I'm certainly no military expert but a good friend is a retired Army general -- he retired in 1996. He said this was "the most amazing military campaign in history . . . besting Patton's U-turn and scramble during the Battle of the Bulge by a longshot." He was so excited, giddy like a little kid, LOL, that I'll never forget his quote.
He taught tactics and history at the Academy during his career so I'll take his word for it. But he did add a little caveat addressing your concerns. He said that lengthy supply lines can only be planned and maintained when the ability of your enemy "to see" you is severely limited.
I asked him what he meant. He said we're so far ahead of other countries technologically that there was only three or four countries with satellite, aircraft, or human intelligence that could report "near-time" experiences to battlefield commanders quickly enough to do them any good. And then they would have to have the ability to do something about it . . . which, considering our air superiority over everyone makes this part damn difficult so they would have to provide "manpower disruptions" or artillery to slow us down.
He figures there's only three countries who could bother our long supply lines . . . luckily two of them wear white hats. I was surprised by his choices . . . UK, Australia, and China. Russia's military, according to him, is on a par with the Germans now, and their hardware is deteriorating -- which makes them even more dangerous because they'd have to go nuclear to survive. France? He said Australia would annihilate the French army in six months, UK in three, us in two weeks. He wasn't joking, he wasn't bent out of shape with them . . . He said "The French have lost the righteousness required to succeed in war." They value nothing worth fighting and dying for.
He said Australia scores ALMOST as well as we do when we have joint maneuvers and that they've made a concerted effort to go hi-tech. And, according to him, the UK warriors are on a par with ours but their strategists only "lack imagination" and they could be as good as ours -- the downside for the UK is they can't put the dough behind their military like we do. He said a large portion of our joint exercises are paid by American taxpayers. He calls this "the best investment the military has ever made" because the Special Forces between our countries are "seamless" warriors. Either country can be reinforced by Special Forces from the other country and there is no learning curves.
I'm sorry this is so long but Dan's a fascinating man and I thought his insights would help you and others understand what the REAL Professional Soldiers think. By the way, he agrees with Rummy's Plan of "re-tooling the military" to a faster, more mobile force and only the "pencil-dick Army bureaucrats who've never charged a machine gun nest" would think otherwise. His words, LOL, not mine.
He retired in '96 because Pee Wee Clinton was reelected.
I completely agree, but he was also speaking generally about conventional enemy forces. We never would have attempted these long supply lines had we not enjoyed air superiority, but our log(istic) runs were vulnerable nonetheless to the Fedayeen Saddam and other guerillas.
My late father in law was a retired Air Force colonel, started out in the Army Signal Corps in WWII, fought at Guadalcanal, Iwo (was blown up there with his jeep, landed on his feet and without a scratch), served in the Japanese Occupation, lateraled to the Army Air Force and thence to the Air Force and ultimately the Pentagon. It was always interesting to sit at his feet and hear what he had to say about military strategy.
He would have been fascinated by this war - he was a big advocate of controlling the air war in order to move fast on the ground - but he passed away in '96. Coincidence? (I think Slick Willy gave a lot of the old military types heartburn.)