Re: [MV] mil veh war story

From: Sonny Heath (sonny@defuniak.com)
Date: Wed Oct 20 2004 - 06:20:14 PDT


Steve,

Are you a GENERAL OFFICER in disguise? Man oh man, do you ever know it all.
You know so much that I just go straight to "delete"

Sonny

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Grammont <islander@midmaine.com>
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] mil veh war story

> 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
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:36:51 PDT