Military officers criticize rush to use ground troops

Washington Times ^ | 3/07/02 | Rowan Scarborough

[kattracks]

Military officers are privately criticizing U.S. tactics in the battle of Gardez, saying war commanders should have used air strikes for days or weeks before sending ground forces against 800 enemy troops in Afghanistan.

"The way we lost those seven guys was a repeat of Somalia," said a senior Air Force officer, comparing Monday's clash south of the city of Gardez to the 1993 Mogadishu mission.

[Naspino]

Back-seat drivers. Always know better once the outcome is known.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[antaresequity]

ugh! These guys are deluding themselves if they think we can win without dying. I can't believe they don't get it. It should be illegal for these guys to comment like this during the battle.

Let them file formal objections after the battle is over. But to do it during battle is repugnant and undermines the very fabric of military command. I am sick...

[McGavin999]

The Air Force officer (who was promoted by Clinton) said some Pentagon civilians (hold-overs from the Clinton administration) also are upset with the tactics used in the assault near Gardez in Paktia province. Some informally have discussed firing commanders, but others say any dismissals would send the wrong message to U.S. allies as well as to supporters of terrorist Osama bin Laden.

This "Air Force officer" should be demoted to toilet bowl cleaner.

[gwynapnudd]

Does this idiot really think we can afford to fight a perpetual war in Anarchystan with long range bombers and million dollar a kill airstrikes? Has he ever heard the term conservation of forces?

The rules of war haven't changed. Troops must occupy the ground that you capture.

[dvwjr]

I have gotten sick watching so many analysts (lots of retired Special Forces) repeat ad nauseum over and over their tactical version of what to do to clueless TV show hosts. It alway starts off with "Intelligence", and then more "Intelligence", followed of course by still more "Intelligence" with a few laser designators in the way of Special Forces with Afgan local troops.

Theater and tactial intelligence are of course important, otherwise you could not PLAN the operation. Let the guys in charge on the ground run the operation. At some point you have to STOP gathering intelligence, and HIT somebody, make them move. Plan seems to be surround Al-Queda forces on four sides, then close in. If you don't push the opposition into a smaller and smaller area, it must be harder to hit them from the air, when there is more surface area to hid in...

The commanders do not wish to spend US lives needlessly, but if they are not willing to use US infantry to close with and destroy the enemy, then all we need is special forces, laser targeting, and lots of aircraft. I am not sure that we can trust most of the Afgans, they have a history of selling out, switching sides too easily. Best of luck to the US infantry and all others involved.

[Uglywhiteguy]

I have flown on Chinooks in the States and Vietnam....they are not build for speed and going into a hot LZ....Sorry guys, but you don't go in with a Cchinook to save another Chinook taken out by ground fire...

this "officer" is correct...we rushed in too quick....

hopefully, this is a good lesson for the future...Iraq will be different: terrain is different and we will be hitting large masses of dumb soldiers by and large...

[Mo1]

As of 8:05pm CST, 3/6/2002
Freeper State (Never Never Land) .. $4,872.45
California (931) --- $4,391.10
Texas (925) --- $2,885
New York (329) -- $1,950
Ohio (246) ---- $1840
Florida (457) ---$1,530
Virginia (365) ---$1,499
Pennsylvania (302) ---$1,255
New Jersey (177) ---$1,241
Arizona (179) ---$1,094
Washington State (254) ---$1,085
Michigan (196) ---$852
North Carolina (241) ---$847
Connecticut (91) ---$830
Illinois (231) ---$805
Massachusetts (131) ---$795
Georgia (230) ---$735
Missouri (179) ---$700
Wisconsin (141) ---$700
Minnesota (119) ---$675
Montana (14) ---$600
Alaska (44) ---$529
Maryland (221) ---$500
Colorado (153) ---$475
Indonesia (2) ---$400
Tennessee (172) ---$360
Kentucky (88) ---$350
Oklahoma (120) ---$340
Louisiana (98) ---$320
New Hampshire (46) ---$300
Oregon (122) ---$270
Indiana (143) ---$250
Alabama (104) ---$230
Kansas (90) ---$205
South Carolina (106) ---$200
Hawaii (25) ---$180
Delaware (18) ---$180
Mississippi (62) ---$175
Maine (34) ---$175
Arkansas (60) ---$170
Utah (47) ---$159
West (by God) Virginia (34) ---$159
Nevada (55) ---$150
New Mexico (61) ---$125
Spain (4) ---$100
Nebraska (42) ---$75
Vermont (11) ---$65
Iowa (60) ---$65
England (44) ---$50
Australia (15) ---$50
Chile (4) ---$50
Overseas Armed Forces (1) ---$50
Washington, D.C. (3) ---$50
Idaho (54) ---$50
South Dakota (25) ---$50
Canada (69) ---$35
Republic of Ireland (14) ---$30
Wyoming (10) ---$25
Rhode Island (11) ---$15
Sweden (7) ---$10
North Dakota (13) ---$10

Ok Freepers .. see the list above .. how about getting the number's of your State up ...

Y'all can do it .. LET'S ROLL!!!

Support FreeRepublic

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

And dont forget .. You also can Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[McGavin999]

The guy may or may not be correct but his "leaking" to the press during an ongoing battle is pretty unprofessional. Anyone with that little sense isn't worth listening to.

[Red Jones]

This article says that in the 1993 Mogadishu incident that it was the Pentagon that denied the extra strength and tanks to the soldiers in Somalia. But the Wall Street Journal reported at the time that this was a White House decision made by Les Aspin. According to the WSJ account there were several screaming matches between pentagon people & white house people about it with the white house turning down the request for more strength.

[self_evident]

The officer added: "The question is why did Franks and the military abandon what had been spectacularly successful since day one. Bomb them until they're dead or on the run.

I can't believe the Wash. Times published this crap. If it was so "spectacularly successful", why in the freak are we still having to fight these battles? There is one big difference between what is happening now, and what happened before. No negotiations for "surrender." My guess would be that the current enemy has "surrendered" 3 or 4 times now.

[TADSLOS]

Dollars to donuts that this guy is an armchair quaterback in the Pentagon who is charged with pushing USAF appropriations.