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."
And 50 posts today.........LOL. I guess he just couldn't hold back anymore!
VALID : sound; just; well-founded; having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative; substancial,cogent.
Absolutely none of the deffinitions are applicable to your posts, your opinions ( about anything at all ! , and, yet again, you have erroniously used a word and not only that, but falsely laid out a construct, which can't hold water.
A " deposition " ? Not a deposition at all ; rather, the accurate and accepted way of debate. Yet another thing, which you are woefully ignorant of.
Soooooooooooo ... you've been served with a supoena and had to go to trial ?
Look, kiddlewink, I've been HERE, right here on FR, just about as long as it's been up and running AND posting. I KNOW what it used to be like, I know about ALL of the flame wars, disruptors, changes, and influx of newbies, most of whom can't hold a candle to the posters of old. Helpful hint ... you've learned NOTHING,whilst lurking ; go back to just lurking, until you do . :-)
He is executing that model in Iraq. Note the use of Marines in an expanded role. Note the use of Special Ops units that set up target intelligence and laser guidance for stealth aircraft and pinpoint accurate bombs and missiles. Note the navy as a delivery vehicle for warplanes AND long range missiles.
Rumsfeld bloodied a lot of noses. He immediately placed an Air Force officer in the Chairman's seat, and the Marine Commandant in the Vice Chairman's role. He let Shikensi (everybody an Army Ranger in these berets) know that he was out.
The Army empire has LOTS of pull, wants LOTS of new heavy armour, weaponry and air assets to fight that tank and artillery battle against the Red Army on the steppes of the Ukraine. Oops, that's not gonna happen anymore. But, it's lots of jobs for the folks back home, so the gutless Congress has kept the lotto spitting out jackpots.
Rumsfeld found a guy, in Tommy Franks, who embraced the vision of a defense capability heavy in Special Operations personnel, wide-coverage Naval attack capability, a more accurate and ground strike oriented Air Force, a long range Marine Corps that becomes far more than just an amphibious first strike force. More intelligence on the ground. More defensive anti-missle technologies. That's his vision for the 21st century threat.
Rumsfeld wants a military that is fast, versatile, easily deployed, highly intelligent and less mechanized. We are facing a widely dispersed geographically, rapid response threat from third world countries and terrorist cells who use guerilla tactics exploiting difficult urban and severe terrain for advantage. He immediately cancelled the Bradley boondoggle (I think that was it), he's trying to halt the Osprey and F-22 boondoggles, and the BUREAUCRATS and GENERALS aren't one bit happy. If this campaign succeeds absent the heavy Army hammer, EVERY campaign going forward can succeed in the same manner. The Army fiefdom is scared stiff, and they are trying to bad talk this assault model.
It's going to be about Special Forces, Marines with long reach capability, a Navy with a higher deployment of Destroyers and Cruisers packing long range missile pop, mobile attack helicopters and aircraft. Clinton's DOD was information starved, boondoggle project flush and personnel inefficient and top heavy.
What good is an M-1 in Baghdad? One CIA operative or Delta Force soldier with a laser can do more efficient damage painting B-2, F-117 or Tomahawk targets than 10 Abrams tanks on the streets of Damascus, the villages of China, the islands of the Indonesian archipelligo or in the mountains of Columbia.
Do you mean that wheeled combat vehicle that was supposed to be part of the 96-hour deployable brigades?
Good post, btw.
Where was the media's concern about civilian casualties during Clarke's war on Serbia? We bombed a country fighting a muslem terrorist group for 78 days and killed anywhere between 500 to 3000 civilians depending on who you believe. But not only that we took out their water, electricity, and civilian infrastructure and caused thousands of deaths as a result. Where were the "peace" protestors? Where was Susan Sarandon?
I think you mean the Crusader artillery system, not the Bradley, which is our infantry fighting vehicle.
Is this news to anyone?
We talk about our enemy Saddam using television as a weapon against America. I see no difference in what Arnett and Clark are doing. (self-serving McCaffrey too, but he's always been a mean mutha, already despised by comrades and subordinates alike).
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.