Quote:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 2 2003, 06:26 PM
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.
|
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