Posted on 05/20/2002 7:54:48 AM PDT by xsysmgr
I don't know if there will be a war or not. If we can get rid of Saddam without one, that certainly would be preferable. But I know that Saddam is a dead dictator walking.
Well, this "speed, audacity and surprise" thing certainly applies once you cross the line of departure.
Before that, some careful planning, deception, and logistical build-up is important too. Think of the D-day landing. They planned that literally for years, and it ultimately worked, not that they showed much speed ,audacity or surprise after they hit the beach.
But they DID get strategic surprise on the Germans and that may have been decisive.
And we need strategic surprise.
Referring again to D-day, tactical surprise would find the sentries asleep as you approach the beach, operational surprise would keep the SS panzer divisions from deploying the first day, and strategic surprise would keep 200,000 German troops in the wrong part of France for six weeks. The latter two did happen.
Right now, the war is in the shadows. We don't and shouldn't know what exactly is happening on a lot of levels.
Walt
Don't know whether its accurate or not. Colonel Hackworth says we have enough to fight Iraq and Iran at the same time, but others disagree, saying a Desert Storm-style invasion is beyond us now.
The article above states that Bush really hasn't lived up to his campaign rhetoric to rebuild the military that Clinton decimated. He has hardly increased military spending at all. If he had asked for a $600 billion defense budget, Congress would have given it to him.
Well, in 1982, the Brits were going to smash down on the Argintines; it didn't matter that the Argies knew they were coming, in a sense. Remember the "Time" cover: "The Empire Strikes Back"?
The Iraqis are a tough nut in the sense of logistics and that very important strategic surprise. We've got to ensure that if we land Marines on those mud flats up at Basrah, we can support them. I don't think the Iraqi Army will fight better than they did in 1991. Arab men fight best when they can poke an AK-47 in your face.
It's true that the Germans expected an invasion. They were totally duped as to where.
Walt
No they wouldn't have. Rumsfeld is trying to modernize the military, not just throw money at defense contractors.
"Realistically, all wars have been for economic reasons. To make them politically palatable, ideological issues have always been involved. Any possible future war will undoubtedly conform to historical precedent."
U.S. Navy
Congressional Record, April 5, 1947
As long as Bechtel's boys don't prod Saddam into threatening Saudi oil profits again, we shouldn't see any war.
if our leaders believe that "the desire to avoid further slaughter" trumps the desire to take down our enemy;if they believe that Crown Prince Abdullah or Hosni Mubarak will lift one jeweled pinkie to assist our war aims;
if they believe that we need the permission of crooks and despots before we act in our own interests;
if they believe that Europe is militarily significant;
if they believe that the U.N. Security Council is worth anything more than a thimbleful of rat's piss;
(My personal favorite!)if they believe that our fighting men and women cannot carry out their duties without a year and a half of preparation;
if they believe all these things, then it would be best if we did not start a war at all.
They do: We won't.
What eveidence do we have that Rumsfeld is looking to modernize the military? That costs money. The fact is that we really aren't spending all that much money on defense as a percentage of GDP.
Logic says that the Bush Administration is politically caught between a rock and a hard place - a defense budget capable of building a military machine that can crush our enemies would require spurning some of the piglets that pant at the federal nipple. It would mean no $190 billion farm give-away. And that would mean weathering an unpleasant political storm.
He cancelled the Crusader.
We don't have enough people in the military to use a bunch of fancy new stuff anyway.
I see a contradiction here. If 'we' were hearing about it then a build-up wouldn't be very 'secret' would it?
It follows that if 'we' were hearing about it then Saddam Hussein would 'be hearing about it', too.
My point exactly. It will take, according to most estimates by those far more knowledgable than myself, between 200,000 - 400,000 troops to invade, occupy, and depose Hussein. We had 500,000 in Desert Storm. With our current forces, are we able to sustain that kind of an invasion while maintaining apresence in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and numerous other places around the globe? Perhaps a knowledgable military person could speak to this.
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.