Replies

"I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.

Does McCaffrey forget that technology has greatly changed since he was in Iraq, let alone during WWII? Wasn't he Clinton's drug czar? What great accomplishments did he perform while in serving Clinton's administration?

Technology is a wonderful force multiplier, but it does not take place of boots on the ground. Rumsfeld is a believer in technology and he was a fighter jock, but this kind of war against an enemy of some strength defending its capital and backed by numerous irregulars requires more than precision guided munitions. We are about to engage six mechaninzed divisions in fortified positions with one heavy division, one light division and one air mobile division. The Brits have been left to deal with Basra because their equipment was not designed for grand prix warfare.

Unlike '91 we are not catching them in the open, far from their base of supply, having endured 35 days of aerial attack. Are we going to lose? No! But McAffery IMHO is right. We stand to suffer casualties because Rumsfeld did not provide enough troops and equipment. The issue will be decided before 4ID and 1st Cav arrive. I hope your confidence in technology is proven correct, but I fear McCaffery is correct.

Wasn't he Clinton's drug czar?

Yes, and did you notice the article made absolutely no mention of his connection to the Clinton administration. A very conspicuous omission indeed. That tells me the author was afraid one might form the conclusion that McCaffery was being political. That's the conclusion I'm drawing.