I’m thinking of Rommell, actually…
[continuing hijack]
Yes I am.
I’ve read your polemic, writings from a man who…
a.) Is still in Baghdad… he couldn’t write anything unflattering about the Iraqi regime if he wanted to. Reporters that are unbiased in Baghdad tend to get kicked out.
b.) Was given access to the “hospitals full of children” as part of the officially sanctioned tour by the Iraqi ministry of information.
c.) Seems to miss the point entirely that the precision warfare touted by the US can never be perfect, it can only work to minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible.
d.) Ignores the fact that the Iraqi government could easily help reduce civilian causualties by not nestling military targets inside residential areas. How obtuse do you have to be not to realize that this strategy serves two purposes?
**
Smoke against computers huh? What exactly are they hoping that they will mislead guidance systems into? Couldn’t be the civilians that the Iraqi’s have seen fit to line all military and government targets with. I know you think I am daft, (what that I didn’t collapse into a quivering mess when you mentioned people dieing in war and all). As of now that seems to have more to do with your own mental disadvantages. Don’t you get it? You are being manipulated by a regime that is not afraid to capitalize on the humanitarian issues that it has played a large part in creating. Do try to show some critical thought. Until you are able to see that you too are limited to only what the Iraqi ministry of information and the US/UK coalition want you to know you won’t get much brighter.
[/continuing hijack]
I’m puzzled by the logic that says that outrunning your supply is a sign of military genius. And I sure would like the references about “history [having] shown that Patton was probably right …”
I don’t know what the exact US order of battle in Iraq is, however, the only large ground combat uniits mentioned are the 3rd Infantry Division, the 1st Marine Division and a British Brigade which is maybe half or 2/3 of division strength. In addition there are Special Forces of unknown size, Air Forces, and several aircraft carriers and cruise missile ships.
That amount of actual combat force seems a little thin to me and that is confirmed by the objections of military experts in this site from the Los Angeles Times which outlines the objections they have to the composition of the US force in Iraq.
The original plan included the 4th Infantry Division, a heavily armed and armored group coming down from Turkey. This option is not available and the 4th Division personnel remain at Ft. Hood in Texas, and their equipment is now en-route to the combat zone via Suez.
David Simmons:
IANA general (unless ample Starcraft experience counts), but I can see the potential for logic in such a maneuver. Certainly, all things being equal, it would be nice to have your supply lines keep up with you. But if you think that you can blast through less rigid opposition quickly in order to deliver a devestating blow to a strategic enemy site before they have time to fortify, it may be worth forsaking your supplies.
That being said, military logisitics were likely much different in WWII. This is a WAG, but Patton’s strategy may have worked so well because he was able to actually outrun the pace of communications of the enemy. If you can nail someone before he even knows you’re coming, that’s a damned good thing. But in the Information Era we’ve got goin’ on now, I don’t know how feasible that is. I know the Iraqis aren’t as technologically advanced as we are, or anything, but I’d imagine they’d at least have a cell phone or two.
Anyway, these are just my random musings on the topic. The opinion of anybody who knows what they’re talking about would be appreciated. 
Yeah, and I can find cites of military experts who think the plan is great. All this proves is that different people have different opinions. It says nothing about who’s right. The only way we can tell if the plans are working out is by looking at the progress. And thus far, the progress looks good. As such, I’m going to take any claims that our military strategy is an abject failure with an industrial-sized grain of salt, until I hear some word that things have take a turn south. Such word could include large numbers of US casualties (ain’t happened yet), large numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties (ain’t happened yet), or a serious stall in advancement (ain’t happened yet).
Jeff
BTW, can someone who’s claimed that we were promised a cake-walk please provide some sort of cite for that? I sure don’t remember anyone in an informed position ever saying that we were going to walk in to thunderous applause and mass surrenders.
Jeff
What do you expect them to do? to dress in a mail of shining iron and fight a battle which they can not even dream to win? Get serious. As I told Sam in another thread you are the invader, Saddam can park his bloody tanks wherehe wants, no oneforced you to go to Irak and most certainly no one is forcing you to bomb any city.
And I am dead tire of people that dare to compare american and Irakie tactics. Saddam is a dictator, you are a democracy. We expect better from you we have no illusion regarding Saddam humanity.
That is just a ridiculous statement to make about the BBC coverage.
I’ll second that. And I’ll also add how absurd it is to deny that there are wounded children in Iraqi hospitals. Or even to deny that the US media is encouraged not to show a lot of footage of wounded civilians.
What I’ve discovered over the last few days is that the best index of how bumpy the road to victory may be getting is the number of stupid head-in-the-sand posts one reads on the Straight Dope. 
No one is denying that there are wounded children in Iraqi hospitals. Try and keep some perspective Mandelstam.
Just checking the logic here to make sure I understand your point. In war, we won’t say anything if dictators kill people, even innocent civilians, because hey, they’re dictators and that’s what dictators do. But if democracies unintentionally kill some innocent civilians, then by God we’d better complain about it because we expect better from democracies.
I mean seriously, ignoring whether the war is justifiable or not, you can’t possibly be suggesting that using your own people as human shields is okay if you’re a dictator being invaded, but… well, that sort of looks like you’re saying, actually.
—Tommy Franks is more aggressive.—
Are you sure Franks is happy about this plan either? Ever since Rumsfeld came into office, he’s been pushing for his own concepts about how to streamline and minimize operations. This hasn’t been about aggresion, it’s been about how to organize our forces, and how few troops we can have to do a given job. Generals like Franks objected to many of these changes when they were under discussion. But these changes are mostly what’s on the ground now. So it makes sense to think about whether or not they have been working. We’ve already had one incident where our supply personel have been attacked, wiped out, and taken prisoner, and from all accounts, this is because the troops guarding the supply lines have been spread very thin. But then, maybe this was a necessary sacrifice so we could afford more tax cuts.
Very easily done, Jeffy boy, if you look in places other than the Rush Report and FreeRepublic and such. This, for instance (snippet follows):
You might, in fact certainly will, quibble that the Regent was couching his assertions with “might” and “my guess”, but c’mon.
Here’s Sen. Bob Graham (all right, a Democratic candidate for President, but also the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Commmitte until a couple of months ago):
—you can’t possibly be suggesting that using your own people as human shields is okay if you’re a dictator being invaded, but… well, that sort of looks like you’re saying, actually.—
I disagree. The statement, if I read it right, is perfectly reasonable, just factually wrong.
That is, it’s reasonable to say “well, we expect that terrorists would take hostages: but we expect better from the police than just eagerly shooting through the hostages to get to the terrorists.” It’s wrong because by all accounts the U.S. seems to be a great pains to avoid shooting the hostages: even when it might end the conflict faster and save American lives.
This is off topic, but … Patton was nowhere near “striking a devastating blow to a strategic enemy site” when his tanks ran out of fuel in France. Furthermore, they had to sit and wait until supplies were brought up so Patton’s tactic, not strategy, didn’t do a damned thing to advance the cause. No important objectives were gained and no enemy forces were destroyed by an armored force that had no fuel. During the final advance into Germany Patton did not outrun his supplies and that was, in fact, where the strategic German sites were. And the real strategic site was Berlin, which the Russians took and which the US 1st Army was headed for until they ran into the Russians at the Elbe river.
Sure you can find such cites. However, the stakes are exceedingly high and there appears to be virtually no margin for even a slight miscalculation.
And you are putting words that you would like to refute into the mouths of the critics of the plan. I haven’t seen a quote from any of them that says that “our military strategy is an abject failure.” The article I referenced certainly doesn’t say that.
Well yes, I agree that we expect terrorists to take hostages and we expect the police not to just kill everyone and let God sort it out, but I would suggest that the people who we should direct our venom towards are first and foremost the people who endangered lives in the first place. Which isn’t the cops.
I probably should have quoted Estilicon’s message in its entirety, since the part that has me most flabbergasted, really, is where he wrote “you are the invader, Saddam can park his bloody tanks where he wants.” On the face of it, I don’t read that as disapproving of using civilians as human shields, and I certainly hope that this disapproval is present. Even though we invaded them.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1338708,00.html
Quoth one Scott Ritter, ex-marine:
Though to be fair, he didn’t use the word “abject”. Of course, Scott Ritter is a proven idiot, so maybe his opinion doesn’t count.
Jeff
Also, I must take issue with this:
No margin for even the slightest miscalculation? Thus far, almost nothing has gone according to plan. By your logic, we should be getting trounced. Last I checked… er… we weren’t.
Jeff
ElvisL1ves:
Actually, my main quibble is that your cite presents such tiny truncated bits of thought that it’s difficult to tell whether the quotes are being taken out of context.
But let’s some of the quotes from that cite, one by one:
General Myers: “If asked to go into conflict in Iraq, what you’d like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable.”
Yup. That sounds pretty accurate. If we want a quick war, the best way to do so is to convince the Iraqis to surrender early on. So far, many Iraqis are surrendering. And we’re still in the beginning stages of “early on” - it’s been barely a week. Even in a war expected to last 4-6 weeks, this is the beginning stage.
Cheny: coalition forces would be “greeted as liberators”
Yeah, and we have been, by many Iraqis. There’s nothing here to indicate that Cheney said every Iraqi, or the vast majority, would treat us as liberators, but this has been pretty true.
Cheney: Cheney allowed that the elite Republican Guard, and the special security organization “might, in fact, try to put up … a struggle.” That said, he went on to add that “the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.”
This one has been pretty seriously hacked. It’s possible to interpret it as “We don’t think the RG will so much as lift a gun, but they might.” It’s also possible to interpret it as “We think we can take them with minimal casualties and quickly, but they might prove a formidable challenge.” And the second part is pretty accurate, no matter how you slice it. Many parts of the regular army are surrendering, and there’s no way to tell at this point how many just never showed up to begin with. Of those that are fighting, a lot of them may only do so because to surrender may mean death at Saddam’s hands. But still, it’s clear that the regular army, in general, doesn’t want to fight. It appears his guess that many in the RG would simply roll over was overly optimistic, so I’ll grant you that.
Cheney: “I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad,” he said. “We have to be prepared for that possibility.”
This, again, looks optimistic. Exactly how optimistic depends on the context. That said, we really don’t know if he was correct on this one or not, since we haven’t started invading Baghdad yet. He could be saying that there will be no protracted urban warfare, and on that, I’m inclined to agree with him.
Bush: On March 17, Bush said that “Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end.”
This certainly isn’t a declaration that we’re going to stroll into Iraq unopposed. Of course, this was at the onset of the war, not before it. I assume your argument is that the US was too optimistic before the war to rally public opinion, then laid reality on us at the dawn of the invasion.
Taking all of those quotes together, the general impression I get is what we’ve pretty much been told by everyone since war became a certainty: We’re going to win the war, and we’re going to win it in a matter of weeks. Probably about a month or so. (Bush’s budget proposal backs this up.) There will be resistence, but it will not be the full force of 500,000 dedicated Iraqis - it will be a small fraction of this, and what resistence we do encounter will be dealt with with few Allied casualties. We will be welcomed by many, and overall, the war will be a success. Probably not quite as easy as Afghanistan, but not significantly more difficult, either. And so far, all of this bears out. In hindsight, this will probably look to be as much of a rout as the first Gulf War was.
Any superfluous optimism I’ve seen has seemed more the result of media spin, than anything. That article, included.
Jeff
Well I’ll do my best Azael, but I’m hard-pressed to understand this comment from you as anything but a denial of what McDuff had described was the harsh reality of war.
“Hospitals full of wounded children” huh? That’s “how it is?” Forgive my skepticism but how in the hell do you know “how it is” other than by watching footage that the Iraqi propaganda machine has been putting out?"
Please explain how your sarcasm, your “skepticism,” and the references to “Iraqi propaganda” do not constitute a denial of there being wounded Iraqi children in hospitals.
(On the other hand, if you’ve had second thoughts on the wisdom of that particular comment, feel free to accept my congratulations and just pass over this post.)
Maybe if you could pull your head out of your ass for a second it would make sense to you. But then that might mean dropping the air of smug superiority you seem to have insulated yourself with, so nevermind.
My “skepticism” was in reference to his alarmist statements of “how it is,” stated as if he was posting straight from Baghdad and not (as he later clarified) reading an article written underneath Saddam’s thumb. Denying that there have been no Iraqi civilian causalties is an indefensible position especially given the tactics that the Iraqi regime has adopted. Admit it, you read what you wanted to and declared yourself a premature moral victory.
I don’t mind, I’ll take your silence as apology. :rolleyes: