Gulf war figures question Iraq plan: Schwarzkopf says U.S. needs a coalition

MSNBC ^ | August 16, 2002 | MNSBC

[The KG9 Kid]

"... One word is required to slap you down: Mogadishu

Mogadishu was clearly a military victory that was turned into a political defeat."

Why is it that the enemy always seems to wait until the Marines leave the hemisphere before attacking the US Army?

[bernie_g]

It doesn't sound to me like Stormin Norman is *against* a war in Iraq, it just sounds like he's giving some pragmatic advice on the approach.

For example, if you could retain them at an acceptable cost even if it involved compromise with their slightly different views, why wouldn't you want allies?

As long as retaining their support didn't involve doing something unacceptable then it's obviously better to have them completely onside surely?

There is only even a *question* about that IMO, when you aren't prepared to meet their conditions (remember these are sovereign states, not subject states) whatever they might be.

So to me, it would seem obvious that allies are, all other things being equal, an excellent thing to have. The question is, what are the allies asking for that the US can't provide? I'm not sure I'm entirely clear what that is.

Can you tell me?

[BuddhaBoy]

The question is, what are the allies asking for that the US can't provide? I'm not sure I'm entirely clear what that is.

My guess, is that the allies are concerned about what the price of Iraqi OIL is going to be after we get rid of Saddam.

Now, it makes sense to assume that the US will have broad rights to decide on the distribution of that oil, especially if we install the prerequisite new puppet government.

All those European countries will have their Oil deals with Saddam be voided the day we go in. Rest assured, these are the deals that will determine whether or not we have allies when we get Saddam; those countries that dont mind dealing with the US via the new government for their oil contracts, will be the ones with us on the front line.

Getting rid of Saddam will effectively give the US a voting seat in OPEC, something the rest of the world should be very afraid of. On the other hand, I dont mind filling my SUV with Saddam's oil once he is dead.

[bernie_g]

OK, yep. I'll buy that, at least as a very significant factor.

The EU is already pretty stressed to realise that the US just doesn't buy in any longer to even the idea of any kind of International community and it's everybody for themselves.

Behind the scenes though, I've no doubt they always looked at it that way, certainly we Brits have, at least since Drake.

[RaceBannon]

Goodness you guys, havent you ever heard of Patton's Fourth Army? It was a feignt!

I believe we should not trust anything we hear until the shooting starts. There is so much intentional disinformation being released by our government, we have to fool them somehow, we cannot let them know our full intentions. There has to be some sort of political skullduggery to make them not sure of when or where we do it to them.

[RaceBannon]

Stop the pissing contest. Everyone can get wet here. You included.

[ImpBill]

Feeling great and we won't part company far. I am for taking them all out and I really don't care who is first actually. I just want the job done, but I want it done right and I don't want the ballon to go up until we are absolutely ready for every contingency.

[Gunrunner2]

Just to jump in here, and not with the intent to start an inter-service pissing contest. . .but,

Airpower is evolved and airpower is effective and is now emerging as a primary fire as opposed to always a supporting fire. Note what I just said: I said air power may now be the primary fire, but NOT in all cases, and the army can be the primary fire, but NOT in all cases. After a 42-day campaign the Iraqi army was blind, starved, cut-off and ineffective at an operational level (and from my direct experience, tactically as well. . .but I suspect that was more because they were Iraqi, than anything else.)

In the Gulf War the strategic air campaign made it possible for the US Army and Marines to do their stuff with relative ease. This was the case because the US Air Force target and destroyed the strategic resources necessary for a nation to field an army and make it fight. The intent of the air campaign was not attrition, but strategic paralysis, and they did a great job. Tank plinking was resisted by the air force, as they knew their strength was in operational and strategic targeting, not taking a 25 million dollar F-16 and shooting an Iraqi T-55/62/72.

Now, last point, prior to the Gulf War air power was rare, but during the Gulf War the push-CAS was always hanging about, always present and on call. No problem getting a 4-ship of A-10’s (the BEST CAS jet).

Best regards.

[Naplm]

your post in 198 is repugnant,disgusting and pure bullshit, I suggest you stick your paws back in your trouser pockets, hang a smoke from your lips and lollygag
back where you came from.

[Yasotay]

Don't get me wrong ... airpower and air support is GREAT. I love the A-10 (but I like an AC-130 even more ...). When control of the air is contested or denied then airpower AND SUPPORT REALLY goes away. If the USAF has to fight for the skies then I totally disgree with your statement about airpower becoming the primary fire ...it won't even be there for supporting fires. Let's hope it does not come to that ... and that the USAF wins all the future fights for the skies.

In DS, the Air Force did a GREAT job.

[Gunrunner2]

>>I know that during Desert Storm we employed a forward operating base [Mostly for refueling] in Western Iraq. So we still have a good idea of the terrain in that area.<<

Yes, it was called FOB Cobra. It was used by the 101st. It was seized on 20 Feb (4 days before the ground was officially began). It was also the first time I called in CAS for real. Over 400 some-odd prisoners taken. When calling in the air strike my radio went dead. You can imagine, while it only took a few minutes to whup out my secondary radio, the ABCCC was going a bit nuts, as my last transmission was describing "troops in contact."

4-ship of A-10's dropped CBU-87 and strafed.

Incidentially, when planning for the raid for the 20th of Feb, Gen Peay did not want to have USAF air power used, he specifically said (at the division TOC) that he wanted only Army assets used. However, when we encountered more bad guys than we anticipated, I was asked to call in the A-10s. I did and they surrendered. The news reports talked about the raid, saying "Apache helicopter's captured hundereds," but not a word was released by the 101st about the USAF presence. No big deal, but a bit of history.

[Gunrunner2]

No question about it, the first thing is to control the sky. Absent that and all heck breaks loose. (Last time US ground troops came under fire from a bad guys air force was in Korea. . .let's keep it that way.)

Cheers

[VaBthang4]

"When calling in the air strike my radio went dead. You can imagine, while it only took a few minutes to whup out my secondary radio, the ABCCC was going a bit nuts, as my last transmission was describing "troops in contact."

LOL

"Gen Peay did not want to have USAF air power used, he specifically said (at the division TOC) that he wanted only Army assets used."

Same Song Different War.

[VaBthang4]

Hey Bro, guess what.[?]


I went ahead and read "Into the Storm"...I think I will ammend my opinion of Franks. He was a great leader...a bit too hesitant but he made the correct decisions given the circumstances. I think he should have read the tea leaves when he was told twice that Shwarzkopf was bothered by his pace...but in the end nobody told him straight up to get his *** moving quicker so I cant fault him.

My opinion of Shwarz remains...but I do believe I now have quite an admiration for General Franks.

[Yasotay]

Thanks, if I remember I asked you to read the book .... it does give a good account from Frank's view ... I hope you enjoyed the book .... Have a Happy Thanksgiving!