And Christopher Bellamy is a military expert?
The U.S. STILL does not consider the area to be perfectly secure. They are only flying in and landing at night right now.
You think the U.S. army put 1,000 soldiers into the sky in a night drop just for yucks?
This war is not just about Iraq.
No doubt, if it were a big isolated sandbox containing only Iraqi and U.S. forces, the U.S. forces would eventually win.
But that’s not what this is. This is a war with every possibility of turning into a region-wide holocaust. Iranian-supported Iraqi exiles and Syrian irregulars are already flowing into the country, which complicates the picture in exactly the manner the U.S. didn’t want to see happen. We suffered our first suicide-style attack today. The longer this goes, the more likely it is that additional interests and other countries will be drawn in, or that hot spots elsewhere on the globe will erupt while the world is distracted. Look at Zimbabwe.
If this thing lasts longer than a month, it is a failed plan.
Sam’s right, parachuting in may injure a few people or kill one occasionally, having a transport blasted on the runway or on final approach would be catastrophic. There are too many shoulder-launched SAMs out there. 7s, Stingers and the others.
I think Cervaise is right about the timing of the war. Every day it drags on is bad for the coalition, the Iraqi people, the combatants, and regional stability.
Sam, I agree about no plan surviving first contact, of course. My problem is having to move massive reserves into theatre one week into the conflict. Imagine how much better things would have gone with more troops, a northern front, and more armor dedicated to attacking the Republican Guard, without having to fight the whole southern Fedeyeen to get to them. Of course the problem with every such plan is $$$.
My view of military history is that any money that seems overspent on winning the war quickly, as in the Gulf War, is not. There are a host of reasons for this, not the least of which is the civilian cost of long conflicts. Most important thought is that the history of piecemeal engagement is not good for the side that tries to fight on the cheap.
One commentator pointed out yesterday that during the first six months of WW II, there was nothing but negative reports coming back from the front. He wondered what American reaction back then would have been if we’d have had the technology to bring live reports back from the battlefield back then, as we do now.
I’m not sure how things would have gone better. If the U.S. had had an extra two divisions in the North, what would the difference have been? They would have control of the northern oil fields, and there would be another array of tanks positioned on the north side of Baghdad, I guess.
But there would still be supply issues, Basra would still be hostile, etc.
What would be different? I guess the attack on Baghdad could be happening now instead of two weeks from now.
The way I see it, the war plan looked like this:
Hit them hard right from the beginning, and hope for an early regime collapse.
Begin a ‘rolling start’ of bringing troops into the theater. Establish a supply line, and begin positioning forces near Baghdad. Hope that internal uprisings cause the collapse of Basra and other southern cities.
Continue hitting Baghdad, and continue trying to get the regime to collapse without having to invade the city.
Open the second front in the north - prefably from Turkey, which would have put this at Step 2. Turkey refused, so secure an airhead later on after you’re sure the North is relatively safe, and airlift a brigade in that way.
Continue the second wave of the ‘rolling start’, bringing additional forces to bear on Baghdad as necessary.
Now, that looks like where we are today. This is the original plan, and it’s still on track. Now, looking at it before the war, this plan makes a lot of sense. If the regime had collapsed on the first night or two after the ‘decapitation’ attack, then you achieve victory at minimum cost and effort. If not, you simply continue reinforcing everything as needed, and move on.
The danger of such a plan is that you miscalculate and don’t put enough troops on the ground to protect supply lines and such, and they get cut off and killed. That didn’t happen, so it looks like so far, the plan is working.
Granted, the most optimistic scenarios never happened. That’s war. The plan was flexible enough to account for that. A ‘failed’ plan might have been something like this: “Race out of Kuwait, committing everything to a rapid fall of Baghdad. Assume it WILL fall, so don’t have contingencies to protect the rear. ASSUME Basra will fall, and that you can consolidate the rear and bring supplies up from the south wtih impugnity.” If that had been the plan, then all those forces near Baghdad would now be out of food, ammo, and fuel, and would be sitting ducks…
But of course, that’s not the plan. The current plan so far is working as advertised. The rosiest outcomes never occured, so the contingency plan is now being activated - forces stop moving towards Baghdad, the 4th Infantry is brought in to reinforce the assault force near Baghdad.
Only about 50 soldiers have been killed, and total equipment losses so far are two tanks, a couple of trucks, a handful of humvees, and one helicopter. That’s nothing.
Calling this a ‘failure’ is just silly.
I agree with Sam - There is no military failure ( yet ).
However my purely non-professional opinion as a slack-assed armchair general, based in part from reports that seem to be seeping out from military circles and pundits, is that they moved too soon. After Turkey stonewalled they should have at the very least delayed a couple of weeks to re-deploy the 4th infantry to Kuwait. Moreover they probably should have stacked another division or two on top of that. The first Gulf War was better stage-managed IMHO. I really do think the DOD ( apparently over some regular military opposition ) tried to do too much on the cheap and I really do think they miscalculated the level of resistance.
Now is this going to lead to catastrophic failure? I sincerely doubt it.
However Cervaise’s point is an excellent one. There is more at stake than Iraq. If this war stretches for multiple months, instead of multiple weeks, it may bode poorly for regional stability. May.
Just my perception.
Oh, so you want a military expert’s opinion (I also must note that the quote above included impressions from the British paratroopers, which may not be military experts, but …)
But this is the part I really liked (from the same article)
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Whatever happened the Powell Doctrine?
I’m not saying it was a failure. But it is pretty clear to anyone with a brain that it wasn’t a glowing success either.
This Gen. William Wallace, does he paint his face blue and encourage his troops to show thier hairless butts to the enemy?
I heard Powell say that the Generals were following the Powell Doctrine, just as he had trained them to do. He ought to know.
Then I’m confused. I thought a cornerstone of the Powell Doctrine was overwhelming force.
‘Overwhelming force’ does not mean, "The entire U.S. arsenal’. It means ‘force sufficient to overcome the enemy, including accounting for all possible contingencies’.
So far, they’ve destroyed huge numbers of Iraq’s military, almost with impugnity. A convoy of 20 tanks and armored vehicles streamed south out of Basra two days ago, with the intention of destroying those ‘vulnerable’ supply lines. They were WIPED OUT, without a single U.S. casualty.
Another convoy was trying to move to engage the 1st Marines under cover of the sandstorms and darkness. The Americans intentionally let them get within a mile or so, then F-14’s and F-18’s bombed the lead vehicles, freezing the convoy in place. B-52’s then came in and dropped 50 bombs on the rest, totally obliterating it.
Somehow, I think Powell was pleased with that.
I don’t know who that commentator was but he was a dumbass for making that comparison.
The Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise that we hadn’t been talking about responding to for 8 or 9 months like the administration has with the Iraq attack.
The US Army at the time of the Pearl Harbor consisted of about 150000 regulars plus several hundred thousands of peacetime draftees who, up to that point had been totally indifferent to being in the military. They were also a little pissed because the one year draft they had been promised had been extended.
Major elements of the fleet, the army and the marines hadn’t been moved to the Philippines, Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam and other south pacific bases in preparation for war.
I don’t recall that anyone paniced over the Pacific losses. There was never any doubt in my part of the country, or in the national news, that we would finally win out although it would be hard. And yes everyone knew that Japan had overrun the whole southwest Pacific and we saw nothing but losses even though we didn’t get minute by minute reports.
Who in hell was that “commentator” anyway? Rush maybe?
Sam, time being of the essence, this plan was not the way to go. If we were trying to prove that our modern military can accomplish amazing things even when undermanned, this plan did that. I agree the plan is not a failure for all the reasons you mentioned. My problem with the plan is that it is experimenting with a new military philosophy in an actual war. I can’t believe that the (military part of the) Pentagon suggested a ground force this thin for attacking a large nation.
Did Rummy Screw the Pooch?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48265-2003Mar29.html
Saddam having survived the decapitation strike and the shock and awe campaign, as well as bogging down the trek to Baghdad, has likely reassured Iraqis that they can stand and fight.
If this is the Powell doctrine, they really underestimated the resistance.
And that will just add the body counts on both sides.
If we had overwhelmed them, “shock and awed” them, then perhaps we would have seen more mass surrenders, and even some capitulation. As it is, we just gave them a confidence boost.
Some CNN lackey. Ya know Dave, there are those (not me) who argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn’t a surprise. And it’s not like the US didn’t expect to get involved in WWII at some point. Had Roosevelt had a more willing population, the US might have gotten involved before Pearl Harbor. Hitler, himself, is said to have thought that US wouldn’t be a major player in world affairs until the 1980s, so it’s not like he was expecting us to put up much of a fight, either.
What evidence do we have that Saddam is alive? Every video I’ve seen of him so far looks like ‘stock’ footage, and it looks old to boot.
It seems to me that if Saddam were alive and well, he’d be all over the TV. Since all we have is vague video with no audio being played (aside from that one tape the day after the first bombing), I think it’s likely that Saddam is either dead, or injured badly enough that they don’t want to show him.
OK, so let’s assume for a second he is.
So what?
Well then** Sam** maybe the Bush Administration needs to start a whispering campaign against Saddam. They should start speculating, leaking and hemming & hawing that Saddam was killed in the initial bombing raid. Like they say in Texas ‘show your cards.’ Smoke him out.
If Saddam is alive maybe he can be forced to prove positive that he is still living, or perhaps seriously injured. And if Saddam is dead, or ciritically injured then the lack of Saddam sightings will confirm his death/incapacitation.
All of which doesn’t change in the least my point that we hadn’t planned for months at the highest levels to wage an actual Pacific war. We hadn’t spent several months building up forces in preparation for such a way. And any question like the one the "commentator"about what would have happened if there had been daily reports is outlandish.
There were almost daily reports of defeats, there was a lot of criticism, Gen. Short and Adm. Kimmel were summarily relieved of command, many people argued that Roosevelt had intentionally egged the Japanese on in order to get us into the war. And, as you say, some still believe it.
If that commentator doesn’t understand how painful was the fact that everyone knew that the army on Bataan was a goner he is not from Planet Earth. If he thinks people didn’t know that most of the battleships we had in the Pacific would be out of action for months he’s so uniformed as to be not worth citing. If he thinks that we didn’t know that we had lost our only supply of that essential raw material, rubber, I just don’t know how to get through to him.
His question about “what would have happened if…?” is unadulerated nonsense.