[91B]

Got this via e-mail from Stratfor. Searched and didn't see it posted. Pretty much hits the highlights.

[marron]

Worth a second reading.

[mark502inf]

100% right on. Clausewitz also talked about the size of armies--his conclusion was to always take the biggest force you can get. We are already paying the price in Afghanistan and Iraq for going in too light--couldn't stop the Taliban & Al Qaeda from escaping, couldn't pin them down on ANACONDA, and now they have set up bases in Pakistan & remote provinces & have resupplied & gained confidence & learned some new tactics.

In Iraq, our ground troop shortages meant we couldn't secure the military bases and munitions dumps & key infrastructure & put the hammer down in Tikrit & Fallujah from the get go. So the bad guys easily re-grouped, got their supplies, attained some early successes & have been given the opportunity to plan, rehearse, and adapt.

In both cases, if we hit with all we had at the beginning, there would have been no chance to adapt & re-group & get away & realize--hey! we can take the Americans!

We will win--but it will take longer than it should have & cost more lives & $ because we had a SECDEF who doesn't understand land warfare and doesn't listen to those who do.

[Prodigal Son]

Some of the general points are taken but like Rumsfeld, I think the more troops you have on the ground in Iraq, the more targets (soft troop targets- ie noncombat troops) you would have for guerrillas to target. More convoys going back and forth. More camps/firebases to choose from to mortar. More supply clerks walking around not knowing what to do when they take fire.

I like the approach we're taking. Keeping it to what's needed, trying to get other nations to get in and help us out. Right now, al Qaeda and the Ba'athists might view the lack of a UNSC resolution about Iraq as an inducement to attack and further fracture what support Bush has. We get more foreign troops in there, scale our numbers down, it starts getting harder for al Qaeda (and whoever else) to attack an American. Then al Qaeda has to ask itself- how many more nations do I want to piss off by killing their soldiers? How many of my assets do I want to devote to Iraq (if I'm bin Laden) when American involvement is growing smaller, not larger?

The author doesn't mention Pakistan. That nation is going to come into the mix sooner or later as well. How do we target al Qaeda in Pakistan? You just know the Pentagon is cooking up something and that they also have some sort of contingency plan on stand-by in case it goes tits-up there and the fundies take Musharraf down.

The author does mention the elections and this is good. Al Qaeda gets a vote in the war and they certainly get a vote in the elections. I look for them to watch the political situation on the ground in America very closely. If they believe Bush is vulnerable to losing- they will try to cue their attacks in such a way as to help Clark or Dean or whoever Bush is facing come next November. Not such a big attack that everybody rallies around the Chief again but withering attacks. A steady stream of casualties for the American media and democrats to pontificate over. The democrats are, after all, more or less al Qaeda's best friend in America.

The President needs to have Iraq looking presentable come next year. Maybe not 100% ready to walk baby democracy, but at least with its hair combed, the dirt washed from behind the ears and able to sit still in polite company...

[boris]

The substitute for boots on the ground is nuclear weapons.

On 9/12/01 we should have nuked them all.

Then we could have begun the leisurely work of assassinating every terrorist left.

--Boris

[inPhase]

The article is a summation of many points
but the last line stands out. Rum is not stubborn he is surprised? Interesting viewpoint.

"the Pentagon's personnel officers are acting like this is
peacetime. The fault lies with a series of unexpected events and Rumsfeld's tendency to behave as if nothing comes as a surprise.

The defense secretary needs to understand that in war, being surprised is not a failure -- it is the natural commission."

[liberallarry]

I think ever increasing the size of our military burden is a loser. Better is the Israeli approach; reduce the size of the Islamic world. Drive Islamic peoples from their lands. Make that the cost of supporting Al Queda and similar terrorist orgs.

[winker]

The outcome of this war is totally predictible. We kill "ALL" the Terrorists! I predict we are the Winners!

[Valin]

Here's something you and your list(/subtle hint) might be interested in.

[A. Pole]

Bump.