheney, the arrogant Rumsfeld and the puppet-master Wolfowitz.

Is my position clear enough for you, junior.

N

good will and support forllowing 9/11? Where the hell were you? A LOT of people started questioning how much this administration knew.

As a matter of fact people started to belive that there was knowledge of the attack and yet our goverment let it happen. So where you get the idea that there was this tremendous coming together following 9/11 is truly misguided.

Just because you have not seen the evidence of WMD does not mean that they are not there. Who the hell are you to be demanding proof? given Saddams record do you think it is MORE likely or LESS likely that he has WMD?

There is no evidence of WMD because the UN and Blix are both so damned incompetant that they would rather turn the other way then to face the issues head on. It is so much easier to just draw up resolution after resolution. They do not have the balls to be the ones that put thier foot down and say enough is enough. They put Libya in charge of human rights for god's sake. So don't tell me we should have waited. Because that just goes back to 9/11.

The same people that claimed Bush knew and did nothing are the same ones that later changed to "well they should have known, they should have prevented this"

Well now we have the means and opportunity to do just that but because people don't want to face the reality that we might get a little dirty, that people will die they now claim that we have no justification. What happened to preventing tragidies like 9-11 either here or somewhere else in the world?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Napalm]

Wheezer:

You have proven to be as bright as I suspected... Following 9/11 numerous world leaders came to New York to show support - including, Fox, Chretien, Chirac and Putin. In addition, many nations supported (and still support) the resultant war in Afghanistan and the broader war on terrorism. To say that there was not an outpouring of support for the U.S. following the Trade Tower attacks is crazy.

And regarding WMD - my assertion is that if you attack a nation based on their capacity to wage war with WMD, then start with countries who you can prove have them. Try North Korea for starters. Your assertion seems to be that you attack those who you think may have them, and disregard proving that possibility. Let me ask you - is this also how your criminal justice system works?

N

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Typical media second-guessing.


Rumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

MacNamara was a very "smart" guy too. Look where he got us.

Smart doesn't equal correct.

At least MacNamara was man enough to admit his mistakes, albiet 25 years later. I doubt Rumsfeld is that big a man.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Typical media second-guessing.


Rumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

MacNamara was a very "smart" guy too. Look where he got us.

Smart doesn't equal correct.

At least MacNamara was man enough to admit his mistakes, albiet 25 years later. I doubt Rumsfeld is that big a man.

I doubt Rumsfeld will be around in 25 years.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, people have been trying to tell Rummy about his overconfidence. People who do this for a living, not some holdover from the Nixon administration should be making these plans. If you are going to invade, you do it in force. We could have waited another week or two to get things in place, but nope, had to go for it. Bush is impatient, and Rummy is the same.