Posted on 02/05/2005 3:16:58 PM PST by Valin
Excellent article...and quite accurate as to Pentagon politics. Which goup do you think Patton would ascribe to?
Why do I feel this is one of those articles to generate income rather than suggest potentials?
No one expected the level of terrorism that is current. Most thought the Iraqis would provide better intelligence on the Bathists and criminals. Egyptians, Syrians and other foreigners should not be able to find refuge. So, the level of troops to support pacification is greater than expected.
Was Shinseki smartly or stupidly right? I have my opinion.
Is this an anomoly? Wont know until we go beat up Syria.
It does indicate that most Arabs are more docile than ferocious, but it is the numbers of the fanatic that was misjudged. Their ferocity was anticipated.
ping for insight.
Patton would be in favor of whichever one is in favor of getting there sooner with superior firepower.
I dunno. I guess it just goes to prove once again that the UN is absolutely useless.
What was misjudge is that Saddam emptied his bomb dumps of millions of tons of explosives that gave the bad guys the tools to fight this terror war.
We need Heavy Mech to if we're going to win against a real enemy like China instead of these rundown crummy Muslim militaries.
RumDumb, with his support for Stykers and "Information Warfare" and "Transformation" at the expense of Tanks and Heavy Mech is doing everything in his power to make sure we get crushed by China.
Hopefully Tommy Franks will replace Rumdumb by 2006.
...there is a huge ongoing battle for "hearts and minds"...
Paradigm #2:
Democracy defeats Islam.
This is the basis of what we are doing. If these are not effective weapons against Islam, we will have to keep on looking.
Those goals (weapons) are classic and powerful and honorable. They may not be enough to defeat that 1300 year old dragon, Islam.
That's may work against Crappy IslamoNazi militaries, but how the F*&^ is "Transformation" going to 50 million Chinese soldiers from conquering East Asia?
RumDumb must go!
"going to 50 million Chinese soldiers"
Going to KEEP 50 million Chinese soldiers
And 50 mil is probably low.
Two lessons from the Iraq occupation:
The helicopter is not fitted for supporting urban operations- the area is not secure enough for them. The fixed wing Spectre is the right platform to support operations in urban areas. So the Army needs a fixed wing component.
The vast amount of information that drones and other air platforms can supply needs a huge human base to analyze it.
Vast areas could be observed at a "Big Brother" level if our air reconnaisance capabilities could be fully utilized. There's a large number of individuals in the US who could provide that analysis from their homes over the web ("Make Money at Home With Your Computer!").
IEDs and other ambushes could be made nearly impossible.
Nope. What we need is to use massive nukes, at least 1000 or so to thin their ranks!
Actually 50 million is probably the limit because even though "Technically" the Chinese could raise 150 million men, the logistics of supplying all those people with food, ammunition, equipment, and fuel would be too much for their economy to handle (I'm not convinced that the Chinese economy is going to keep on booming forever - their economic growth is a lot shakier than the Japanese growth during the 80's)
We can't nuke them because they have enough nukes of their own that they could take down a couple of major American cities and bases in East Asia plus Tokyo and Seoul down with them.
I don't think that we ever can have a 100% solution. We will always have to have the capability to smash what ever is in front of us. There is always a place for the direct application of brute force to bend an enemy to our will.
We always will need the capability to project our power anywhere in this world in a short time, and we need the power to keep the command of the sea, air, land, and space.
One of the basic rules that we have to follow is to determine what are our national goals. Then what are the strategies required to meet those goals. And perhaps most important from a practical point of view, is what is the cost of implementing those strategies.
Along with the fact that the fact that there are no 100% solutions is the fact that there is no min-max solution. There is no minimum cost maximum effectiveness way. Every solution requires precious national resources.
Indeed.
What makes you think Franks would be different than Rumsfeld?
Remember The President is the one in charge Franks (or whoever) will carry out what the Pesident wants...Just like Rumsfeld does.
When it comes to the military, Bush delegates a lot of the Technical decisions about the military to Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs while at the same time having control of overall strategy.
If a SecDef Franks told Bush that we need more tanks and Bradley's then I would bet Bush would go along because he delegates a lot of decisions regarding Defense.
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.