From my point-of-view, the BIGGEST news stories of the war in the US so far have been one's criticizing the war plan and the administration - not anything that was pro-whitehouse. I think your
bible has failed you, Alex.

White house approved?
"The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy," said Corporal Ryan Dupre. "I am
starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi. No, I won't get hold of one. I'll just kill him."

This is the first administration in the history of warfare to included reporters that travel with the military that report live from the action. Any critique fails as far as I am concerned when compared to historical precedence.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 1 2003, 06:47 AM

mine as well be dead now that he is working for the mirror.

Todd, if your daughter ever wants to chat to a fleet street journalist I am sure my hubby could spare a few moments.

No 'probably' about it...they have found mutilated, executed bodies of some of our guys. :grrr:

That was by far a major fuck up. That's the kind of shit you always pay for even if you didn't intend to do it, or least that way.

I was driving through the swamps last night, listening to the ONLY non-country station out here and this Rush Limbaugh wanna be, DJ, definate small dick kinda guy, went on and on about this shit.

Amazing what your news soruces are. Hell if I didn't read Oprano I wouldn't know what's going on in the world.

:biglaugh:

DV,
when I was in Turkey during 9/11
I got MORE news out of Oprano than from BBC...

Colin, I think you are seeing more complaining about the war plan because the Whitehouse isn't controlling the news cycle very well... giving press conferences at weird times, making announcements that are basically one sentence long (like the POW being retreived. The guy gave 2 sentences max and left the room)...

Putting the reports with the units means that they are not reporting the WHOLE story, just what they are being driven to. They are there, yes, but there are only seeing a small part of the show (imagine a mouse trying to describe an elephant while standing behind his hind foot). Because the Whitehouse hasn't really picked up the cycle on this one, the news is starting to fill up with everyone else's spin...

Combine that with about two dozen retired generals blabbering without specific knowledge, and you get alot of weird static.

The spin cycle goes both ways... either you seize it or it seizes you. The Whitehouse certainly has been less than forceful on this one...

Alex

Alex the Whitehouse and the Pentagon are in posistion to KNOW what the plan is, and the time table. They are not going to give away the plan just to fight off criticism from those who are ignorant as to the real plan.

I do not know how anyone can comment on a war that is only 2 weeks old. To me, it seems we are in pretty good shape. We did things people did not expect ( hence why a lot of former generals are freaking out), but they were successful.

We could not just bomb for a month straight without sending in troops, we would have lost the oil fields, might have had more attacks on Kuwait, some on Israel, etc....

The Pentagon also lost the 4th ID coming through Turkey, so we had to plan and adapt - which our military does better then anyone.

The sniping coming from the Army people is directed at Rumsfield, because he is pushing forward military doctrine. The traditional Generals like huge, heavy Armys in the field, moving along at a slower, methodical pace. I think Rumsfield has pushed the military to think out of the box, to be more effective with less of a footprint.... to stop fighting 20th Century Wars, and move to 21st Century combat techniques and strategy.

This war has scene more use of special forces then any war ever, and those are the things that are reported. I have a feeling in the years to come we will find out more of what the SF teams did.

From my understanding, we have had Delta, and other SF troops ( as well as CIA agents) IN Baghdad - they have been assassinating top ba'th party leadership, including military leaders. They have been setting off car bombs and other things to destroy Iraqi leadership. They have also captured some Iraqi generals and brought them back to our side....

The miltitary in general is a very conservative orginization, they hate change.... Rumsfield has ruffled a bunch of feathers, but his pressure on the military to change their thinking, to try new things will lead to better combat effectiveness for the new wars we will be fighting in 21st Century.

The days of large battles between armies with hundreds of tanks and such are coming to an end.... low intensity conflicts between states, and groups like al quada will be the most common combat we will see.

Rumsfield is the man.....

Mikey, if I ever need a cheerleader I'll know who to turn to. It's a strange fucking world these days - first GW starts sounding like Jimmy Carter talking about eeee-vil dick-taters, now I'm hearing a whole bunch of Republicans sounding like Robert fucking McNamara.

One of the first ways that you can tell a military plan isn't going the way they want it to is that the level of criticism of the press increases. If you think former generals are freaking out just because DOD's not playing by the same rules they used to play by, you have very little understanding of the professionalism of those men. Retired officers could be saying aloud what their colleagues still in uniform can't.

The "profound" changes that Rumsfeld is attempting to implement is in part an abandonment of the Powell doctrine.

That would be a major mistake. I repeat what I said before - if we are encountering serious logistics problems in the first two weeks, in part because we did not anticipate the level of resistance we encountered - we have a major fucking problem someplace.

PD you are a defeatist simple as that. You are one who will always see the glass as half-empty, especially when it pertains to the USA.

Carter was a fool, he set this nation back decades with his appeasement. He never met a dictator he id not want to coddle and support!!

Former military generals who have been outwardly criticising the plan are doing so for their OWN selfish, self-important reasons. I have family who have extensive time in the military, including senior officers - from what I understand former flag officers when they have issues, or concerns make a call to their former collegues and talk privately about these issues - ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR AND OUR TROOPS ARE IN COMBAT!!! ( it has only been 2 weeks, if they want to crticise afterwards, or sometime in the future but 2 weeks?? Who are they trying to kid - they are ignorant of all the information the Pentagon has available to it)

Botton line is McCafferty is looking to sell books, and that weasal Clark wants to run for President as a democrate. I have a friend who was in the same unit as his driver while in Europe. The man is arrogant, and thinks of himself a nobility - he looks down upon the troops as unwashed masses.

How they can criticize a war plan they do not know the details of, how they can comment in 2 weeks when by all reports we are doing an OUTSTANDING job, shows the reality of their posistions.


Lat time we bombed for 30 days + before sending troops in, and then to expell units out of a small country a little larger then Delaware. We are now fighting to subdue a country the size of California, when they have been digging in, fighting on their territory, yadda - yadda - yadda. But yet in 2 weeks we are 18 MILES from Baghdad.

Rumsfield, and the chiefs at the Pentagon have done an AMAZING job!!! history will prove this. Were mistakes made? Was their higher resistance from Iraqis then expected? Probably - it is war, not all can be known. It would have been easier if Turkey had not let us down, but we have adapted.

Our main casualties have come from Iraqi dirty tricks - pretending to surrender, and things like this. These dirty tricks do not compromise the real mission, and are only annoyances.... they also only work one time. Then we catch on, like we have done now.

Come on PD - I know its tough, fight the demons inside - have some confidence in our leadership both in and out of the military. Look at the facts, look at the time table - this has been an amazing success....

WE do have a lot of work left to be done, and we will probably have a lot more fighting ahead, and will probably take much more casualties.... but we will prevail, and will accomplish our goals.... and we will do it better then any other nation could have done!

Come on PD get on the Mike AI Pro-USA bandwagon, before you are left behind to wallow and become a frenchman!

A defeatist? I'm a realist. If the glass is half-full, that's what I'm going to say - not half-empty, not almost full - just half empty.

What makes you think my concern about the course the military campaign has taken has anything to do with network talking heads who used to be flag officers? What makes you think that the split between some folks in the Pentagon and Rumsfeld has only been an issue since this war began?

I'm not going to defend McCafferty or Clark, because I've paid very little attention to what they've said. I guess the main difference between me and you is that I can admit they may be out for their own self interests, or that their own interests may be part of what causes them to say what they say. However, that charge from you merely means they aren't parroting a line you care to hear, ergo there must be something wrong with their motiviations.

I have as much an idea where the troops are as you do, Mike. And you can oooh and awww over what the pencil-neck geeks at the Pentagon have done if you want - me, I'm impressed by what the folks in the theater have done.

Now, there are folks in the theater and folks back in Washington who are looking at what we've done right and what we've done wrong. Hopefully they will be allowed to reach their conclusions and make adustments to future policy without political interference.

And Mike - I'd be proud to be thought a Frenchman by you in the same way I'm proud to be thought a Communist by Torone.

Frenchy, already backpeddling?

Our military will analysis every aspect of the war, and we will learn what we did right, and what we did wrong, and how we can learn and improve on it.

I know its our fighting men in the front who are doing the heavy lifting, that is why we have the best military - it is the enlisted man. I am not trying to give credit to those who come up with plans. But Rumsfield, along with Pentagon planners, as of now, and from the information I have access to has done an amazing job.

The Powell Doctrine was a solid Doctrine for post Vietnam wars, but since 9-11 I think it could be adjusted some, and I think Rumsfield has done so.

I didn't backpedal at all, Mikey. And enlisted men don't win wars any more than generals do - its the Captains, the Majors, and the Colenels on the ground executing the plans imposed with the assets provided that win wars. You cannot know how much it hurts this former enlisted man to admit that, but it's the truth.

Yes ... our military will analyze everything. I repeat what I said before - hopefully it will be done without political interference. It almost never is, however.

My concern is that we don't orient ourselves so much toward fighting ragtag outfits like the Taliban and alQuaida, and wanna-be militaries like Iraq, that we aren't prepared for a war far more like those of the 20th century. I suspect that either the Syrian or Iranian military might be a tougher nut to crack than the Iraqis are - and anyone who thinks that makes me a defeatist is a moron.

I know what Rumsfeld thinks, but there are a million North Korean soldiers, and to borrow a phrase from one of my favorite COs, three billion fucking Red Chinese who just don't give a fuck what Rumsfeld thinks.

Again after hashing it out PD, we are much closer on the page then we both probably want to admit!!

I agree with this statement above, and the fact that beating up a third rate military should not be our guideline for future fights. But I think we will learn a lot, and hopefully be able to expand out non-traditional fighting capacity. In other words, more Special Forces.

Hey Mike - I'm all for improving our Special Forces capabilities, just like I'm very much in favor of increasing our air superiority. But an overdependence on these sexy capabilities is folly.

So ... we have an Administration going to shake up the entrenched Pentagon beauracrats, and develop our special forces capabilities.

Have I heard this before someplace?

HAHA This is not 1960s with Kennedy!

I know that and you know that ...

Every war has much press criticism including Gulf War 1, so how can that be a good indicator since it will exist at all times? The fact that there is any criticim at this early stage and with the clear evidence of how many strategic goals have been achieved is pretty absurd. [One example. Schwarzkopf was being compared to a Civil War General [[McNamara?] because he was taking so long to start the ground war].

How can people that don't have knowledge of the plan be a good judge of whether the plan is going according to plan or not?

It has seemed to me that the commentary by ex-generals regarding the necessity of the size of the fighting force required is unfounded for a few simple reasons.

1. We are placing more air on ground than even before. I saw one commentator making estimates that the attrition rate of Rep. Guard divisions couldn't be at 50% or less. His argument was to compare the bombing time before the ground war in 1991 with 2003 and he completely ignored the fact that the munitions are now much more accurate and that a timing comparison to 1991 was no longer possible. I'm sure he knows his military strategy but his math was absurdly incorrect.
2. They don't KNOW the plan. They act as if they do. I saw Schwarzkopf call an ex-general out on this. It's quite evident they don't know the plan. They don't have access to the plan. They are EX-generals.
3. It seems like all obvious strategic goals are being achieved with a light fighting force. Regardless of who was on which side of that debate, the light fighting force seems like it will win out. Why put tanks on tanks when one can put helicopters and planes on tanks?

Every coalition casualty is not the result of poor planning. The success of plans should be compared to the historical standard, not to some hypothetical perfection. What does history tell us?

The competition between three cable news network channels and an unprecedented 24 hour news cycle combined with an interested public was going to create criticism regardless of how well everything going - which seems extraordinary by any historical standard.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 3 2003, 06:17 AM

I think the "Powell Doctrine" has been around for thousands of years [Sun Tzu]. Also Clausewitz.

This is a paraphrase. Last week Powell was asked about that and he said "Who said they AREN'T
following what you refer to as the Powell Doctrine? I taught those generals".

Seems to me his point was that there IS overwhelming force. More accurate air on ground munitions has changed the size of the ground force needed but that doesn't mean the doctrine has changed. The doctrine isn't "bring overwhelming ground forces". It's "bring overwhelming force".

Everyone influences the news cycle, no one controls it.

Why do you keep quoting from this book?

Did you notice the list of other books buyers of that have purchased?

Not quite what I expected from this books blurb!