Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq

[da loser]

Originally posted by: 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.

I think that is the entire reason for why we don't have the troops. Equipment has been getting shipped from here everyday for the past two months or so. I'm no expert, but I don't think we had as much time to deploy our stuff as in Desert Storm. Part of that reason was political, didn't want to be seen as already preparing for war. I too think the problem is also with the pentagon and congress which don't want to give up some pet projects. I think the A-10 turned out pretty good for us. The B-1 on the otherhand is a fiasco. It's hard to think of what systems were total failures though.

 

[Crimson]

I think its going to be funny how all of these people who think they know more than the Administration about how to conduct this war in Iraq will disapear once it becomes obvious the U.S. is going to win and its not going to be the disaster that they have been saying all along.

I think 6 months from now, if I remember or care anymore, I'll try to bump threads like this to point out how foolish you people were acting.. and I bet you will have no response, other than calling people names like you do now.

 

[tk149]

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.

Thank you, Mr. Tuesday morning Armchair Quarterback. Perhaps you have some proof to back up your position here?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think its going to be funny how all of these people who think they know more than the Administration about how to conduct this war in Iraq will disapear once it becomes obvious the U.S. is going to win and its not going to be the disaster that they have been saying all along.

I think 6 months from now, if I remember or care anymore, I'll try to bump threads like this to point out how foolish you people were acting.. and I bet you will have no response, other than calling people names like you do now.

That would be interesting, no matter the outcome.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think its going to be funny how all of these people who think they know more than the Administration about how to conduct this war in Iraq will disapear once it becomes obvious the U.S. is going to win and its not going to be the disaster that they have been saying all along.

I think 6 months from now, if I remember or care anymore, I'll try to bump threads like this to point out how foolish you people were acting.. and I bet you will have no response, other than calling people names like you do now.

I think it tragic how troops have to live with the ignorance of an administration who values it's ego above the welfare of the troops. In 6 months, if this whole thing is a cluster fsck in terms of what it really accomplishes, then I will bump threads like this too. You believe Bush and Rummy knows more about this than Franks and men like him, so be it.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: 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

Well lets see, Chirac and Putin are both against this war because they know that we'll will find out as we have somewhat already that they have been and continue to provided weapons and technology to the Iraqis.

Obviously you put more stock in these other world leaders who would piss down our back and tell us it is raining. You have proven yourself not to be too damned bright.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think its going to be funny how all of these people who think they know more than the Administration about how to conduct this war in Iraq will disapear once it becomes obvious the U.S. is going to win and its not going to be the disaster that they have been saying all along.

I think 6 months from now, if I remember or care anymore, I'll try to bump threads like this to point out how foolish you people were acting.. and I bet you will have no response, other than calling people names like you do now.

Well I hope you are right and that it only takes 2 months for you to be able to bump a thread like this to post "I told you so"

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think its going to be funny how all of these people who think they know more than the Administration about how to conduct this war in Iraq will disapear once it becomes obvious the U.S. is going to win and its not going to be the disaster that they have been saying all along.

I think 6 months from now, if I remember or care anymore, I'll try to bump threads like this to point out how foolish you people were acting.. and I bet you will have no response, other than calling people names like you do now.

Well I hope you are right and that it only takes 2 months for you to be able to bump a thread like this to post "I told you so"

Ditto. Although I'm still trying to figure out why lots of people thought that this war (and the war on Terrorism and the War in Afghanistan) would be over quickly. Bush and other senior US officials have said continually that these wars will take a long time and a lot of dedication to win. While I (along with many others) hoped that the Iraqi regime would crumble instantly, I knew that was unlikely. Personally, although I have the utmost confidence in our troops' ability to eventually eliminate Saddam (assuming that the politicos don't interfere), I'm a little surprised that they've gained as much ground as they have in such a short time. To be honest, I expected them to move much more slowly in order to secure supply lines, and not leave pockets of resistance behind the front lines.

 

[freegeeks]

... and the War in Afghanistan is still going on. There is not much mediacoverage about it anymore but there is still daily fighting.
Osama is still alive somewhere.

 

[sandorski]

There are many a retired Pentagon Officers criticizing the way this war is being handled. I don't know who I'd believe, a politician or someone who was trained for war? hmmm.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: sandorski
There are many a retired Pentagon Officers criticizing the way this war is being handled. I don't know who I'd believe, a politician or someone who was trained for war? hmmm.

Keep in mind that the media chooses which retired military personnel to show us. The question is: Are they showing us the majority view of senior retired Officers, or just what they want to show us?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: sandorski
There are many a retired Pentagon Officers criticizing the way this war is being handled. I don't know who I'd believe, a politician or someone who was trained for war? hmmm.

Keep in mind that the media chooses which retired military personnel to show us. The question is: Are they showing us the majority view of senior retired Officers, or just what they want to show us?

Certainly true.

 

[C'DaleRider]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think its going to be funny how all of these people who think they know more than the Administration about how to conduct this war in Iraq will disapear once it becomes obvious the U.S. is going to win and its not going to be the disaster that they have been saying all along.

I think 6 months from now, if I remember or care anymore, I'll try to bump threads like this to point out how foolish you people were acting.. and I bet you will have no response, other than calling people names like you do now.

Well I hope you are right and that it only takes 2 months for you to be able to bump a thread like this to post "I told you so"

Ditto. Although I'm still trying to figure out why lots of people thought that this war (and the war on Terrorism and the War in Afghanistan) would be over quickly. Bush and other senior US officials have said continually that these wars will take a long time and a lot of dedication to win. While I (along with many others) hoped that the Iraqi regime would crumble instantly, I knew that was unlikely. Personally, although I have the utmost confidence in our troops' ability to eventually eliminate Saddam (assuming that the politicos don't interfere), I'm a little surprised that they've gained as much ground as they have in such a short time. To be honest, I expected them to move much more slowly in order to secure supply lines, and not leave pockets of resistance behind the front lines.

That's not how the theologians predicted the campaign would unfold. The theory was that the initial display of military might by U.S. warplanes and ground troops would "shock and awe" the Iraqi military and high-ranking officials into the conviction that resistance was futile. The despot's regime, Administration officials insisted, was too "brittle" to survive such an onslaught. Iraqi troops would defect en masse, they suggested. Intelligence and military officers had selected likely turncoats among the military's highest echelons. Just two days before the opening salvo, Richard Perle, a leading war booster on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, predicted, "Even those closest around the [Iraqi] President will understand they have no chance in the face of what's coming after them."

Pentagon officials told reporters last week that "I think we underestimated" the strength and capability of Iraq's paramilitaries. Last fall a Defense official dismissed them as insignificant, predicting, "the Fedayeen will run with their tails between their legs."


The CIA says it distributed a classified report in early February to policymakers warning that the Fedayeen could be expected to employ guerrilla tactics against U.S. rear units. These Washington intelligence analysts now complain that their views were softened as the report moved up the chain of command. The intelligence was there, an official told TIME, but "I have no idea how much attention they paid to it."

So far those paramilitary attacks are what an Administration official shrugged off as a "major annoyance." Most Bush aides believe the resistance will melt away once Saddam is gone. Yet allied troops have had to adjust tactics to deal with snipers and surprise attacks as well as adopt a wary attitude when confronting civilians. Although most of the Iraqis' assaults are both suicidal and futile, they have stirred up an image of Iraqi resistance wholly at odds with the quick capitulation the U.S. had hoped for. Even when Saddam's power is broken, some of the diehards could go underground to continue the struggle against a U.S.-occupied Iraq.


"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators," said Vice President Dick Cheney on March 16?and he was hardly the only Administration warrior to believe it. In the White House vision, freed Iraqis would dance with joy from the very first days of the war. Pictures of happy, liberated Iraqis were crucial to the plan, since the Bush team counted on those images to help persuade Saddam's army to surrender, inspire civilians across the country to rise against the regime and defuse global opposition to the U.S. campaign. Iraqis may yet exhibit gratitude, but the "rose petal and rice" scenario hasn't materialized yet. This doesn't hurt too much on the battlefield, but it is a real setback in the political arena.


The Administration has operated by the simple equation that Iraqis who loathe Saddam would welcome America as liberator. Yet many Iraqis don't much like the U.S. They blame America for a harsh decade of suffering under economic sanctions that destroyed their livelihoods but not Saddam's power. Like most other Arabs, they resent American support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. In the end, many will judge the invaders by the conduct of the war: the growing prospect of a protracted conflict that kills many innocent civilians could forestall a successful postwar era.

"It's a plan that's on track," Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, kept saying last week, and in the broadest sense, he is probably right. But as 19th century Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke famously said, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." Shifting circumstances on the ground last week posed a test for the Administration's skill at adaptation. Although the Bush Administration seemed unwilling to recognize it, there's actually nothing wrong in trumpeting U.S. flexibility in the face of new facts on the ground.

The question openly debated last week was whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bet right when he decided on the scope of the invading force. Deployment is now at 250,000, but only the Army's 3rd Infantry Division is a heavy fighting force, and just 150,000 of the total are ground-combat troops. Chairman Myers insisted last week that the U.S. had deployed "just the right forces." Certainly those forces had a lot to do, from taking Baghdad to searching for Saddam's bio-chem weapons to delivering water and food to civilians. An additional 2,000 soldiers reach the war theater each day, and the total will rise to 340,000 in the weeks ahead. Rumsfeld says his plan called for just such a "rolling start." But these reinforcements were originally intended for occupation duty; now they will see combat.

Bush the elder fielded 540,000 U.S. troops to kick Saddam out of the desert wastes of Kuwait. For the more ambitious task of driving Saddam from power, Rumsfeld pushed Franks to fight with half that number, fewer troops and less armor than the general originally wanted. But the current battle plan is all part of the Defense Secretary's conviction that a more potent, smaller, higher-tech force can win in new ways. Army officers have complained throughout the planning process that Rumsfeld was relying too much on air power and wasn't calling for enough boots on the ground. "The issue isn't, was there enough," says an Army general. "The issue is, was there more than enough."

Critics say Franks needs an additional heavy Army division. The Administration sent Franks into combat without the 4th Infantry and other reinforcements that he expected to have. Those heavyweight 62,000 troops were supposed to swoop down on Baghdad from bases in Turkey to open a second front. The Administration assumed a multibillion-dollar aid gift plus permission to put Turkish troops across the Iraq border into Kurdish territory would persuade its nato ally to allow U.S. forces to use Turkish territory. What the Administration didn't seem to factor in was the strong opposition of Turkey's mainly Muslim population and an election bringing Islamic leaders to power. But when the parliament in Ankara refused at the 11th hour, Bush made the decision to launch the war anyway. The Pentagon officially discounted the need for an immediate northern front. They were more wary about giving Saddam extra time to ready his defenses.

If U.S. forces run into trouble as they close in on Baghdad, there are scant units in reserve to rescue them. "We're basically betting that won't happen, and it probably won't," an Army officer says. "But if it did, we'd be in trouble." The 4th Infantry and its tanks are dribbling into Kuwait and should be ready to roll by early April. The Bush war plan is predicated on momentum; slowing down wasn't part of the program. But the pause imposed by last week's reversals may prove a godsend, allowing the allies to muster extra firepower and more robust supply lines and giving soldiers a chance for a little shut-eye.

For the Bush Administration, some of the unexpected turns of Gulf War II reflect a perhaps too rigid adherence to ideology at the expense of on-the-ground practicality. But whatever the weaknesses in some of the Administration's early assumptions, they probably won't alter the outcome of the conflict?though they may prolong it. There have been many signal successes on the ground: after all, U.S. forces have moved to within 50 miles of Baghdad in a week, and American forces have defeated the Iraqis in every head-to-head encounter. Despite individual setbacks last week, U.S. fortunes can switch course at any moment. But in this media age, expectations are almost as much a part of any war as the battlefield. As even military strategists note, flexibility and muscle, not theories, lead to victory. That's something the military planners of Gulf War II are now taking into account.

LINK

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: da loser
I think the A-10 turned out pretty good for us. The B-1 on the otherhand is a fiasco. It's hard to think of what systems were total failures though.

Well, the B-1 program's major design issues just happened to always coincide with the push by the USAF to modernize B-52s. Funny how people criticize the B-1 when it is a better bomber than the B-52 ever was, plus we got it for cheap. If you factor in the costs of the major overhauls in the B-52 fleet then it more than justified the spending on the B-1 programs. The B-52 was an expensive monster in its day, too, but if the B-1 had been built without shifting its mission six times then it would have been alot cheaper. If the B-1 had evolved through thirteen models, like the B-52 program, then it would have probably been too specialized to afford and its cost would have been enough to justify axing it altogether. Interesting enough we'd always have a design flaw surface that allowed the Pentagon to justify new spending on B-52 upgrades. When it comes down to it, the B-1 is truly the most multirole bomber in the world, with the ability to shift quickly to a number of conventional and nuclear roles. Too bad they couldn't of afforded to just retire the B-52s for all new B-1s.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Typical media second-guessing.

*Hello McFly* The original amount of troops stationed on Iraq's border were an attempt to make Iraq comply with something they had already agreed to comply with.

The next wave of troops is meant to end this nasty little business. No more nice guy.

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

What? You don't support the troops???

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think its going to be funny how all of these people who think they know more than the Administration about how to conduct this war in Iraq will disapear once it becomes obvious the U.S. is going to win and its not going to be the disaster that they have been saying all along.

I think 6 months from now, if I remember or care anymore, I'll try to bump threads like this to point out how foolish you people were acting.. and I bet you will have no response, other than calling people names like you do now.

Well I hope you are right and that it only takes 2 months for you to be able to bump a thread like this to post "I told you so"

Ditto. Although I'm still trying to figure out why lots of people thought that this war (and the war on Terrorism and the War in Afghanistan) would be over quickly. Bush and other senior US officials have said continually that these wars will take a long time and a lot of dedication to win. While I (along with many others) hoped that the Iraqi regime would crumble instantly, I knew that was unlikely. Personally, although I have the utmost confidence in our troops' ability to eventually eliminate Saddam (assuming that the politicos don't interfere), I'm a little surprised that they've gained as much ground as they have in such a short time. To be honest, I expected them to move much more slowly in order to secure supply lines, and not leave pockets of resistance behind the front lines.

That's not how the theologians predicted the campaign would unfold... That's something the military planners of Gulf War II are now taking into account.

LINK

Good link, thanks. Please note that it doesn't state that Bush said anything about the Iraq War being short. I'm not sure if that was your point in posting the article. Also, I find Time Magazine somewhat suspect in anything it says about the current administration, and really question the veracity of its claims when it quotes a "Defense official, "Pentagon officials," and "Administration officials" without stating anything further about the source. They could be quoting the janitor for all we know.

 

[MadRat]

Spare me the anonymous sources have no credibility argument. Perhaps they don't elaborate because of the source's right and need to privacy.

Rumsfeld would likely sink their pensions for talking if he could finger them. Its been done before.

 

[Valvoline6]

God these threads are sad. I can't believe how negative some people are no matter how well the operation is going. They always know better, everyone in the administration is always wrong etc. Some people say "your a sheep, you never question the government. Your an idiot you believe everything they say". I think the people who question everything, believe nothing, and criticize their own country endlessly during a time of war look more idiotic. When it's all said and done and we've won handily none of these people will ever admit they were wrong. They'll just slink away like they always do, waiting for the next opportunity to unapologetically criticize everything the administration does.

Donald Rumsfeld is no MacNamara, Rumsfeld is actually going to win- and with far less than 50,000 casualties.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I wouldn't draw comparisons with 'Nam b/c it will not turn out in your favor. If you compare relative fatalities (Us vs Them) McNam is in the ballpark. Arguably we won . . . beat the crap out of the VC . . . and then left. Do you really expect 100K or 200K troops to be in Iraq two years from now? If they aren't the country will like be in utter disarray with various factions fighting it out. If we are still occupying Iraq two years from now much of the Arab world may rally behind the 'la cause célèbre' . . . to kick the Americans out of Iraq and hurt American interests worldwide. In either case, Rumsfeld (and America) are big losers.

 

[Valvoline6]

Boy are you transparent. Sticking up for MacNamara and 50,000 casualties, while saying Rumsfeld and America are going to be the losers no matter what. How do you know that? You don't, and you're in the the crowd who will never admit you're wrong, even after it's over and none of what you predict has happened. MacNamara is "in the ballpark" based on relative fatalities? That kind of logic is absurd. I don't care if we won or not, what was accomplished in Vietnam was not worth 50,000 dead Americans.

 

[Sxotty]

Yeah the reports I have seen suggest the marines have no problem and the reason the army does is b/c they lost a few pet projects to budget cuts, where Rumsfield told them that planning for the last war was not adeqaute anymore.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I didn't know I was transparent . . . damn that's cool. I'm not defending McN . . . I'm saying we beat the crap out of the North Vietnamese but did NOT win. I'm saying we lost 50K and they lost millions. I'm saying more troops and better battle plan might have produced a Vietnamese version of Korea (best case scenario) or we still would have lost interest after a new hot spot developed . . . say Korea?

Anyone that believes we can plant democracy and it will spread like kudzu needs an enema . . . America, France, Russia, etc enabled Iraq/Saddam when it satisfied our needs. Democracy for Iraqis didn't matter when Reagan, GHWBush, or Clinton were President. It didn't matter to Bush for two years. It still doesn't matter for Pakistan, Uzbekistan, or any other crap regime that's friendly enough to be useful.

If the goal is kicking Saddam's arse . . . I believe we will have an unqualified success . . . we've got more toys, more money, and a determination to mess him up.

If the goal is freedom for Iraqis, long term regional stability, and global allies against terrorism . . . Rummy's plan is poo.

 

[Valvoline6]

You said "Arguably we won". Now you say we lost? Which is it? You say Millions of dead Vietnamese / 50,000 americans is comparable to the casualty ratio of this war? I don't think anyone is going to recognize that statistic as useful. If we loose 50,000 and they lose millions then I will say Rumsfeld is inept. Not gonna happen. Your arguments are quite convoluted, and the fact that you really believe this stuff is entertaining. I'm not gonna offer you a ticket out of here, because I want you to always be here to see how great this country is, how wrong you are, and to serve as a warning for those of us who know better not to become complacent- you guys actually do exist. LMAO

 

[Alistar7]

Does it really matter since Franks made the final call on the number of troops being used, which is the large overwhelming force moving into place, the decision to launch the ground war early for obvious reasons was his as well.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sandorski
There are many a retired Pentagon Officers criticizing the way this war is being handled. I don't know who I'd believe, a politician or someone who was trained for war? hmmm.

better to believe someone who is out of the loop and doesnt understand the current military situation and technology or capability......