RUMSFELD UNDER FIRE(Wesley Clark has accused Rumsfeld of putting troops at risk )

SKY NEWS ^ | 03/26/2003 | SKYNEWS

[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."

[carl in alaska]

"Our heavy armor charged up the open dessert through hostile territory, and now has a ~300 mile supply line heavily exposed to enemy action. This is a complete screw-up."

Keep one thing in mind as you watch our strategy develop: We don't want to fight them inside Baghdad. With this goal in mind, it makes sense to charge rapidly towards Baghdad without a massive number of troops. The medium-sized three-division force we have moving towards Baghdad appears to be vulnerable to the Iraqis and draws them out of Baghdad to engage us. If they stay out of Baghdad we will steadily and efficiently destroy them in the open country and small cities. This 3-division force still has tremendous firepower and will whip the Republican guard with superior weaponry and air power. Although we may take a few casualties because we only have a medium-sized force, these are far fewer casulaties than we would take if we fight the same Iraqi units inside the Baghdad metropolis.

Our strategy, I belive is to bait them into staying outside of Baghdad for as long as possible, while we chew them up with superior armor and air assaults. The goal is to fight outside of Baghdad for as long as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Also, large forces as seen in Desert Storm are difficult to coordinate and are succeptible to friendly fire incidents. We're doing fine and all the criticism is mainly coming from the Democrat-controlled media.

[WOSG]

BTW, I for one am impressed by several things in this plan:

That it is *not* predictable.

1. Lots of predictions of 'shock and awe' yet actually bombing in baghdad is precision and not heavy.

2.ground war before air war - not predicted.

3. bypassed cities to move to baghdad.

4. fastest advance in history.

5. low casualty rate, despite many firefights.
A good sign we can hold our own on ground-to-ground combat.
THAT MORE THAN ANYTHING MEANS SADDAM IS TOAST - SOON.

6. We have successfully avoided civilian asualties - remember that Wes Clark killed a LOT MORE CIVILIANS than we are doing now. Will CNN probe him on this?? LOL.

7. we own the air. totally. we demolished air defense.
no shootdowns of aircraft, much better than GW1.
If we own the air. we own the countryside and everywhere except for heaily built up areas. which means WE SHAPE THE BATTLE FIELD, ANYWHERE.

mis-steps/ to fix:
1. lack of 4th ID in-country. We'll fix that real soon - he he he.

2. surrenders - lots of 'em. But the thing that hasnt happened is the division-level surrenders. that may have been more PSYOPS by us than anything else, to get saddam to distrust his own army. fedayeen is murdering even Iraqi civilians who dont help shoot at us, so he's got some fanatics sitting next to generals probably to make sure they dont cave to us.

3. propoganda. we need to get iraqi tv and radio off the air and silence saddam forever. In progress. stay tuned.

[Cold Heat]

78 days to bring Serbia into submission from the air

yes, and I am still trying to figure out what we accomplished.

The Serbs seem to be more codial than the Muslims that we saved. (or so we said)

Something really stinks about that intervention. I am beginning to wonder what roll France played in our decision to do it.

The Euroweenies should have done that without NATO.

[FreeReign]

Their obviously out of plan at this point.

Obviously, you don't know their plan.

[WOSG]

You are correct sir!

We rushed to get NEAR baghdad, but wont rush in. on the contrary a move to surround the iraqi troops ouside baghdad would be ideal. that or defeat in detail via air+armor, or accept surrender.

[info_scout]

Nice rant, but we are all 'armchair warriors'. I'm simply stating an opinion that this war obviously isn't proceeding as to plan. The original plan was grossly faulty and ill-concieved. In fact the beloved 'Rummy' advocated an even smaller force. Where would our forces be at this point if his vision had prevailed?

[Howlin]

My money is on Bill Clinton granting that waiver.

[OldFriend]

Germany was very anxious to take part in bombing Serbia. The Serbs were our allies in the second world war and saved american pilots from the nazis.......I have always considered the action we took in Serbia as criminal.

[Howlin]

The strategy was to take out the leadership during the first 48 hours (well documented and pretty obvious from events).

No, it wasn't. They got a tip and used it. That was NOT part of the plan.

[nopardons]

You haven't a glimmer of a hope, to be able to " decide ", dear. You've repeatedly proven that. Facts ? You don't give a bloody damn about facts. You're conjecturing, based on nothing; or so it appears. Yet, you state, uncatagorically, that THIS IS A DEBACLE . Oh really ? Where's the proof that any " debacle " has occurred ?

Here are the facts, as we know them :

1. This war was going to start off with the " SHOCK & AWE " bombing of Baghdad.

2. When clandestine spying, claimed that Saddam & 6 of his thugs were meeting in such & such a place, THE PRESIDENT ( Geroge W. Bush, the CIC, remember him ? ) told those on charge to hold off on the S&A, and " get Saddam " !

3. No one , NO ONE , knows what the outcome of this is ...yet.

4. Shock & Awe has started. No one, NO ONE ever said how short or how long S&A would last.

5. A MASSIVE sand/wind storm hit.

6. Only 24 of OUR military has been killed in battle. One is too many; however, dear, war is all about killing and even the English, during Aigencourt, lost men. What made THAT battle so miraculous, was HOW FEW English died !

7. In THE fastest recorded time, during a war, the USA has pushed through weather problems, fragging, terrorist tactics, and are within a hair's breathe of Baghdad.

All of the above and still YOU call this a " debacle " ; all the whilst, you inform us that you garner info from EVERY source, collate it, and come to the conclusion that this has all gone awry and is a " DEBACLE " !

You aren't to be taken seriously, dear. You are incapable of comprehension AND you take Clark's words are gospel. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !

[Cold Heat]

Uh........suppose you tell us what the original plan was?

Also, suppose you also state exactly what has changed.(except for Turkey)

Then, since you feel that this disaster as you call it will be lost,(scott ritter quote)tell us how you would have done it!

[nopardons]

Yes and yes. Ann's ALWAYS right on target. LOL

[nopardons]

Just W-H-A-T , dear, was the original plan ? Who told you what is was ? Even the media, none of it, knew what it was to be. Still and all, YOU claim to know it intimately. Why is that ?

No, we are NOT " all armchair warriors ". I'm NOT the one opining about " debacles " and original plans. You are THE only one, besides Clark and a few other weasels, who thoroughly boloxed up whatever they once had their hands on. Food for some thought ... ask yourself WHY you are so happy to imagine that this war is already mired down in a debacle of humongous proportions; especially when that is NOT so.

[Grampa Dave]

More data on the other A$$hole general on CNN!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876173/posts

Jed Babbin's Warnings Re: Barry McCaffrey
National Review Online ^ | March 26, 2003 | Jed Babbin


Posted on 03/26/2003 7:54 AM PST by the_doc


You might wonder why Gen. McCaffrey--like Gen. Wesley Clark and several others--seem to be shilling for the Dems who oppose the war.


A pal of mine, who was a Navy officer at the time, told me about how the entire staff of the European command he served in was summoned on short notice for an urgent briefing one day in 1996. Seems like some bigshot White House general was coming to get everyone straightened out about life. My pal glanced at his classified files, threw them in the safe, straightened his tie, and went into the briefing room.


Forty-five minutes late, Gen. Barry McCaffrey walked in, and not to do business with the staff. McCaffrey took the occasion to lecture them roundly and soundly about how the kiddie corral that made up the Clinton White House were the best and brightest ever, and how the assembled officers should be proud to serve under such a president.


McCaffrey--once Clinton's drug czar--had been seduced, and remains so. His judgment, like Clark's (who wants to be the Dem candidate for president), is entirely suspect.

[dts32041]

I stand corrected

[nopardons]

Oh gee !

[Grampa Dave]

Here is another A$$hole schilling for the rats and the pseudo conservatives who hate GW so much they want to see us lose this war.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876663/posts

Scott Ritter: "The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated.
Independent Online Newspapers ^ | March 26, 2003 | Sapa-AFP


Posted on 03/26/2003 4:30 PM PST by dmcg_98


"US will lose war", says former UN inspector

March 26 2003 at 06:42PM

Lisbon - The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here Tuesday evening.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable," he said.

"Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost," Ritter added.

[TLBSHOW]

We have done very well so far. Now if I had a hand in it and thank God I don't I would bomb baghdad back to the stone age because of what they are doing to those they capture.

To call this war a DEBACLE is just plain goofy! Isn't debacle a TV talking point by the LEFT? We are going to win and win BIG and we will have good days and bad.

KINDA LIKE LIFE!

[Howlin]

U.S. sending frantically adjusting deployments and dispatching emergency reenforcements.

Good lord, you're just full of misinformation.

[info_scout]

>>>Is English NOT your mother tongue ?

Why resort to personal attacks? There are plenty of issues against which to express one's opinions. BTW, I am not Bill Clinton and can't recall ever voting for anyone associated with his party. Further we are all entitled to 'jabbering away'. Regards.