Cakewalk In Iraq

Washington Post ^ | 02/13/2002 | Ken Adelman

[Pokey78]

Even before President Bush had placed Iraq on his "axis of evil," dire warnings were being sounded about the danger of acting against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Two knowledgeable Brookings Institution analysts, Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O'Hanlon, concluded that the United States would "almost surely" need "at least 100,000 to 200,000" ground forces [op-ed, Dec. 26, 2001]. Worse: "Historical precedents from Panama to Somalia to the Arab-Israeli wars suggest that . . . the United States could lose thousands of troops in the process."

[churchillbuff]

I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk" -- Adelman, Feb of 2002.

Wow. Nostradamus this guy isn't !!!!!!

[churchillbuff]

bumpb

[Poohbah]

Compared to what the doom and gloom crowd was predicting, it IS a cakewalk.

[churchillbuff]

I'm bumping again, for all you neo-cons and Revelations devotees who said we'd be in Baghdad by the second day.
When the generals expressed concerns about an operation last year, the neo-cons said that "war is too important to be left to the generals." Very funny - - except neocons never have kids or kin in the military, so apparently they think war is too important to be left to necons, too. !!! It's too important to be left to the "Mr. Cakewalk" who wrote this article, that's for sure!

[Poohbah]

Generally, it's not nice to self-bump in public.

[churchillbuff]

It's no cakewalk when the military is talking about a war of months. I don't care what the doom-gloomers said, I'm talking about the folks who said this would be a walk in the park - - - and they clearly don't deserve to be listened to anymore!

[Spruce]

While not a 'cakewalk', we are witnessing the Biggest Ass-Kicking in Military History.

[churchillbuff]

Iraqis eating into coalition 'cakewalk'

March 27, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST








'There were some who were supportive of going to war with Iraq who described it as a cakewalk,'' Tim Russert told Donald Rumsfeld on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' last Sunday. The secretary of Defense seemed surprised. ''I never did,'' he replied. ''No one I know in the Pentagon ever did.'' While Rumsfeld spoke the literal truth, his response was still disingenuous.

Rumsfeld had been asked about the cakewalk description several times, rejecting it but still defending the premises for such a judgment. While its source was not technically a Pentagon official, it was a longtime Rumsfeld friend and lieutenant: Kenneth Adelman, appointed by the secretary to the Defense Policy Board (an outside advisory panel). In demanding military action against Saddam Hussein, Adelman has promised repeatedly there would be no military difficulty.

U.S. general officers I have questioned over the last year were angry that anybody--particularly an official adviser--should spread the impression this would not be a real war, with killing and dying. Nevertheless, the cakewalk image took hold among some of the strongest hawks in Congress and in the public mind. That has led to widespread surprise and dismay in beholding what Rumsfeld accurately told Russert: ''A war is a war. It's a brutal thing.''

Nevertheless, Adelman and Rumsfeld both overestimated the gap between U.S. and Iraqi military prowess. According to Defense Department sources, Rumsfeld at first insisted that vast air superiority and a degraded Iraqi military would enable 75,000 U.S. troops to win the war. Gen. Tommy Franks, the theater commander in chief, convinced Rumsfeld to send 250,000 (augmented by 45,000 British). However, the Army would have preferred a much deeper force, leading to anxiety inside the Pentagon in the first week of war.

Unlike Vietnam hawks, the strongest advocates of action against the Iraqi regime had estimated the lowest troop needs. Former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle, named by Rumsfeld to head the Defense Policy Board, predicted in February 2001 that Saddam would be gone within a year. I asked Perle whether a major U.S. expeditionary force would be needed. ''No, certainly not,'' he replied. ''I don't think that's necessary.''

Adelman, who held important government posts as Rumsfeld's subordinate, was interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Dec. 6, 2001. ''I don't agree that you need an enormous number of American troops,'' he said. Saddam's army ''is down to one-third than it was before, and I think it would be a cakewalk.'' Since then, Adelman has stuck to that estimate.

Last Nov. 23, I asked Rumsfeld whether he agreed with Adelman. ''Well, I really don't,'' he said, but then indicated he understood how his friend came to that conclusion. ''Saddam Hussein's forces are considerably weaker today than'' in 1991, while ''our forces are considerably stronger.'' He suggested that only Iraqi ''weapons of mass destruction''--presumably chemical weapons--could ''change the equation.'' No such weapons have yet been used, but the Iraqis have put up stout resistance.

While Army officers would have preferred a larger commitment, even what was finally approved for Operation Iraqi Freedom was reduced when the 4th Infantry Division was denied Turkey as a base to invade northern Iraq. The Defense and State departments point fingers. Secretary of State Colin Powell is criticized for not flying to Ankara to convince the Turkish government. The Pentagon is criticized for not immediately dispatching the division via the Red Sea.

''We have never done something like this with this modest a force at such a distance from its bases,'' retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a division commander in the first Gulf War, told the BBC Monday, contending Rumsfeld had erred. A bigger stir was made in the Defense establishment by the column in Tuesday's Washington Post by retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a noted writer on military affairs. E-mails and phone calls flowed through the Pentagon agreeing with Peters' view that Rumsfeld committed a ''serious strategic miscalculation'' in not sending enough troops and relying on the ''shock and awe'' bombing campaign.

Yet, civilian and military sources high in the government believe coalition forces, short on manpower, must rely on air power to win Baghdad. Clearly, it is no cakewalk.

[Poohbah]

It's no cakewalk when the military is talking about a war of months.

Contrary to what pud-pounding morons like you seem to think, no one was predicting that this would be over by the end of the hour.

You sneer at people who say that it would be relatively easy to defeat Iraq--which we are doing--and then demand an absurdly fast victory.

Go back to playing Command and Conquer, poserboy, and leave the warfighting to those of us who know what we're talking about.

[churchillbuff]

Adelman: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

I don't doubt that we'll win - - how could we not, it's like a tiger pouncing on a mouse - - - but clearly the Adelman "cakewalk" scenario has been disproved.

[Paulus Invictus]

If you read today's USA Today, you would be lead to believe we are losing this war. Almost every article and headline has a negative spin to to it. These liberal RATS journaists are just incredible! If we win a battle, we lose. If there are casualties, we lose. If Saddam's troops resist, we lose. If there is a sandstorm, we lose. USA Today will trumpet every negative they can. That's their tactic. Scum!

[BunnySlippers]

Anyone know, offhand, just how many ground forces we do have there?

[churchillbuff]

It's no cakewalk when the military is talking about a war of months.

What part of that sentence do you disagree with? I'm just saying that "cakewalk" - Adelman's term, not mine - doesn't fit a war that could last for months. If you disagree, then you've got problems with semantics, not me.

[Poohbah]

Like I said...this IS a cakewalk.

Eight days of war, less than 100 friendly casualties, and the US is less than 50 miles from Baghdad.

What has been disproven is your claim to know whereof you speak.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Hey Buff Boy! Why don't you quit belly-achin' and support our troops!

[churchillbuff]

What has been disproven is your claim to know whereof you speak.

I'm only repeating what military officials have told the media - that this war could last for months. If you want to call a months-long war a "cakewalk," I can't stop you, but I certainly wouldn't hire you to edit a dictionary.

[Poohbah]

It's no cakewalk when the military is talking about a war of months.

Oh, I see.

In churchillbuff's world, A war's DURATION determines whether it's a cakewalk.

Is your foolishness natural or an affectation?

[SamAdams76]

Do you know what you are talking about? Even if the Iraqis threw up their arms and surrendered on Day One, we'd be there for months keeping order until the new government got its feet on the ground.

So far, this war has been absurdly easy. Most of our casualties (and there haven't been many) have been self-induced - taking a wrong turn, blowing up our own plane (by accident), and various accidents that happen just as frequently in peacetime when you get a couple hundred thousand troops together in one place with lots of heavy equipment.

Apparently the Saddam regime does not want to give up. Why would they? There is no future for them if they surrender and they know it. So they will hole up in urban areas and hide behind civilians and little children, like the cowards that they are. It is only due to our sense of decency and our desire to give the liberated Iraqis a somewhat liveable city that we aren't in Baghdad already, bulldozing buildings and burning it to the ground like it was a fire ant hill.

[churchillbuff]

support our troops!

How am I not supporting our troops? Churchill never said the war against Hitler would be a cakewalk, and he would have scorned anyone who used that word. Does that mean he didn't "support the troops"?