Top US military planner fears a 'likely' repeat of Somalia bloodbath [in Iraq]

The Independent ^ | 15 March 2003 | Andrew Buncombe

[katana]

Yes, and the basic mission of the unit was accomplished. The Iraqi populace won't be high on khat and the actual loyalty to Saddam is paper thin, except for those elements of the Baath Party who know they'll be swinging from lamp posts in a few days time.

That being said, anything can happen in a war and we should all be praying very hard that this all goes well and is over quickly.

[dixiechick2000]

I have grown kind of attached to it. Besides, my choice of nics had absolutely nothing to do with them.

Thank goodness for taglines, huh?!;o)

[Terridan]

"A former military aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf..."

THIS IS WHERE I QUIT READING... AREN'T WE TIRED AD NAUSEUM, OF THESE HAS BEENS? I too, worry about our men and women in the line of fire, bio crap and gases... but believe me, the blow dealt will be devastating, and put an end to yet another monster of the world.

[Terridan]

;) You got that right!!! God bless.

[pierrem15]

You know, I'm tired of the "Somalia" baloney.

In fact, a handful of Amecricans kicked a$$. We captured 6 top officials from the warlord.

Was the operation poorly planned? Yes. Did the sad sacks of s--t in DC deny the commander on the ground the appropriate armor and helicopters for the mission? Yes.

We did it anyway, at the loss of 21 American lives vs. 1000-5000 Somalis. I'm not happy about the loss of life on either side, but it was the cowardice of the Clintoon admin that turned a victory on the ground into defeat.

Imagine how this story hade been played if the POTUS had mentioned that only 1 SF company had gone into a portion of Mogadishu filled with hundreds of thousands of hostiles and grabbed 6 top scumbags in any case. Sounds like a different story put that way, doesn't it? What's the moral? The fruits of 48 hours of valor in the field can be squandered in minutes of fecklessness by cowardly political leadership.

The coming struggle is not goinmg to be cost free. But I don't think their valor will be sacrificed upon the ego the current POTUS.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Just saw this man on Fox. I find it so distasteful to see out of the loop, ex military ,trashing the war plan.Other than seeking his 15 minutes of fame,what is this guy's agenda? He knows how the pipeline works and the chain of command-he just leap frogged over everybody.Norman Schwarzkopf could certainly have a phone conversation with the President-the proper place to air legitimate logistical complaints.Tomorrow, I can guarantee that Begala and Carville will be touting this bitter man as a hero, like they do nightly with Gen Zinni, who made totally inappropriate and smarmy remarks against the President in August and has never been heard from again.

" Comments of Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret.) during a speech before the Florida Economic Club, Aug. 23, 2002:

Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.

It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)"

Looks like Turner will be joining Zinni in the cheap shot club.

[sneakypete]

We're going to kick ass. Quickly.

You think we can easily and quickly defeat the Repulican Guard (they sound like Bush-Bots,don't they?) if they decide to dig in and fight house to house in the cities? Ever heard of Stalingrad? Remember,these people will be the ones with nothing to lose by fighting because their lives and maybe even the lives of their families depend on Hussein and them staying in power.

[orfisher]

>>If Awe and Shock does not percipitate a regime collapse we will lay siege to Baghdad and seek international cooperation to resolve the city's fate.<<...Hats of to you Sir....the only reasonable post I've read here and on other threads calling for total rabid annihilation. You must have seen war as I have to know what war death looks like.

[sneakypete]

the CIC now is far and away more a man and soldier than x42.

No,he's not,and neither is anyone else in his inner-circle. Not a one of them has spent a day as a soldier,or ever been in combat. The Colonel has,and even more importantly so have people like General Norman Swartzkopf,who is also oppossed to the upcoming war with Iraq for the same stated reasons. Ali Bubba-2 is going to war with Iraq DESPITE the opposition of the majority of the senior leadership of the US military that has combat experience. And I'm not the one who said that,Swartzkopf was.

[sinkspur]

Remember,these people will be the ones with nothing to lose by fighting because their lives and maybe even the lives of their families depend on Hussein and them staying in power.

Actually, their lives depend on their not fighting. They will be slaughtered if they fight.

[xm177e2]

19 dead soldiers is not a "bloodbath"

1000 dead Somalis was

[sneakypete]

As if General Schwartzkopf would endorse the view given here.

He does,and he has. He is currently backing the upcoming war with Iraq because "I realized that the war is going to happen despite what I think." You can read this on the transcript from "Meet the Press" appearance about two weeks ago. Please note that Russert got him to admit that he had been oppossed to the war for the very reasons in this article,as had "almost every senior officer in the Pentagon that I know who has ever been in combat."

[Lauratealeaf]

The use of this article by the COL is obviously focused towards its' propaganda value. However, the COL does identify some valid concerns. These concerns should not keep us from doing what is our duty which is obviously destroying the threat of a rogue nation giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups who hate our country.

The valid issues I see deal with the historical truth of neglect and falsehoods fostered by the Clinton administration concerning our military. The military is still suffering from the decisions and policies of the Clinton administration. The Somali operation should not have been viewed as a military defeat because the entire concept was political in nature not military.

The constraints and invalid use of military force required by the Clinton administration set us up for failure. However, what is important in this article is to understand that the mistakes made during the prior administration will still haunt us today, primarily in the area of the civilianization and contracting efforts made by that administration to reduce the active duty military support in the area of logistics.

The United States military has been crippled in its ability to operate long logistic lines in hostile environments. The majority of our logistical support due to the downsizing must be in the form of contractors.

Yet, we do not have enough security forces to guard every contractor or their employees. This is our real vulnerability.

Chemical and biological attacks against the logistical nodes by terrorists infiltrated into the same companies could have the effect of large scale casualties.

This responsibility has largely been removed from the militarys' concerns. The individuals in charge of the military forces of today made their rank by believing and supporting the policies of the prior administration. Policies which have been proven to be flawed in our operations in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Therefore, some are not likely to fully recognize any dangers concerning the structural decisions made in the past. Our logistic support from corps to division in the army is fairly well protected, however, the support from port/airhead to the corps is primarily civilian.

These areas are ripe targets. There is nothing we can do about this now except to recognize that these companies and employees will be on a battleground and therefore are at risk.

Hopefully, most of these individuals have had some military training and can protect themselves but the vast threats involved would produce casualties in any scenario no matter what the circumstances.

If this were widely understood as a reality then a backlash by the American public of civilian casualties in this area would not detract from an overwhelming military victory.

If it were widely understood that the civilians operating in these areas are at risk and cannot be totally protected by the military forces employed then hopefully it would reduce the negative spin the press and enemies of the Bush administration would place on any of these type of casualties suffered.

Hopefully, this will not happen or our new leadership has already recognized this danger.

[verity]

He is retired.
He has not been involved in this planning.
His views are thus uninformed and invalid.

[sneakypete]

Why wouldn't they just try to do what the Nazis tried at Leningrad. (The heroic Russian defense notwithstanding) Starve them out.

Because the media would be in there broadcasting photos of children dying from disease and starvation,and people killing their puppies and kittens to eat. It would be a PR nightmare. So would going in and trying to take over by force. It's a no-win situation unless we can manage to bribe the senior Republican Guard leadership to turn on Saddam and surrender the city.

[sneakypete]

if the POTUS had mentioned that only 1 SF company had gone into a portion of Mogadishu

It wasn't a Special Forces company,it was a Ranger company.

[PISANO]

Somalia was the result of mission creep and X42's unwillingness to supply our troops with equipment/logistics necessary for the NEW mission. It is entirely the fault of the CINC at the time. William Jeffeson Clinton!

[apeman81]

Did you ever notice how that when we are preparing for war a host of experts come out of the shadows to cast aspersions and spread gloom and doom? Not that these possibilities should not be examined, but this post is reminiscent of the dire warning of 20000 American dead the last time we prepared for war with Iraq.

Somalia was the result of a rapid mission objective change by a weak administration coupled with a foolish Secretary of Defense decision not to send heavy armor despite the military on the spot request. Just how effective could the Somali counter attack have been if the troops and hostages had been extracted in Bradley fighting machines with a few M1A Abrams tanks thrown in the mix?

The misleading title of this article says it all. First, they assert Col. Turner is a “Top Military planner” when indeed he is a former member of that body. Additionally, there are several hundred “military planners”. What makes this guy on of the “Top”?

Then they inject the word “fear” rather than a more reasonable “is concerned”, or even a slightly more drastic “worry”.

Sit back and watch the show. I believe this will be a lot cleaner than the gloom and doom scaremongers are saying.

[pfflier]

There's a few differences between this operation and Somalia:

You forgot the most important difference:

Clintoon was in office and refused to provide overwhelming support power in Somalia even though US advisors asked for armor before going in. He denied the request

I doubt President Bush is ignoring any advice or questions.

[Diddley]

. . . who is also oppossed to the upcoming war . . .

Make that was.