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."
no, we just freed up the muslim fighters to go elsewhere.
Bingo!
What are you, one of Clarks bunkie buddies? This statement is total BS!
I think the American public has more patience than these "pretty boys and girls".
This is typical Democratic Party mantra for the masses, "more bodies are better." Just how do you clear a congested battlefield overloaded with too many soldiers under attack from chemical weapons? More soldiers means more confusion. The Democrats know that this kind of thinking, more is better, sells to the stupid masses that support them.
Remember how Clinton added 100,000 cops to America's streets. Shortly afterwards four white New York cops unloaded 41 bullets into a black immigrant who was pulling keys out of his pocket to go into his apartment building. It turned out that three of the cops had only been on the force for less than six months, Clinton dogs. Less cops and stronger enforcement from the courts would go further to clean up the mess. Clinton’s idea of more cops is consistent with a lack of will to enforce the law.
More soldiers would be the same. Too many cooks spoil the soup. This passes over the heads of career government hacks like Clinton. Thank god we have Rumsfeld who has worked in both the private and public sector. Rumsfeld is right. Pound the crap out of the Iraqis from the air and then send in a small ground force to do the dirty ground work of extracting dug in resistance.
This guy (Clark) was the Clintonista/NATO general in charge of the Serbian War, a war disputed to this day as to the necessity of that action.
He's considering running for President in '04 as a Dimocrat. He is a paid CNN 'expert.'
Clark is a viscous Daschle-type schill, willing to skewer President Bush at any turn for personal and/or Dimocrat gain.
Whatever you think on what I just said, please critique Clark closely, both as a fmr. NATO Supreme Commander and as a current politico-wannabe, and make up your own mind.
The greater problem, now, is that we must move into the towns in order to support any uprisings.
We must prove that we are committed to facing the worst. It's going to get very bloody for us.
The Iraqis who desire their freedom and have the courage to fight, need to see us stand by them.
So true.......pity we can't bomb the NYTimes et. al.
All I know is that so far, that which is there has been enough.
The bombing of the Chinese Embassy was NO mistake!
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," the British commander reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.
General Jackson overruled Gen Clark by refusing to send troops to stop Russian forces taking control of Pristina airport.
Jackson appealed KLArk's order to political superiors in the British Government who gave him permission to ignore KLArk's command. Apparently that is standard NATO procedure.
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.