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

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.

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.

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."

"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."

The worst part about this plan is that they are going overboard in trying to protect Iraqi civilians and in doing so, creating additional risk for our fighting men and women.

Dubya is dealing with two motivations here; "responsibility" and a "noble cause". The problem is that he is letting the lesser interfere with the greater.

Before going any further, I should state that I think that Dubya has done 1000% better than would have algore or dashole and 10,000% better than bil or hillary. But then,I thing that most people realize that he wouldn't have to do much to achieve that record. On the other hand, his plan leaves a lot to be desired.

Noble Cause

It is a noble cause to try to limit collateral damage and avoid casualties to Iraqi civilians. It's something that I would applaud Dubya for, if he were to do it within the bounds of his responsibility.

Responsibility

It is one of the President's primary responsibilities, as Commander in Chief, to protect American citizens. That's why we are in Iraq in the first place and I do applaud him for that. If we don't take Sadam out, he will most certainly supply WMD's to terrorists, who will use them against American citizens (and others), so Dubya is fulfilling his responsibility to American citizens by attacking Iraq. But where he fails in in the way that he is proceeding.

It is not Dubya's responsibility to protect Iraqi civilians. It is a noble cause. But, the President's responsibility lies elsewhere. As long as he can achieve his noble cause without increasing the risk to American citizens, then that is a good thing. But, when he allows his noble cause to increase the risk to American citizens, he is abrogating his responsibility as Commander in Chief. This is the problem.

Soldiers Are American Citizens, Too.

In the first 24 hours of "Shock and Awe" we dropped three times as many bombs as were dropped in all of Desert Storm. Furthermore, most of the bombs dropped in Desert storm were dumb ordinance, where everything that was dropped in that first day of "Shock and Awe" was smart ordinance. Yet, with all of that smart ordinance, why is it that we were unable to destroy even half as much as those dumb bombs destroyed in Desert Storm? After that much precision ordinance was delivered, why is so much of the Iraqi command and control still functioning? Why are there any anti-aircraft and missile batteries still functioning in Iraq? It's because Gen. Franks is having to live with a political (not military) decision from Dubya, where Dubya places his noble cause above his responsibility, which places our troops (US citizens) at unnecessary additional risk.

I'm not saying that we should not be trying to limit collateral damage. We should be trying to limit collateral damage. But, when trying to limit collateral damage, costs the life of even one soldier, then we have gone too far. Those soldiers are over there fighting for you and me. I think that it's safe to say that almost every one of them is prepared to give his or her life to defend American civilians, if need be. But, I doubt that any of them is willing to die because we failed to take out a real military target, for no better reason than to save the lives of a few Iraqi civilians.

With our new ordinance, we can adjust the load and target so well, that we could take out an anti-aircraft or missiles battery located on the northwest corner of the roof of a hospital or school, without hurting anyone who was not on the top floor of that building and in that corner. That's limiting collateral damage. Sure, 10 or 12 Iraqi civilians might be killed in such an attack. But, such a battery is a valid military target, that needs to be taken out, to protect our pilots - pilots, who Dubya should be more concerned with protecting, than protecting Iraqi civilians.

FACT: Even if we were to be able to prosecute this whole war without a single Iraqi civilian casualty, those in the Arab world who hate us today, would still hate us at the end of the war. Nothing we do can change that.

The only reason for trying to limit Iraqi civilian casualties is because it's a noble cause, not because the Arab world will view us differently. But, such a noble cause should not be at the expense of the life of even one of our brave fighting men and women. More importantly, it is the President's responsibility to do whatever he can to protect those fighting men and women, whenever possible, even at the expense of some limited collateral damage and Iraqi civilian casualties.

It seems that Dubya is more interested in looking good, by achieving the noble cause of limiting Iraqi civilian casualties, than in fulfilling his sworn responsibility, by providing directives to his generals, that will most limit American soldier casualties.

I'm proud of Dubya for standing up to the UN and going into Iraq in the first place. But, I am appalled that he would have our military avoid certain valid targets, thus increasing the risk to our soldiers, for no better reason than to save a few Iraqi civilians. Dubya is placing his noble cause above his sworn responsibility and that's wrong and it is costing the lives of brave American soldiers.

It's time to take the gloves off.

No admiration here for Clintonian Clark. I may disagree with many here about the war and the way it has been executed, but on that last point, I sincerely hope you're right. Regards.

Yeah, I had some problems with the way Buddy Ryan ran that 46 Bears defense back in the 80s ... he should have positioned Singletary a step or two closer. The Kama Sutra should include a stretching guide to warm up and avoid muscular strains and joint injuries. Bell should have thought about a Caller ID feature right from the beginning. God was overly florid in the ten commandments ... better "Don't kill. Don't lie. Don't worship goats, trees or weather conditions. Don't mess with married women." Cavemen should have made fire a tad bit cooler. Michaelangelo should have used a more vibrant blue on the rapture background on panel 932-W on the Sistene ceiling. Greg LaMond has some fundamental pedaling weaknesses in his weight distribution that I can't let go. I just don't agree with the way Tiger Woods managed the shape of his 7 iron onto the 16th hole at Bay Hill last week. Could have been a 2 foot put, instead he settled for 5. Michael Jordan was using his left foot too often when dunking over right handed 7 foot centers. Wayne Gretzky held the puck too long on a 2 on 1 break with Jarri Kurri in a game against the Winnepeg Jets back in 1985. Stevie Ray Vaughn should have used a bend instead of tremolo in the eighth stanza of a "Sky is Crying" solo I saw at Northrop Auditorium in 1986. Sir Edmund Hillary should have arrived at the Everest Peak 15 minutes earlier than he did ... if he'd chosen the South side of that ice crevasse he scaled five hours earlier. Cale Samuelson's collegiate undefeated streak didn't have as many First Period pinfalls as I'd like. I wish Salma Hayek would do something new with her hair. Adrienne Barbeau's breasts were a little too big.

Everybody is a critic.

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.