Posted on 03/26/2003 8:08:17 PM PST by KQQL
The former supreme allied commander of Nato has accused US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of putting allied troops at risk through poor planning.
Wesley Clark said Mr Rumsfeld's insistence on a smaller invasion force had left troops vulnerable and the 300-mile oil supply line between Kuwait and Basra open to guerilla attack.
Troops had been tied up in "messy fighting" around Nasiriyah and Baghdad, he said, leading to "logistics problems".
He added that hopes of a quick victory spurred by a popular revolt against Saddam had been dashed.
"The simple fact is that the liberation didn't quite occur. They didn't rise up."
Other war veterans have also spoken out against the early stages of war planning.
Miscalculations
Ralph Peters, a military scientist and former Army officer, wrote in the Washington Post that a coalition victory would be achieved "despite serious strategic miscalculations by the office of the Defence Secretary".
The "shock and awe" strategy of aerial bombardment had failed to shatter the will of Saddam's regime, he said, and if anything had encouraged greater resistance.
"It delayed essential attacks on Iraq's military capabilities," said Mr Peters. "This encouraged at least some Iraqis in uniform to believe they had a chance to fight and win.
"Now our forces advancing on Baghdad face the possibility of more serious combat than would otherwise have been the case."
Coalition commander General Tommy Franks's draft invasion plan proposed using four or five heavy divisions moving slowly towards Baghdad.
New warfare
Mr Rumsfeld is said to have rejected this, complaining that it was too similar to the strategy used in the 1991 Gulf War. Instead he insisted on a smaller, lighter force relying heavily on special forces and air power.
Retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said Mr Rumsfeld had ignored warnings that he was underestimating the number of troops needed.
"I think he thought these were generals with feet planted in World War Two who didn't understand the new way of warfare," he said.
"If the Iraqis actually fight it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take a couple to 3,000 casualties."
Mr Rumsfeld insisted his strategy was working.
"It's a good plan everybody agrees to, and it is a plan that in four and a half or five days has moved ground forces to within a short distance of Baghdad."
On the other hand, we knew that resistance was going to be light in the south and that the bulk of Iraqi defense was going to be closer to Saddam's power base. What we didn't account for was the 30K fedayeen - who are essentially Saddam's Special Forces - doing what SF traditionally does: disrupt the lines of communication.
Yes, we will win, but it will be longer and more costly than we thought.
That said, I'll be unforgiving if our troops are stupidly endangered or not 400% supported.
There's thin reporting at maximum supporting Clark's contentions.
As is General McCaffrey, who served a Clinton's drug czar. Just accept it. All of the nay-saying of the so-called expert analysts really just boils down to one thing... whether they voted for Bush or whether they voted for Gore. It's that simple. This truism is also valid in all of anti-war demonstrations. I wager you'd likely never find one of the demonstrators who didn't vote for Gore or someone even further left. We just have to hang in there and bear the naked politics, and we will be proven right in the end.
This could be printed onto card stock and handed out at demonstrations as well as taped above television screens.
The same media machine which lied that Florida polls were closed and sought to prevent servicemen and women voting now moans doom and gloom.
Why does Clark assume that he knows the final size of our invasion force?
After McCaffrey did such a splendid job winning the war on drugs.
What.
The 4th was to go into turkey, but that got screwed. As it turns out, a lighter force was all that was needed. if fact, they have not needed anything up to now. We now have ability to put assets there if needed and the 4th is deploying to back up the southern cities that have cased problems while the 3rd and 101 go to Bagdad.(plus many others comming in from the southeast.
Everything is just fine! The food aid is being unloaded. The Iraqis will really appreciate this and the dummies in Basra will fold soon.
The weather is georgeous for shootin fish in a bucket! The Iraqis are out gunned to the max! We own the air and space above!
I see nothing to worry about.
Yep, this strategy just isn't working.
More people die in accidents in California in an average week than died in the first week of Iraqi Freedom. California, surrender your cars before its too late!
The following is another of Bozo's comments from another thread! Makes you wonder where his sympathies lie!
"Might better follow the example of cooler heads in the Islamic world with prayers for peace."
Yet, this doesn't stop him from taking challenging positions based on very little information, like a lot of politicians. I concur with others about his less than stellar military career. He's another Clinton crony that was promoted WAY past his ability and competence.
Yes indeed, that sure would be a problem if the so called enemy had arty or even a friggin Army, which they don't.
These technicals are nothing but a bunch of worked up Islamist idiots with AKs and grenades.
They are at best a damn nuisance.
I was actually being nice!
:As to the spin doctors, you answered your own question. What spin are you believing now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.