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."

[Carolinamom]

Look who's demanding answers from you! Hypocrisy, thy name is TLBSHOW.

[Howlin]

You notice he didn't deny it.

[TLBSHOW]

You are welcome!

[Howlin]

Thanks for confirming how you post misinformation all over these boards.

[nopardons]

Patently obvious !

Somehow, little knownothings, who are really AGAINST this president, imagine that they know far more than he, all of his administration, the generals, and the majority of FREEPERs, who REALLY can and DO comprehend what they read, hear, and see.

Quite pathetic, isn't it ?

[Cold Heat]

Who was the terrorist?

Sorry howlin, I cannot remember the name. A famous one however. The pics came out after 9/11 if I recall. It is on a thread someplace.

[info_scout]

>>>> 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 ! <<<<

No need to become emotional. We are all expressing opinion based on whatever information is available. I'll stand firmly by one point--This is NOT proceeding as to the original plan. If you feel otherwise, just observe events over the next 72 hours as radical shifts in strategy become apparent and the new spin on events cycles through 90 degrees.

[nopardons]

I just wish, that after they've fully exposed themselves, they would be summarily banned from FR. I'm getting SO weary of these people.

[Howlin]

Phil linked me back to his post with the names in it. Thanks anyway.

[TLBSHOW]

Answer the question so I can go to bed.

[chnsmok]

Don't you just love self-emplosions? Is that a word? By the way, hi.

[TLBSHOW]

Russia is still Russia. Communist Russia!

[nopardons]

Yes, epic, it most assurredly is ! This is from a man with vision , backbone, intelligence, and gumption. President Bush is going to have SOME legacy. LOL

[Howlin]

Sorry. It's too late. Everybody saw what you said.

[TLBSHOW]

the original plan would of been that Saddam disarmed and or left the country. Plan B we disarm him and that has no time table.

[nopardons]

No, they didn't. The old USSR has been broken up, it's NOT the same entity, and they did not " fake " getting out of Hungary, Berlin ( remember the wall coming down ? ), Latvia, Estonia, etc.

How can you believe what you're posting ?

[TLBSHOW]

Its a open board they always see what I said and you for that matter.

[info_scout]

>>>Today and tonight, it sounds like Ritter is posting on Free Republic...
>>>Obviously the left wing think tanks and so called right wing thing tanks (those of the loser third parties) sent out emails to their 5th column cadre to preach the gloom and doom ...

Perhaps individuals are simply expressing their opinion. It doesn't have to be a conspracy of the left, right, or funded by Sadam. Why so hard to accept that honest (and conservative) folks might just disagree with your view???

[Howlin]

Yeah, but the difference is I post the facts.

[Howlin]

Disagreement is nutured around here; but your facts are easily shown to be wrong.

And I wonder what your agenda is.