Management of war (Tommy Franks, & Co)

[Almighty Colin]

I think all the doubts that have been expressed the last two weeks by ex-generals and anonymous whispers at the Pentagon have faded away.

I have every bit of confidence that the Frank's plans for Baghdad is a brilliant one. The Vietnam rhetoric is dead. The "Siege of Stalingrad" rhetoric will die soon too.

[PornoDoggy]

I have no opinion on General Franks plan for Baghdad, since I'm not privy to it. What does that make me - a defeatist? Anti-American?

First of all, I think that the hysteria has come from the cheerleaders for the Bush Administration, and not the so-called "critics" of the plan.

I'm quite sure that Laura Bush's old high school classmate has done just peachy-keen, and he will get a hallway named after himself in the Pentagon, and a whole lot more nice shiny pretties to hang off his chest.

However - IF it is true that American/allied forces were nearly unprepared for the level of resistance put up by Iraqi irregulars, there is something wrong someplace.

IF is is true that they never even gamed out scenarios in which Iraqi resistance was significant, there is something REALLY wrong someplace.

The Vietnam rhetoric is dead? If you mean the anti-war rhetoric, I'll buy that - it never did appy to this situation.

If you are talking about concerns over objetives, tactics and procedures, well, it is way too early to tell. We'll know better about that when we see what Afghanistan and Iraq look like in five or ten years. That's not a timeline that will appeal to American attention spans, but that's what it is going to take.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 01:15 PM
The Vietnam rhetoric is dead? If you mean the anti-war rhetoric, I'll buy that - it never did appy to this situation.

No, I mean every American conflict starts with "This will be another Vietnam" with many examples of how the comparison is true this time.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 01:15 PM
First of all, I think that the hysteria has come from the cheerleaders for the Bush Administration, and not the so-called "critics" of the plan.

What does that mean?

----------

"level of resistance put up by Iraqi irregulars"? I don't get it. What negative effect on operations have these gnats had?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 01:15 PM
IF is is true that they never even gamed out scenarios in which Iraqi resistance was significant, there is something REALLY wrong someplace.

Why? Is it going to become significant soon? Maybe so, but it hasn't been yet.

One must compare to historical norms. What would be a realistic expectation for casualties in such a war? Anything less than 1000 would be amazing and that would be without historical reference. With historical reference, what? 5,000? 10,000? The Battle For Berlin? The Siege of Stalingrad?

At every step of the way there has been, in my opinion, silly criticism. Why would we need another heavy tank division on the ground? What use would it have been? Three Republican Guard divisions are destroyed. Air beats ground and it is decidedly so with precision munitions.I read one critique using 1991 battle assessment numbers that ignored the fact that the accuracy of weapons has improved drastically.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 4 2003, 01:33 PM

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 4 2003, 01:18 PM-->