Looks like you can count Hackworth on your list. I'm amazed it's taken him this long to find something to whine about.
The griping is insanity and stupid, and expected. What goes completely unreported and totally misunderstood is the political element in all this. Going in, the White House needed the smallest possible force. What we have, the 4ID, included, was the reply.
Why, then, the rolling start? First, politics: the Prez couldn't wait any longer. He had to go. Next, Iraq: if there was any hope for capitulation, there had to be someone to surrender to. Then there was the need to suppress Iraqi defensive measures, the dire need to trap Saddam in Baghdad, as well as to keep the rest of the world out of Baghdad (imagine how bad the Syrian smuggling would be if we weren't on the ground?), and the equally dire need to suppress likely WMD use, exports -- and Scuds. I'm sure that Saddam never really thought we'd actually mount an invasion. He probably counted on air strikes alone, which he thought he could survive (you think?).
The ASAP and awesome march on Baghdad answered all the above. It also shocked the Iraqis to the core. There is nothing we couldn't have done by air that we're unable to do now with the 3rd ID at the doorstep. There's so much more we can do with them there. Furthermore, there's no reason we can't reinforce now, and there's many other reasons why it'd be more difficult to reinforce prior to an invasion (Turkey, Suez, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, etc.). With the 3rd ID up there, any pro-active objection or obstacles to the land invasion are mute. Most importantly, the Isreali card -- their ace, has been removed from the deck. The fight is contained to Iraq.
Which brings us back to the political realm: imagine the hand wringing now if we were still waiting on an invasion. With the position we have now, there's no more discussion and zero debate. It's done, we're in, and we can only win. We'll do what we have to do.
You will say that we should have had more already stationed. We didn't. We moved with what we had. Mute point. As for advance expectations: Of course we raised expectations of a quick victory. Not a good way to go to war, saying we'll lose. Neither is it a good way to get your enemy to give in in advance.
I'm glad we're alone on this thread now... so little background noise (oops, just bumped it to the top).
FRegards,
-Michael
Interesting thinking.
I agree that in the end we had to go with what we had. But the reason we went with so little is not something that was due to time constraints.
The debate of how many troops and assets to commit started long ago. As early as last spring as I remember. There were two camps. One wanted to commit double the troops involved and another, beleive it or not, thought that they could fight the whole thing with less than 100,000 troops (navy, airforce and support troops included). That would have put a scant 10,000 trigger pullers.
The go light crowd also thinks that armor is not needed, and advocate a light truck like force that can be airlifted. Well, that sounds nice on paper, but as you this week, one anti-tank rocket on one Marine viehicle hit took out 10 Marines. The 507th Maintenance was traveling on trucks and we saw how easily they were taken out.
Now look at the lower casualty rate of the 3rd ID. They have been fighting the Sadam nuts last few days, but have taken few casualties. The 2nd brigade has no KIA at all.
Also during the sand storms, the 3rd ID was still funtional and survived the enemy attacks. The more lightly armed Marines were not so lucky.
This light versus heavy debate has been going on in our services for years. The cost cutters love it. But it costs lives...and hackworth, a snake eater Infantryman knows the value of armor.
To some, (democrats and anti-war types) this debate of more versus less, heavy versus light, is an opportunity to score cheap political points. As a conservative, I found myself torn at first. I did not want to give them ammunition. But in my heart, I am still an Army scout and cavalry guy. The troops I served with have to go to battle and they are more important to me than Rumsfeld's ego. Rumsfeld chose the go light option, and had to be dragged to the go heavier side of the table. The airforce types colluded with the go light crowd as well. The airforce has always been for strategic and deep bombing over ground support. The shock and Aew thing is not new. An Italian officer named Duhet came up with it in the 20's after World war I. The RAF tried it on Germany during World war II and it flopped. We tried it in North Vietnam and dessert Storm I. In neither case did the people or the enemy governments give up. In fact the people start to identify with their nasty governement and band together against the invader. This recent wave of Baghdad bombing is dangerous. I think Saddam is using it kill his own people and blame us. (I mean what are the chances of us hitting two market places - a place of social importance to Iraqi society?) saddam has done us a favor. He does not trust the Republican Guard formations, and as such he has placed them outside the city. Our bombing can take them out there. And it is.
In the end we will win. When the corps commander above the 3rd ID and the 1st Marines puts his career on the line to say that the enmy they are fighting, is not the one they wargamed (expected, in civilian talk) my side is not on the lunatic trail or politicly motivated.
We are all on the same side...I for one have been advocating the taking our of Saddam for years. I will not bore you with my rants when the war ended in the facion it did in 91. But we are paying the price now of the mistakes then. And GW is going to pay for his father's administration's shortsightedness.
Thanks for not going after my typing or spelling. I'm dyslectic...this took me over an hour to write.
Take care...