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--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 4 2003, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--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.[/b][/quote]
And I'll be willing to concede that the "Vietnam rhetoric" is dead in five or ten years. To use your "historical norms" phrase, it will take AT LEAST that long for it all to shake out in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Mike AI]

While I am optimistic on the progress we have made, the domination we have had.

We still have a long way to go, and it will be easier to judge the plan, and the execution in the future.

So far it looks pretty damn impressive.

From what I understand about modern military planning, these guys plan for EVERY possible angle, and always plan for worst case scenarios. There are a lot of very smart people working in the Pentagon.

Colin I think made a good point about the Powell Doctrine, and overwhelming force. With modern arms, total air supriority ( flying 2,000 sorties a day) with smart weapons, allow the military to go in with less ground troops and still pack the same punch.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 4 2003, 01:21 PM
"level of resistance put up by Iraqi irregulars"? I don't get it. What negative effect on operations have these gnats had?

* * * * * * * *

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

It has no significance for this conflict. It could have tremendous impact in future conflicts.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 01:41 PM

And I'll be willing to concede that the "Vietnam rhetoric" is dead in five or ten years. To use your "historical norms" phrase, it will take AT LEAST that long for it all to shake out in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Are we discussing the difference between how the political situation will play out vs. the military?

The military goal will end long before the political. The military goal is to end the regime and to find and remove Iraq's WMD's. The political goals are much broader.

The military goal may be done in a month. The political goal may go on for years. It may well be a failure. Iraq might suck. Big surprise. No idea. I am only referring to the military goal. I really don't think anyone can know how a situation we be politically anywhere in the world 5 or 10 years from now - especiall Iraq. It may implode, break up, have Civil War, get invaded, who knows?

Our enemies will be our friends and vice versa.

I still don't get the "hysteria" comment.

[Almighty Colin]

Another point about going in with a larger force is that it would have been much more difficult logistically. In sounds like the supply lines were stretched just to their limit at the beginning of the sprint to Baghdad as is. I assume those units were brought rapidly to the edge of Baghdad to block the Republican Guard from moving south and interfering with oil wells or any other operations including attacking with the supply line.

How many more trucks, ships, oil, etc. would it have taken to supply another heavy infantry division so early in the campaign?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 01:15 PM
cheerleaders for the Bush Administration
I cheer for every administration. They're US administrations.

That being said there's a whole lot of stuff I wished were different with any particular administration but it doesn't really matter that much. It's mostly philosophical and the winds of change that blow in every four years don't really seem to matter that much.

[PornoDoggy]

The hysteria comment? I think an awful lot of Administration supporters seem to have gotten their panties in a tangle because some of the talking heads were less than flowing with praise over the tactics employed in the war.

Of course, it's all because they want to sell books or improve ratings, they are disgruntled because they are no longer in charge, they are defeatists, they aren't living in the 21st century, they are assholes (verified by a guy who knew a guy who ... ), they are out of the loop - because anyone who doesn't spout the party line MUST have some other agenda, right?

* * * * * * * * * *

If there is a Vietnam analogy, it is Afghanistan, not Iraq. We shall see how quickly there is a transition to a completely political struggle in Iraq. We are nowhere near that in Afghanistan.

[Mike AI]

HAHAHA PD sounds like its YOUR panties that in a bunch....

HAHAHA Calm Down Frenchy!!! We still love you...

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 02:21 PM
I think an awful lot of Administration supporters seem to have gotten their panties in a tangle because some of the talking heads were less than flowing with praise over the tactics employed in the war.


I just thought they were obviously wrong.

[PornoDoggy]

Mike, if my German nana (great grandmother) finds out that you been calling me Frenchy, she's very likely to unleash a blitzkreig from beyond the grave on you.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 02:21 PM
Of course, it's all because they want to sell books or improve ratings, they are disgruntled because they are no longer in charge, they are defeatists, they aren't living in the 21st century, they are assholes (verified by a guy who knew a guy who ... ), they are out of the loop - because anyone who doesn't spout the party line MUST have some other agenda, right?

PD, why do YOU think the ex-generals were wrong about the size of the force needed to take on the Republican Guard? Got something better than any of the reasons you mentioned?

Can you only see the world through "party lines"? Some of us don't care about party politics. What sense does your statement mean in light of that?

[XXXManager]

I hope they are not rushing into something that they will have hard time swallowing. :unsure:
Patience is a vitrue

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 4 2003, 02:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 4 2003, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 02:21 PM
Of course, it's all because they want to sell books or improve ratings, they are disgruntled because they are no longer in charge, they are defeatists, they aren't living in the 21st century, they are assholes (verified by a guy who knew a guy who ... ), they are out of the loop - because anyone who doesn't spout the party line MUST have some other agenda, right?

PD, why do YOU think the ex-generals were wrong about the size of the force needed to take on the Republican Guard? Got something better than any of the reasons you mentioned?

Can you only see the world through "party lines"? Some of us don't care about party politics. What sense does your statement mean in light of that?[/b][/quote]
I don't know why the ex- (and some serving) generals were wrong about the size of the force necessary to take on the Republican Guard, Colin. I've never even said that they were right. Generals have disagreed about tactics and force requirements in the past. I suspect they will do so in the future, even in 21st century wars.

The paragraph above lists some of the "explainations" given by Administration supporters for why some have questioned the way the war has been conducted. It doesn't reflect my political opinions - it reflects my contempt for those who wish to color anything that smacks of criticism of the current administration in political terms.

Your assumption that my opinions on the military conduct of the war are based on party lines, ideology, or political opinions are completely and totally off base.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 4 2003, 03:05 PM
Your assumption that my opinions on the military conduct of the war are based on party lines, ideology, or political opinions are completely and totally off base.
I didn't mean that at all. I thought you were saying that. I don't even really know what your position or opinions are regarding the war.

[-= JR =-]

i think its incredibly hard to keep this whole thing in perspective.
with all the varying remarks of:

- Administration and President before it began and during

- State Department before and during

- Military Planners before and during

- Military Anylists before and during

- Opponents/EU Members in Europe + Russia, China before and during

- Supporting countries in Europe and elsewhere.

- Middle East before and during.

- Middle Eastern countries voicing opposition while actually supporting it.

- The Iraqi Information Ministry (which now, is nothing more than sketch comedy that would have made John Belushi proud.)

- Other media

- and the countless goofy journalists, turned military anylists that are both embedded on the field and reporting from outside Iraq. Even worse is when one journalist/wanna be military anylist is anylizing the comments of another journalist/wannabe military anylist.

with or without analyzing the varying comments said in the past - i think that since the Coalition forces swept through the country, pretty much destroyed their military capability and just this morning, entered Bagdad it has to be going ok. there is no historical referrence to compare it to to say its going bad. by any comparison to any war in history where such complete and total destruction of a military machine with such a minimal loss of life, this war has to be going very well.

every conflict is the same without exception:

The voices of protesters are louder than those of supporters.

There is always predictions of doom and gloom, wider conspiracies, greater death tolls and a conflict that will spread wider.

Those voicing fears and concerns are ALWAYS the loudest and most frequently heard.

Those fears and concerns rarely, if ever, measure up to reality.

[-= JR =-]

i think they must have done ok... troops are now entering Bagdad.

[-= JR =-]

I guess they must have REALLY done ok, since Coalition troops are now operating in the center of Badgad on day 17 and The "seemingly not so elite" Republican Guard is largely a memory as a fighting force.