Posted on 06/22/2003 7:50:58 AM PDT by Valin
What a wonderful attitude and it must be great to know that.
I just wanted people to know that, although I think a superpower taking out Iraq could have been orchestrated by any number of different leaders of middling abilities, I'm nevertheless a hawk.
Other nations that saw this don't care that a few irregulars continue to harass our troops months after the battle. What they do care about is the fact that the strongest military in the middle east was torn limb from limb by a much smaller force, and the regime was powerless to stop it. We intentionally allowed many units to disband or surrender, but had they all fought to the death, there would have been no change to the outcome save a slight delay and vast Iraqi casualties.
This may not be impressive to you, but it has the attention of every tyrant, Party comittee, and terrorist network. Even larger nations like China and Russia are aware that their own conventional forces would fare no better. America has proven her ability to fight and defeat anyone at will, and with a negligable effect on the economy. Regimes that care only about staying in power now realize that provoking America to battle is suicidal.
It may not be as epic as Normandy, but war isn't about satisfying people's sense of adventure. This war was a showcase of strategy, tactics, equipment, training, and synchronization. Once the plan becomes better known, the audacity of it will be impressive in its own right. Daring, however, is an ancient military virtue. It is the lessons of our technique and organization that will be impressing and influencing the world for generations.
The impressive part is the tactics, the coordination, the planning, and the flexibility. If you or anyone wants to harp on the 'inequity of capabilities' and how we should somehow be less proud or impressed - attend a funeral for one of those lost and tell their family how inferior our opponent was. Hawk or no hawk - respect American lives above all else - and recognize that if it were not for brilliant commanders like Franks this would not have been such a stunning victory - and it is that stunning victory that made the others look like the 'B' Team.
I am impressed with how much stronger we are than everybody else, and agree that other country's are awed, but none of us knows how good the leadership was. The disparity between the countries' abilities could cover up a lot of bad decisions. I have no reason to think our leadership is not real good, but the Iraq war is not strong evidence.
Absolutely. It seems like some would prefer a toe-to-toe battle to prove our "toughness". I don't. Winning is all that matters. I've seen other posts here discounting our covert efforts to pay off Saddam's commanders so that they wouldn't fight (as if it diminished our victory). I'm sure we did it and it was successful. It saved hundreds of our soldiers lives (I don't care about Iraqis).
Of course. I'm just stating what should be obvious, that the deductions you can make from a war against Iraq are limited. We could have had the best leadership possible but we don't know that from this test -- we could have also have had bad leadership, though I doubt it.
We were so lucky to have these military leaders in charge...no question! And, no, not just anyone could have done this....far from it. We had not only Saddam (read about the Iraq-Iran war if anyone doubts), but the enemies of America (including the EU, UN and press) throwing stumbling blocks in our way all along...and still today. Awesome leadership, and character. Gen. Abizaird's a pretty fair leader as well...another tough guy who loves the troops, but Gen. Franks earned the glory for this war.
Well, not to sound sh!tty, but it's not really important if you know it or not.
It would have been very easy for this thing to have turned into one major goat f--k. This operation was an incredible display of coordination and audacity. You don't pull off something like that with crappy leaders. This was more than just superior firepower you saw back in March and April. It would be impossible to sit here in a few paragraphs and check off each item in the wide array of areas where we excelled.
You want to see leaders who wouldn't have been up to this job- look at some of the guys who used to wear constellations on their collars who are now drawing salaries from CNN and other networks. They were totally whipped by Franks as well. That should tell you something. Franks and his crew stand head and shoulders above the likes of Wesley Clarke. None of those perfumed princes could've replicated what Franks did- they couldn't even criticize it without making asses of themselves.
What you saw was the art of war raised to its highest form.
I'm sure that there was some mircomanaging from some areas. UAV's alone make it easy for higher ups to watch the battle and butt in (I've heard from Afghanistan this was an issue).
Anyway, the overall planning and execution at the higher levels appears to be outstanding. I will be curious to see some more of the stories of actual combat from maneuver units, as they start to come out, and see what overall picture they paint. Of course, its month's later and I still have only a vague idea of what really happened to the 507th Maintenance Company, much less anyone else.
Well considering Jimma Carter couldn't land a helicopter in the desert, Clinton couldn't defeat Mogadishu, etc. - yeah, I'm impressed in a well-planned, led and executed military operation.
Yes, it was a mismatch, but oil fields, damns and bridges weren't destroyed, Israel wasn't attacked, the anticipated refugee mass didn't occur, the urban war in Bagdhad was prevented and WMD weren't deployed.
This wasn't easy to do. The win was never in doubt, but the way they won was impressive - very impressive.
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.