Posted on 03/28/2003 7:22:12 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Massive reinforcements after retired generals question plan, writes JAMIE DETTMER THE Bush administration's decision to order a massive reinforcement of 120,000 additional troops over the next few weeks amounts to an acceptance of the chorus of criticism from retired generals that the initial war plan was flawed. Not that you will hear the White House, the Pentagon or Downing Street admit that. For the last 48 hours, and in the face of doubts also voiced in private by members of the congressional armed services committees, Bush officials have insisted the original plan has been working well. Last night, Pentagon sources insisted that the additional troops being sent now were always part of the war plan. They say the plan finally envisages about 300,000 US troops being in Iraq. However, critics, including General Wesley Clark, the former Nato commander, and General Barry McCaffrey, the Gulf war veteran who led the 24th Infantry Division in 1991, questioned the wisdom of deploying from the start only three army divisions and a US marines division and said more troops were needed on the ground from the beginning. "Success breeds success," said General Clark, who believes Iraqi troops must be buoyed by holding off the coalition for so long. Last night's announcement came after it emerged that analysts from the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency had warned that US forces would face significant Iraqi resistance, with Saddam Hussein exploiting guerrilla tactics like those seen in Chechnya. The advice was softened as it went up the bureaucratic chain to the White House, sources said yesterday. Earlier this week, Victoria Clarke, defence department spokeswoman, was terse in her dismissal of the criticism, although she did concede that the "plan allows it to adapt and to scale up and down as needed". The mixture of the forces being sent suggests that the White House does believe it was a mistake not to send heavy mechanised divisions to the war from the start. Pentagon sources said that, as well as the 30,000-strong 4th Infantry Division, the 1st Arm-oured Division would be deployed from Germany. Significant "elements of other heavy divisions will be thrown into the mix" said a Pentagon source, including the 2nd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, which will leave within a couple of weeks from Colorado. For all of the Pentagon's insistence that it was always in the plan to send more troops, the decision to double US ground forces in the region is being seen on Capitol Hill as a victory for General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, over Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary. The initial war plan was very much in keeping with Mr Rumsfeld's thinking. He rejected severals pleas from General Franks for heavy divisions to be included in the invasion forces - he wanted to show that agile and lightly-equipped formations backed by tactical aerial firepower could do the job. It was Mr Rumsfeld who wanted to break with the US strategy used in recent campaigns - weeks-long air war followed by the deployment of ground forces. However, it will probably take several weeks for the 4th Infantry Division to join the combat. Other forces heading to the region could require even longer to move their tanks and other armour from their bases to Kuwait, said Pentagon officials. It is not clear how the American public will take the doubling of forces . Support for the war has held up well in recent days, but the polls have also indicated that anxiety about the direction of the war is growing. More troops may bolster public confidence but it could easily trigger Vietnam-style fears of a quagmire. |
What hurts them most is that we have been so successful without even the 4th ID- in fact we have prosecuted the war so far with the most minimal number of troops in any scenario I heard being floated for the war.
This entire article is so much tommyrot.
The stand-by alert for Fourth ID, First Cav, First Armored, and 2nd and 3rd ACR's went out in February. They were always going to be the follow on forces. 4th ID is a little late in the game because we spent so much time hanging around the Turkish coastline. We should have cut bait March 1st.
But some mistakes are unavoidable as politics tends to intervene in military planning from time to time.
The Administration is not responding to criticism.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Speaking of "quagmire". How are we going to handle Baghdad? What is the scenario you see leading to victory. I'm stumped.
Saddam expects us to go in by the thousands and engage in house to house fighting. I don't think we're going to do that. Rather, we'll expand our zone of control over the rest of the country while initiating large scale Special Operations in Baghdad itself targeted at the Leadership cadre. Once the RG's are depleted and destroyed, you'll see flying columns of fast moving Abrams and Bradley vehicles go into and out of Baghdad for quick raids and retreats.
Trust me, we will retain the tactical initiative in that battle.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
It's all just sweaty defeatist drivel.
McCaffery isn't so bad, here's some words from him from July 25, 2001:
"We have got some brilliant people, Vice President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Hallez -- people around the Pentagon that know what they're doing. "
"Old style" military don't like the idea of moving supplies by convoy- they want a secure, static supply line. IMHO to them the method being used in this war is as revolutionary-and successful- as the aircraft carrier or blitzkrieg were in their time.
It sure does. That's why our forces continue to outfight, outwit and outkill Iraqis.
It never fails to amaze me how this cacca always gets turned around. Our POW's are executed and slime-ball Helen Thomas questions how the terrorists in Guantanamo are being treated. I don't know if it's posted on FR, it probably is, but Michelle Malkin wrote a great piece on Thomas today that I think you'll find interesting if you haven't already read it. We need more Michelle Malkin's taking on the feel-gooders because they dominate the alphabet-networks and the major newspapers.
It emerged?? Leaked??? Probably a single bullit item in a report under "Things to Consider". You'd think from the tone of the report that some CIA agent was making a big noise about it. The flatuance that passes as analysis from General Wesley Clark and General Barry McCaffrey is pathetic.
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.