Will someone PLEASE Kill Peter Arnett?

[Mike AI]

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.

[PornoDoggy]

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.

[Mike AI]

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.

[PornoDoggy]

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?

[Mike AI]

HAHA This is not 1960s with Kennedy!

[PornoDoggy]

I know that and you know that ...

[Almighty Colin]

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

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 2 2003, 06:26 PM
The "profound" changes that Rumsfeld is attempting to implement is in part an abandonment of the Powell doctrine.

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".

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 2 2003, 05:09 PM
Colin, I think you are seeing more complaining about the war plan because the Whitehouse isn't controlling the news cycle very well...

Everyone influences the news cycle, no one controls it.

Why do you keep quoting from this book?

[Opti]

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

Not quite what I expected from this books blurb!

Customers who bought this book also bought:

Buck Up, Suck Up . . . and Come Back When You Foul Up : 12 Winning Secrets from the War Room by James Carville (Author), Paul Begala (Author) (Paperback)
Governing With the News: The News Media As a Political Institution (Studies in Communication, Media and Public Opinion) by Timothy E. Cook (Paperback)
Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy by James Fallows (Paperback)
POTUS Speaks: Finding the Words that Defined the Clinton Presidency by Michael Waldman (Author) (Hardcover)
Power Plays: Win or Lose--How History's Great Political Leaders Play the Game by Dick Morris (Paperback)