Iraqi defeat jolts Russian military

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | April 16, 2003 | Fred Weir

[Former Proud Canadian]

Bad predictions of all time:

Russian TV later quoted General Maltsev as saying "the American invaders will be buried in the streets of Baghdad."

[Billthedrill]

Well, the technology and funding are important, but the chief message should not be that throwing money at the problem solves it, because that's what many of the Gulf states have tried and it doesn't work. What we are also seeing is the contrast between a highly-trained, highly-motivated volunteer force and poorly-trained and supported conscripts working for a tyrant who would sooner shoot them and their families than the enemy (and does so) since it's safer. Some American commander commented that they could swap equipment and he'd still win. I think that's why.

[Paleo Conservative]

The Russian military sucks. It's always sucked, and until they completely revamp their order of battle, philosophy, and unit structure, they will continue to suck.

It will be hard to do so long as they have an authoritarian society. They always try to reverse engineer our cababilities, but we always stay ahead.

[Dubya]

LOL

[Dubya]

Russian TV later quoted General Maltsev as saying "the American invaders will be buried in the streets of Baghdad."

They are dumb.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Well, it's true!

[Dubya]

Thats well put.

Our guys are good.

They are the best.

[Jeff Head]

They need to be prepared in case the French back into them.

[RightWhale]

Gulf War I was a shock to them, no doubt, perhaps a greater shock than that kid, Rust, who flew his small plane to land in Red Square. This recent war, whatever else it may have demonstrated, showed that the first Gulf War was no fluke and that the disparity is even greater now. It doesn't matter, though, since there will be no war with Russia.

[AGreatPer]

I read it somewhere the even Israel was shocked at how easily we did this.

[Dubya]

I wish I knew how to post this picture. It is worth a thousand words.

Star-Telegram Front Page

[TaMoDee]

Brillant!

[Dubya]

I read that also now that you mentioned it. I had forgot about it.

[Dubya]

Good post.

[Dubya]

Thanks for this info.

[Dubya]

I'm with you on that.
They are nuts.

[Jeff Head]

We will not face any serious competition or threat until one of these enemies produces a higly motivated force to fight against us.

Then the training and the equipment will be edges, but only so far as our own motivation to stand, fight and advance continues to exceed their motivation to get at us.

World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam war to some extent were examples where the enemy forces was much more motivated and hurt us. But even then, when we decided to fight, advance and take ground ... while they hindered uis and hurt us, in the end they could not stop us.

My impression is that we can be hurt by a highly motivated force that is relatively well armed and provisioned and who has superior numbers and willing to fight unconventionally, but our liberty, commitment to moral principle, inginuity and technology still trumps their fanatical and usually tyranical motivation. Flight 93 showed us this on a small scale ... a scale that can be directly projected (IMHO) on future conflicts between the systems.

Great comments. Best regards.

[knak]

I wonder why so many countries thought this was going to be such a tough war? Most of us at FR didn't seem to think we would have any problems unless they used WMD's on our troops. But it seems like other countries had no idea what the American military was capable of.