Posted on 03/27/2003 9:56:16 PM PST by HAL9000
Think of 7400 5-lb bombs going off in an area the size of two football fields in the space of 15 seconds. Now think about that happening 3 or 4 times an hour on the same position. ANYTHING exposed, man or machine, and particularly towed/SP artillery, is toast -- and any tanks had better button it up right quick, too.
1. A 3:1 to 4:1 ratio of attackers to defenders is in fact a traditional attack ratio. That is precisely what the US has in place, according to the article. A 4:1 or 5:1 ratio is nice, but requiring it only suggests that the army commanders have been spoiled with an embarrasment of combat riches in the past - which is a good thing, because more force usually equals fewer casualties, but now they are getting spoiled and picky. Of course, generals also are notorious for wanting more assets just to make sure nothing unexpected happens. Throw in the complete Coalition air dominance and things look pretty good.
2. The army has ALWAYS been "privately unhappy" about the extent of air support. This goes back at least as far as the Sicilian campaign in 1943. The fly-boys have strategic missions in mind, the army has tactical issues. This is nothing new, and in fact is the case in other armies as well - at least those that have an air force, unlike Iraq.
3. Somebody apparently has not heard about the utility of "reinforcements" and "reserves." Three divisions in the line should be sufficient to attack, as Rumsfeld appears to feel, if you have fresh troops on the way that will replace or supplement those troops. Now, putting ALL of your troops into the line WITHOUT reserves is a recipe for disaster, as the Germans found out in the USSR. This seems to be what the army guys want, thinking the Iraqis will be "overwhelmed" or something. I believe they are engaged in wishful thinking. I prefer Rumsfeld's take on this.
The General should have the balls to go on record or he should keep his mouth shut.
These guys see that Franks executed a successful campaign in Afghanistan without the heavy armor, he's stormed from the start of the ground assault and reached the perimeter of Baghdad in what ... 5 days? With Marines and Light Army?
Rumsfeld is testing his new paradigm of a lighter, faster and more agile force supported by precision air strikes, special ops intel and Naval missile and air support. Airborne Rangers. It's bombers to replace tanks and artillery. He's seeing spectacular results. The 4th is not needed. This isn't about banging away with tanks and artillery on the outskirts of Rome in 1944. This is going to be concluded with a SWAT operation, house to house, goon by goon. The 4th are going to be stuck in a sandstorm down in Basrah when the last of Ubay's vile monkeys are sent to Allah.
Friggin bureaucrats.
They had nobody to confront them really so thats not surprising.
But Galloway and the other critics are saying we WERE surprised by the Iraqi resistance, that's one of their main points. Lack of foresight and judgement is the accusation in a nutshell. Based on what? Their "guess" as to what the next moves will be - certainly not based on any true evaluation of the success of the strategy thus far.
And now they're criticising Rummy for wanting to attack Baghdad with a stingy deployment - as if they knew that is his plan and as if they knew what the real situation is in the field.
If the 4th ID had been able to come down from the north this would be over by now.
No argument that would have helped a great deal. But are we to think that our leaders did not have that contigency considered? These are not Iraqi military strategists we're talking about.
As it is, it is indeed a stingy deployment.
Again, the stingy deployment made it to the outskirts of Bagdhad - while keeping their lines of suppy flowing - in record time with remarkably low casualties. And their numbers will increase by many tens of thousands in the next few weeks. Quite possibly even more that we are unaware of. Of course it will take longer without the passage through Turkey, but they would not start without having a winning war strategy even considering that quite possible contingency.
Yes, the 4th ID traveling on land from the north would have shortened the war; certainly the war will take longer than otherwise; that's all we can know about that.
However, the critics now seem to be accusing our leadership of gross incompetence, lack of basic planning, etc.
IMHO, based on the record, many of these critics are blowing smoke out their rear to puff themselves up.
It is natural to be concerned, there are certainly setbacks ahead, it will be a tough operation most likely. But this type of carping, that which assumes gross incompetence on the part of our best leaders - well, that should not go unchallenged.
These are fine and brilliant men; they are the ones we fought so hard to put into leadership positions to handle these difficult decisions. I see no reason not to keep my faith and trust in them.
Thanks again for your reply.
I really hope this is the last campaign that utilizes embedded TV crews and unfettered broadcasting from war zones by international outlets and freelancers. War needs to be primal sometimes, and some of our guys may have died because they were too slow to pull the trigger on ambushes.
If a enemy during surrender makes a false move and is shot ... if Iraqi guys who are critically injured would slow the advance and are ignored and left to die ... I don't want some CNN haircut monday morning quarterbacking that.
The enemy conscript who dropped his weapon and was allowed to walk away from the scene today could be the guy who kills your best buddy next week. The reporters have sanitized this whole affair to a detrimental degree IMO. And ... we should send a cruise missle right through the studio floor window of Al Jazeera.
One of the other benefits of this war is that it has been a "call" in the international poker game. Personally, I would have never guessed that the Canadians would betray us, and even had high hopes for the Russians (I expected duplicity from the French, of course).
If nothing else, at least we know who our friends really are now. I hope we have the wisdom to adjust our national policy accordingly. The first priority should be to secure our northern and southern borders, which is going to be a very difficult task. But we must do it, since this incident has conclusively shown that neither the Mexicans nor the Canadians can be trusted to act in our common national interests, and both borders (as we already knew, but were ignoring for political reasons) are potential paths of infiltration for terrorists.
I'm starting to think that the press is just talking to themselves, now. My liberal friends aren't consumed with negativity-- they don't seem to be taking the constant doom-and-gloom of the angry liberal reporters to heart. They don't think-- yet-- that Rumsfeld is blowing it. And a lot of other people do remember all of the ill-timed defeatism surrounding the Afghanistan campaign. (Does anyone remember all of those weather threads on FR, for example?) I don't think people are all that scared by what they're reading in the Times and Post.
As for us, I don't think there's some new "Iraqi nationalism" that's going to inspire a long guerilla campaign against us. I think rather that many Iraqis fear that we'll back out, owing to the '91 debacle, and I think there is some resentment about a decade of sanctions, for which many Iraqis must blame us. But, if you notice, the "civilian" attacks against us are undertaken by Saddam loyalists. They're not widespread, and not organized by the population at large. When Saddam is gone, or on the way out, the war's over.
So, just wait. Things are going to work out. And I think sooner rather than later.
Iraqi Nationalism=gun to the head patriotism. Soon as you remove the gun...you remove the patriotism.
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.