From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:26:54 PDT
Hi Ryan,
Those of you that love my posts will be oh so sorry to hear that I am out
of time to continue the debate (yeah, that's sarcasm). It's been a fun
off topic ride.
>Actually, I think they were worried about the
>weather getting to rough if they waited too long.
Yes, obviously. And it is one more piece of evidence that the war was
decided upon before the plan was put in place. When the time came to get
the plan in motion, and it ran into trouble, the plan was partly
abandoned. As it happened it really didn't matter in terms of the
ultimate collapse of the Iraq government and organized armed forces.
However, it could very well have made some difference in the initial
batch of looting and lawlessness in Baghdad and to the immediate north.
However, this all would have been fine if 200,000 additional forces (or
probably even 50,000) has been right on the heels of the vanguard.
>Come on Steve, you know it doesn't work that way
>in the military. The US is pretty good about
>having enough for the task.
If the task is to topple a conventional military force in record time
with minimal losses of friendly life and material... yup. But are we up
to the task of security in Iraq and rebuilding the government and its
infrastructure? Too soon to say, but past history (Vietnam, Beirut, you
name it Central America, Somalia, Liberia, etc.) and recent history
(Afghanistan and Iraq) do not paint the most optimistic picture. I think
we can do it, but I don't have confidence that it can be done with the
current civilian leadership.
>Look at the German
>campaign in 1940 against the French. The germans
>were seriously out numbered but they still swept
>the French units from the field. There was one
>scarey moment for the Germans with the British
>armor counter attacked at I think Arras. The
>Germans were reeling from that attack and it was
>something like a battalion of matilda I and IIs.
Don't confuse a victorious battle with a victory. The Germans lost the
war and that is all that matters. They were also only partially able to
control France while under its occupation, and even then largely because
so many of the French were predisposed to being good little Fascists
(they almost went Fascist in 1934). A better analogy would be the Soviet
Union. Biggest military victories in recorded history of the day, but
ultimately it meant nothing because they couldn't figure out how to keep
the peace in the areas they occupied. In theory they could have, but not
under Hitler's leadership.
>Shinseki was not retired as a vindictive reaction.
Learn something new every day. I trust FactCheck.Org so I'll retire my
retirement point :-) However, the Bush admin certainly has done other
things to critics (like the CIA agent outing scandal), so the connection
was plausible. It is also standard practice in government and the
military that when someone screws up they either retire "according to
schedule" or get promoted. Rarely does someone ever get kicked out the
front door.
The fact still remains that the Army said it needed more troops,
Wolfowitz said that was "wildly off the mark", and I'd say it is clear
which one had it right.
>No argument there. I try to look at our modern
>battles through the lens of history
Since I am a military historian, so do I.
>Bad battles for the US (ie
>disasters) are fights like the retreat to
>Bastogne or the battle of the Hurtgenwald, Or
>Arnham. That's everything going into the crapper
>type battles.
Bad battles can also lead to defeat like Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia.
>Again, not quite true. If I had a buck for every
>doctrinal argument that takes place at the
>pentagon regarding just what can be accomplished
>with how much...boy, I'd have a heated warehouse
>to store my large collection of wheeled armored
>cars in. I could probably buy you a few pieces of
>armor while I was at it.
Very true. But even Bush Sr. wrote that he didn't want to try and take
over Iraq in Gulf War One, with far more troops mind you, because it
would likely turn into a quagmire. That and common sense that 22 million
people in a country that size would require more than the troops that
were available. Recent problems in Afghanistan also should have been a
more relevant wake up call. So the claims of the Army should have not
been brushed aside so casually. It is one thing to kick a door down, it
is a whole nother thing to control what goes on in a house.
>Unfortunately we were not going to get local
>support for throwing over one of their own no
>matter how dangerous he was. The French had other
>ideas too you know. Germany doesn't send troops
>out of it's own borders and
France might have contributed forces if the case had been stronger and a
slice of the action saved for them. So would Germany, which you
obviously have forgotten (or did not know?) has a significant force in
Afghanistan. They amended their Constitution a while ago to go wherever
NATO goes, even if it is outside of NATO's territory. I think they did
this for Gulf War One come to think of it.
> Russia...we'd end up
>paying for their shipping, food and everything
>else because they can barely rub two coins
>together to keep the space program going. What's
>left? Not much. Fancy retraining a Swedish Tank
>Brigade in desert warfare?
But the same arguments you make now could have been made back in 1990.
True that we have the biggest, baddest military on the face of the Earth.
Nobody can compare to us. But we could have had help. And we obviously
need it, either from allies or a more significant commitment of our own
forces.
>I also seem to recall that we drew down a bit
>after Gulf War I and moved a lot of assets into
>the reserves or Guard as a cost saving measure.
Yes, we drew down quite a bit.
>In some cases, you have to look at what was
>accomplished with the forces that were deployed.
>Our Boys (and the Brits) swept north over several
>hundred miles through desert in a matter of days
>and repeated the utter defeat that the Iraqi's
>showed the 13 years earlier. The sense of despair
>from the Arabic media was almost hilarious. They
>expected the Iraqi army to at least bloody our
>nose. They more or less scraped our boy's
>knuckles in the few battles they showed any
>backbone in.
True, but that was a year and a half ago. What's the situation now?
Barbarossa was a brilliant military maneuver too.
>Overall, I think the operation was well handled.
>Lots of things that could have been done better,
>but I still think we have soldiers that are doing
>a bang up job and deserve as much support from
>the politicians as possible with the least amount
>of demagoguery as possible. Especially when it
>affects them and their jobs.
I've got no problems with the conduct of the invasion of Iraq up until
the point when it became clear that we had no plan for the aftermath.
And worse, no troops on hand to do what needed to be done when it needed
to happen (i.e. immediately after). When our soldiers were asked why
they weren't doing anything to stop what was going on the answer was "we
don't have orders" and/or "there aren't enough of us". Poor planning
which could have been made good if we had more troops in place and proper
leadership.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:36:51 PDT