Free Republic

Pentagon toy boys revel in war's distraction April 6 2003 By Roger Franklin Despite all the gee-whiz phone cams, and "fly away" satellite links, events in the two weeks since the first bombs rained down on Iraq have been anything but easy to follow. Exaltation at the initial surge gave way to surprise that Saddam's loyalists were not merely fighting back but doing so with spirit. Then came the stories of hungry GIs on the front lines, followed by the rumble of recriminations in Washington. It was all the fault of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a small army of retired...

<p>Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers gestures at yesterday's Pentagon briefing, in which he scolded the media for criticizing the war plan in Iraq.</p> <p>April 2, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - An angry Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers yesterday blasted critics of the Iraq war plan, charging they are spreading "bogus" information that is "not helpful" at a time when U.S. troops are in combat.</p>

<p>The initial success of the CENTCOM attack has been impressive. Gen. Tommy Franks's superb air-land-sea forces have achieved total air dominance, sunk the remainder of the Iraqi navy, and achieved a blitzkrieg success in plunging an Army-Marine three-division task force 300 miles into Iraq up to the gates of Baghdad. Special-operations forces by the thousands infiltrated throughout Iraq, seized the western deserts preventing a potential attack on the Israelis, stabilized the Kurdish front with the support of airborne troops from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and conducted direct action and strategic reconnaissance missions throughout the theater of operations.</p>

Washington, March 30 (Reuters): US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s influence in crafting the plan for the Iraq war is facing scrutiny as it becomes apparent the campaign will not be as quick or easy as some US leaders had predicted. Some retired top officers are voicing in public an opinion harbored in private by some current military officers — that Rumsfeld’s bold vision of a sleeker, high-tech military prompted him to take unnecessary risks in the size and nature of the force sent to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Retired army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in...

Even before President Bush had placed Iraq on his "axis of evil," dire warnings were being sounded about the danger of acting against Saddam Hussein's regime. Two knowledgeable Brookings Institution analysts, Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O'Hanlon, concluded that the United States would "almost surely" need "at least 100,000 to 200,000" ground forces [op-ed, Dec. 26, 2001]. Worse: "Historical precedents from Panama to Somalia to the Arab-Israeli wars suggest that . . . the United States could lose thousands of troops in the process." I agree that taking down Hussein would differ from taking down the Taliban. And no ...

Ex-Military Commentators Criticize Strategy, Highlighting Their Role on TelevisionBy David Bauder The Associated PressPublished: Mar 27, 2003 NEW YORK (AP) - Since publicly questioning whether the Pentagon committed enough force to Iraq on NBC News, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said he's received waves of supportive e-mails from active and retired military people. He also knows he's infuriated some top brass, and ignited a debate over the roles of the dozens of former officers now earning paychecks from media organizations to explain war to the uninitiated. They've become fixtures on television during the past week, standing over maps of Iraq with...

You might wonder why Gen. McCaffrey--like Gen. Wesley Clark and several others--seem to be shilling for the Dems who oppose the war. A pal of mine, who was a Navy officer at the time, told me about how the entire staff of the European command he served in was summoned on short notice for an urgent briefing one day in 1996. Seems like some bigshot White House general was coming to get everyone straightened out about life. My pal glanced at his classified files, threw them in the safe, straightened his tie, and went into the briefing room. Forty-five minutes...

Questions Raised About Invasion Force Some Ex-Gulf War Commanders Say U.S. Needs More Troops, Another Armored Division By Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, March 25, 2003; Page A17 With the Pentagon now rushing thousands of troops from Texas to the Persian Gulf, a number of seasoned Gulf War ground commanders said yesterday that the U.S. invasion force moving rapidly to Baghdad is too small and should have included at least one additional heavy Army division. "In my judgment, there should have been a minimum of two heavy divisions and an armored cavalry regiment on...

<p>Reuters Monday, March 24, 2003; 10:17 PM LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S.-led force in Iraq risks as many as 3,000 casualties in the battle for Baghdad and Washington has underestimated the number of troops needed, a top former commander from the 1991 Gulf War said on Monday. Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said the U.S.-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" as it pushes north toward the Iraqi capital. "We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday. "In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war. "So if they (the Americans and British) are unwilling to face up to that, we may have a difficult time of it taking down Baghdad and Tikrit up to the north west." McCaffrey said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had misjudged the nature of the conflict. Asked if Rumsfeld made a mistake by not sending more troops to start the offensive, McCaffrey replied: "Yes, sure. I think everybody told him that." "I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.</p>