HEROES IN IRAQ & RATS AT HOME

bttt

Donating to the FreeRepublic will keep the bright beacon
of Freedom shining so that our Troops
and the world will know we stand with them.

Please join us.

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

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

for the superb, but aging, A-10 Thunderbolt ground-attack aircraft

Now that we are ahead of the pack, it'd be nice if technology would just stand still--but it won't. Russia, France, and China--at the least--will work to defeat our precision bombs and other tech assets. And although I'm impressed with the A-10 I think that UAVs are in principle better suited to the environment for which the A-10 was designed. So be that they are small, cheap, and plentiful compared to A-10s. Likewise we want our precision-guided bomb to be plentiful and (for economy of delivery) probably available in smaller sizes.
The battlefield objective is to be able to find the bad guys and hit them (and not friendlies or civilians) precisely and with enough, but preferably little more than enough, warhead energy. The idea of practice bombs hitting tanks in Baghdad was a nice workaround for the lack of small-warhead precision munitions--but 2000 pounds of concrete is kind of crude when 100 (50?) pounds of explosive warhead would do. And cost so much less "shipping charges."
We also need better IFF . . .

It wasn't that our Air Force performed badly. On the contrary, it was brilliantly effective, especially after aircraft were diverted to support joint operations with our ground forces.

Why even post this canard...only the left has begun to whine that there was no Army for us to fight...no one in the service came into this with that outlook...this was an integrated force of air, sea, and land assets....emphasis on integrated...whoever this "ralph" is, he certainly makes me ralph in his expert analysis of something he obviously has no clue about. This is a total sh*t piece...

On October 18, 2002, the Air Force and Boeing unveiled to a small group of selected journalists the Bird of Prey, a previously "black" or ultra-secret airplane prototype that was built and tested in the mid-1990s.

until you can field a fully integrated .2 mach-1.5 mach variable load unmanned vehicle, UAV's are just a lame steer leering at the herd...

this article, is by my reading, total self-defeatist propaganda BS...unworthy of consideration. It has no self-redeeming qualities, as it addresses no realities as were found on this battlefield

Why even post this canard...only the left has begun to whine that there was no Army for us to fight...no one in the service came into this with that outlook...this was an integrated force of air, sea, and land assets....emphasis on integrated...whoever this "ralph" is, he certainly makes me ralph in his expert analysis of something he obviously has no clue about. This is a total sh*t piece...

I think you need to reread about FOUR PARAGRAPHS:

The war in Iraq was supposed to provide an irrefutable justification for slashing ground forces. As America witnessed, the campaign turned out differently. Our soldiers and Marines fought their way to Baghdad in a running gunfight. They did not even stop marching when sandstorms grounded most of our aircraft.
It wasn't that our Air Force performed badly. On the contrary, it was brilliantly effective, especially after aircraft were diverted to support joint operations with our ground forces. As this column has insisted throughout the war, no single service won the victory. All of our services, working together, delivered such a stunning combination of effects that the Iraqis literally never had a chance. Our military works best as a team, not as solo-service prima donnas competing for the battlefield spotlight.
Yet now we have begun to hear that the ground troops we saw fighting their way to Baghdad really didn't do that much, that they only served to herd Iraqi forces into kill zones where air power destroyed them.
Tell that to the Marines who fought from building to building in Nasiriyah. Tell it to the troopers of the 3rd of the 7th Cavalry who fought the longest uninterrupted series of engagements, in time and distance, in U.S. military history - while blowing sands reduced visibility to handgun range. Tell it to the soldiers and Marines who had to fight their way into, then pacify Baghdad, An Najaf, and Karbala.
You can't even take a surrender from 25,000 feet.
Yet no soldier or Marine would be foolish - or cynical - enough to insist that their service had won the war by itself.

This is a strawman article. I agree with Peters most of the time but his background as a groundpounder skews his judgment and is more reflective of old interservice rivalry than what Rummy may or may not believe. At yesterdays press conference, Rummy said that combined arms won the war, not any branch by itself. That is the main lesson that about every military analysis has written about the war, integrated combined arms.

I think Peters does not like Rummy, probably because of the way he has treated some senior, Clinton era Army officers who clashed with him. Personally, I like Rummy's style. Forces you to think and be prepared to argue your position in a hostile environment. I worked for several Flag Officers who operated that way. Keeps you on your toes. Rather have that than PC feel good stroking.

Plus, interservice rivalry is always with us since there is a limit on the Defense Budget. Nothing really new here. The Navy, quite some time back, had to fight to keep the big carriers. Small Brit carriers were all the rage. Then came the Faulklands.

This is one purple-prosed vitriolic jab. The best I can say is, 'Whatever.'