Replies

My bottom-line point: General Franks already knows everything the analyst is saying. (A lot of analysts are four-star wannabes. Franks is apparently the real thing.)

As I look at the body count for both sides, apparently you are absolutely correct!!!

Yeah, almost all of our casualties thus far can be accounted for as mechanical failures and friendly fire and a maintenance group getting lost in a poorly marked desert and a couple of ambushes in phony surrenders. So, our tactical blunders have been essentially zero.

I wouldn't get in a big hurry to ruin this record.

"The two factors not included in this analysis are our superior air power, and the possible uprising of the people of Iraq against Saddam Hussein."

I think at least one of those factors, superior air power, is a rather large factor to ignore in an analysis of this type. Any reference to the USN is also missing. I have zero ground force experience and no way of judging that aspect, but it seems to me this paper is essentially pointless.

Strictly from an analytical viewpoint.

Purely from experiencing a dark time in the DOD, the Carter years, I am aware that the military, including the highest brass, raised making things work with what you actually have at hand, to an art form.

I think General Franks has the situation in hand.