So this is Plan B, the 'Hail Mary' play from the North (facing defeat US forces are desperate)

Irish Independent ^ | Rupert Cornwell in Washington

[dead]

EVEN on Donald Henry Rumsfeld, that formidable and remarkably well preserved 70 year old who as Secretary of Defence is running the campaign in Iraq, the strain is starting to tell.

Outwardly, it is the pugnacious Rumsfeld of always, the steamrollering CEO who brooks no dissent. Look more closely, however, and the lines of strain are visible. The tiredness is evident in the eyes behind those rimless spectacles. And small wonder.

For he is the man in the hot seat as, eight days into the Gulf War of 2003, a once cocksure America is forced to face the possibility it may be months, not weeks before a war sold as a virtual cakewalk, may finally be over.

"Saddam has learnt from Gulf War One, and he's learnt from Mogadishu," Kenneth Pollack, an Iraq specialist at the Brookings Institution said yesterday, referring to the unhappy US military intervention in Somalia in 1993, which ended after dead American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. "He's learnt that irregulars and paramilitaries can cause problems, using things like human shields. Maybe he watched the movie 'Black Hawk Down' over again," and Mr Pollack adds, "I'm only half-facetious."

Pentagon officials grudgingly admit that the resistance has been stronger and more tenacious than expected.

Admittedly, friendly fire apart, US and British casualties have been minimal. But the guerrilla hit-and-run tactics, coupled with the blinding sandstorms of the last two days, have slowed the advance.

Supply lines strung out for 250 miles or more on jammed, inadequate highways have been stretched to breaking point. This week, the US 3rd Infantry Division leading, the thrust to Baghdad, virtually ground to a halt, short of fuel and even food and water. Sheer exhaustion is also forcing a pause, in which to regroup, rearm and resupply.

Did Washington, seduced by the dream of a speedy and easy victory, put too few troops in the field? No, answer of course the architects of the strategy. "Our plan is brilliant," General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proclaimed as the first doubts began to stir. "We're on track, we're on plan. We think we have just the right forces for what we need to do now."

Esteemed experts beg to differ. There is just a hint of the Hail Mary play about Plan B. That last minute all or nothing American football game plan to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. As the Northern front opens with support from the Kurds much now depends on this last throw of the dice to decide what will be either a comprehensive sweeping victory or a long dragged out and even bloodier affair. They point out that the 250,000 troops deployed in and around Iraq are only half the force massed for Gulf War One - which moreover was fought in flat desert conditions ideal for US mechanised armour. The actual ground combat force is somewhere between 75,000 and 100,000.

The heavy forces in the field - the 3rd Infantry, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and the 101st Airborne (not yet fully deployed in Iraq) plus the British are not enough, they say - even given total US/British domination in the air. "We needed at least four divisions and the British. We've got three and the British and we're getting a harder war than expected," says Pollack.

Of the above elements, only the 3rd Infantry is a really heavy fighting force with tanks and armoured vehicles. Additionally, the withering air fire put up by Republican Guard units blunts the effectiveness of the deadliest US battlefield weapon, the Apache attack helicopter.

But the deficiency should be made up with the belated arrival of the 4th Infantry Division, which was supposed to have launched a second front from the north towards Tikrit, Saddam's family stronghold, and Baghdad itself.

That plan perished when Turkey refused to allow US ground troops to use Turkish bases. The 1,000-man paratroop landing in Kurdish-controlled Iraq on Wednesday is scant substitute for the 62,000 men the Pentagon wanted to mass along the Turkish border.

Now the 4th Infantry and its 30,000 troops are being deployed from Fort Hood, Texas to Kuwait, from where they will move north to reinforce the US force gathering to launch the decisive assault on Baghdad. The armada of ships carrying their armour has started to arrive in the Gulf from the Eastern Mediterranean.

The 4th Infantry should be combat-ready sometime early in April. At that point it will move north to the front, allowing secondary forces to be released to guard supply lines. All of which is reasonable enough - except that it wasn't in the original script.

More than any other in history this media-saturated war, with its unprecedented real time coverage from the front, has been a prisoner of expectations. Alas, expectations, exactly like financial markets, overshoot in both directions.

The optimism at the outset was excessive, fuelled by the likes of Dick Cheney, the vice-President, who predicted on national television that the Republican Guard would do what General Myers yesterday called "the honourable thing," and not fight at all. Until early this week, the mighty array of pundits and military specialists did not mention the word "Fedayeen."

Mr Rumsfeld warned yesterday: "We must expect that it will require the coalition forces moving through, destroying Republican Guard units around Baghdad, before you see the crumbling of the regime." But will that take weeks, or months? © Independent News Service.

[dufekin]

Remember, reporter dude(tte), this "Hail Mary" comes from a team that's trained and perfected the art of the long pass, has a league-leading completion record--and it's only 1st and 5, and the second offensive play of the game. The first play ended in a touchdown with two-point conversion, and the opponents fumbled the kickoff return (sandstorm), which we recovered. But we got an errant blitz and we're losing--even before the quarterback fires the ball.

[ConservativeLawyer]

Supply lines strung out for 250 miles or more on jammed, inadequate highways have been stretched to breaking point.

Um, the supply lines are streched out so long because we have advanced so far so quickly. If we had been stopped in our tracks by Iraqi defenses as soon as we crossed the border, then the supply lines would be nice and short like I guess the generals in the press would prefer. This author is an idiot.

[dead]

All those fancy intelligence assets we pay a bunch of money for could have told Rumsfield that anti-terror was a bigger threat than incoming ICBMs. Apparently, they didn't

Apparently they didn’t. Besides, it may or may not be true. 3,000 people died on 911. How many do you think will die if a NK ICBM drops in on LA in five years?

Like I say -- he may yet be vindicated -- if the ICBM's start raining in.

Or when they don’t.

[Chances Are]

Uh, Walt, did he reiterate his desire for such budgetary expenditures on September 12th? Any time subsequent to that?

Exactly what part of that question are you having difficulty with?

CA....

[WhiskeyPapa]

Quite apart from the arab messiahs that seem to be coming out of the woodwork everywhere, do you know anyone, regardless of their assets, who called that shot on 9/10?

That FBI special agent, Ms. Crowley was on a pretty good power curve.

Now, I am not, not, not, saying that Rumsfield should be fired or that he is incompetent or anything of the sort. I am just saying he hasn't done anything yet to justify the mindless devotion he gets from some people on FR.

It -is- sort of comical to see these bizarre interpretations so far afield from anything based on the facts or common sense.

Walt

[Plutarch]

I want one, just one of these guys to back the claim that the war was sold as a "virtual cakewalk" with quotes.

Cheney on "Meet the Press" right before the invasion. I remember thinking at the time that he downplaying the potential difficulties. He did utter the "greeted as liberators" quote.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I know you don't have his assets, and after reading your posts I'm damn glad you don't.

It always devolves from a discussion of issues to personal attacks for some.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You are a fraud and a blowhard.

I linked to this from that Yahoo article you posted:

"In mid-March, US Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) had given an optimistic timeframe for toppling Saddam, telling a television interviewer that the military campaign "will go relatively quickly, weeks rather than months."

That doesn't sound so hot now, does it?

Walt

[nhbob1]

We only returned the opening kickoff to the Iraqi 5 instead of into the endzone as we planned. So we're sitting 1st and goal at the Iraqi 5 and this idiot wants to punt.

[Chances Are]

One more time, Walt - would you care to address the questions I posed? If not, then please say so, so I can move on the the next thing, which will doubtless be less exasperating than this exercise.

Yours for a pleasant weekend,

CA....

[Cold Heat]

Needs a barf alert!

[numberonepal]

I posted this deep in another forum, but it applies here as well:

These reports about set-backs and timetables are starting to become enormously annoying. Doesn't everyone know at least 10 people that are never prompt consistently? Anyone? Beuuuuuuler? I didn't think so. You, yourself, may rarely be prompt. It's OK, sometimes things just come up. Right? How many times have your plans with 3 or more people gone wrong? Did you adapt? I'm not going to go into the hipocracy.

< !-- Ladies SKIP -- >

As any gentleman knows being "on time" doesn't necessarily mean arriving on someone else's timeline. If the gentleman has made no commitment to a timeline, then he has absolutely no obligation to show up at a prescribed time. "On time" is when he deems necessary and appropriate. Besides, who wants to show up for a party on time? For the fellahs out there this is a pearl of insight into the mind of a woman - listen up! Having someone anticipate your arrival can reveal so much good stuff.

< !-- Ladies RESUME -- >

There is something else going on out in that desert that we don't and won't know for a while, so hang tight timeline people. We'll get there and we'll accomplish the mission. This coalition has not committed to a timeline. They just said they were coming.

"It seems a little early to write history to me"
--Rummy

[geopyg]

"If things were going as planned, the Iraqis would not be destroying our armored personnel carriers."

If we didn't think they were going to destroy them... how come we didn't just send one!?

[m1911]

Thank you.

---

Transcript snippet

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and
are likely to step aside.
Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s
developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

---

End snippet

[Pukka Puck]

Let's see what the situation is 8 weeks from the start of the war.

I am betting that things will be pretty well wrapped up by then.

What do you think things will look like at that time?

[Pukka Puck]

"How about the comments of the senior ground commander in Iraq:"

The senior ground commander then does not mention a single thing about the timetable for troops being deployed being stepped up. You are a fraud and a blowhard.

No, I'm not. You're overreacting.

Yes, you are, WP.

You claimed: "But add this stepped up timetable and the faux pas of wanting $600,000,000 for ICBM missile defense the --day--before-- 9/11 and that is surely two strikes on the guy."

So Rumsfeld's faux pas was not in having to go to a stepped up timetable, it was in failing to anticipate every conceivable tactic the enemy might engage in. You are a shifty SOB, aren't you?

The important thing is not whether Rumsfeld anticipated that the irregulars would use pick up trucks to harry our columns, but whether our troops were equipped to fend off such attacks. The irregulars are being chewed up tout de suite. Soon, they will all be dead. They are not inflicting heavy casualties on our troops. They are not stopping our advance, even though the sandstorms did for a time.

Let's see how much, in the big picture, these little pinprick attacks really matter. My guess it that they are an annoyance, nothing more.

I saw your post where you claimed that if things were going as planned, the Iraqis would not be destroying our armored personnel carriers. Is it your claim that the plan anticipated that no armored personnel carriers would be destroyed? That is foolishness on your part. Are you claiming that ALL our armored personnel carriers are being destroyed? I doubt if our planners foresaw that particular scenario, but I also doubt that ALL our armored personnel carriers are being destroyed.

Please try not to be such a hysterical Pollyanna.

[Jhoffa_]

I guess we're screwed now, eh?

Oh well..

[No Left Turn]

Never stop posting that picture. It never fails to elicit a giggle.

[Pukka Puck]

I don't see the weeks rather than months quote that WP claims. I guess WhiskeyPapa lied again.

[AlexW]

Oh, God..The war is 10 days old, and we don't have Baghdad.
I better start practicing how to wrap those rags around my head and yodel like an Arab...Saddam's ghost will be at my door by daybreak!!! Ahhhhhhgggggggg :((((