How dare *YOU* criticize *THIS* war or *THESE* war plans

[pxc]

Rummy is pretty steamed that anyone would dare criticize his war plans now that there are troops out in combat, but that didn't stop him from doing the exact same thing a few years ago. And it's not just the hypocrisy that's disgusting...

"I would not say that we've been effective in this campaign because it seems to me that the goal in life is to avoid crises, not to manage them once you're in them. And I feel that this was an avoidable -- probably an avoidable situation."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/06/vietnam.vs.kosovo/

 

[Vince]

Rummy is pretty steamed that anyone would dare criticize his war plans now that there are troops out in combat, but that didn't stop him from doing the exact same thing a few years ago. And it's not just the hypocrisy that's disgusting...

I think he's mad that his Joint Chiefs, Gen. Meyers and himself are under fire on strategic and tactical decisions by the same reporters who can't tell a F/A-18 from a B1b.

I think he's quite justified. If you want to question, which I fully support, do it knowing the facts.

EDIT: Beyond that, Tommy Franks put together a brilliant plan to fight a 21st century war with 21st century tactics, units, and time-table. It's execution has been no less than amazing as seen by the fact that the 3rd ID and Marines are in Baghdad.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

EDIT: Beyond that, Tommy Franks put together a brilliant plan to fight a 21st century war with 21st century tactics, units, and time-table. It's execution has been no less than amazing as seen by the fact that the 3rd ID and Marines are in Baghdad.

Agreed.

Thus far, the way the operation has been unfolding is nothing short of amazing. It's quite disappointing to me to see media backed by "retired military officers" who have no idea waht the full plan actually is, are are also quite likely a bit out of the loop in terms of military capability anyway, criticize the operation at this time.

This doesn't mean that things can't "unfold badly" going forward, but to this point I don't see how the operation can be considered anything but remarkable.

On one hand, we're trying to do this as quick as possible (for political reasons), and on the other hand, you are trying to minimize damage to infrastructure and civilians. Those two goals are more or less in direct conflict with one another. It is astounding to me how well we have balanced to two to date.

It is a testament to the planning, and also to the troops executing the plan.

 

[pxc]

I think he's mad that his Joint Chiefs, Gen. Meyers and himself are under fire on strategic and tactical decisions by the same reporters who can't tell a F/A-18 from a B1b.

I think he's quite justified. If you want to question, which I fully support, do it knowing the facts.

It still doesn't excuse his criticism about Kosovo *during* the conflict. And it's not the reporters he's angry with (like they matter at all right now). I suggest you should check the dissent from the military itself, past and present. Yep, "do it knowing the facts".

 

[Sxotty]

PCX I think you are slightly misinformed the people whining are the people who are mad they didn't get money from him.

 

[pxc]

PCX I think you are slightly misinformed the people whining are the people who are mad they didn't get money from him.

Xsotty, care to elaborate on that vague statement? I don't see how it is connected to anything written above.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I suggest you should check the dissent from the military itself, past and present.

Past ("retired") means nothing.

I have yet to see one named, current, military officer on record. All I see is a bunch of either

1) "Retired" folks, who just aren't in on the loop.
2) "Unnamed" sources. Who knows what that means, or who they are, or what their true gripe (if any) is.

 

[pxc]

I have yet to see one named, current, military officer on record.

Lt. Gen. William Wallace. Now you have.

 

[Vince]

It still doesn't excuse his criticism about Kosovo *during* the conflict. And it's not the reporters he's angry with (like they matter at all right now). I suggest you should check the dissent from the military itself, past and present. Yep, "do it knowing the facts".

Maybe it's just me as IE's been a bitch lately, but the only quote from Rumsfeld I see at your provided link has him saying the following:

"There is always a risk in gradualism. It pacifies the hesitant and the tentative," former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

"What it doesn't do is shock and awe and alter the calculations of the people you're dealing with," Rumsfeld point out.

Which is hardly a comment that any American whose heard the word "Vietnam" mumbled would disagree with. But, it does show that Rumsfeld knows his shit. That, right there, is the basic principle that's guided the War on Iraq in 2003.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Xsotty, care to elaborate on that vague statement? I don't see how it is connected to anything written above.

Basically, it's this:

The ARMY leadership has an issue with Rumsfeld, because Rumsfeld's "vision" of the future military consists of a lessening role of ground troops. More emphasis air power and precision weapons, special ops....less on traditional army personnel.

And less army personnel = less money for the army.

So in general, the ARMY doesn't "like" Rumsfeld. And what you typically see is retired ARMY generals running around saying "NOT ENOUGH GROUND FORCES!". The fear of the ARMY is, that we'll win this war, with far fewer ground forces than these army generals are saying is necessary, and that would vindicate Rumsfeld's position.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Lt. Gen. William Wallace. Now you have.

Like I said. ARMY. I would like to see the particular statements made though. Links?

 

[Vince]

I would like to see the particular statements made though. Links?

Same here, IIRC, he's in charge of V Corps and was just singing praise on the plan in January...

 

[DemoCoder]

All I can say is, remember Afghanistan. Weeks of bombing, with no perceived result by the news media. Everyone was saying "they don't even have any targets to bomb", "they already are in the stone age", etc etc. The image of a $1 billion dollar stealth bomber flying around looking for clay houses to blow up. Then of course, the comparisons to the British and Russian defeats, Vietnam, etc

Afghani fighters were supposed to be super battle hardened, would stand their ground, etc.

Then, in a few amazing days, the war was over and the whole country fell.

You can simply go back to that October on this message board and see the same arguments about the battle plan being rehashed.

Just because you don't feel there is any real progress, doesn't mean it isn't happening, especially psychologically. In Afghanistan, after a few weeks of aerial bombardment, the opposition simply caved.

As a soldier, even if you are patriotic and defending your country, there is a point -- usually after all of your buddies have died and you haven't even seen the enemy, but are starving, and being bombed 24 hrs a day -- where you can't take it anymore. Especially if you know that surrender isn't really that bad for you.


Also, you can't really surrender if your commanding officer is suicidal has a pistol in your back pushing you forward.

 

[SvP]

Then, in a few amazing days, the war was over and the whole country fell.

The war is far from over
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/0,1284,548335,00.html

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No one is saying that THIS war will be over in a "couple days."

The point is, do you really think there was "no progess" being made during the "apparent lull" in Afghanistan before things quickly turned around?

I mean, if we're not physically "sprinting" toward Baghdad 24 hrs. a day, or if John Smith hasn't gotten his 3rd MRE for the day, the reports come in that we are at a "operational pause" our supply lines are crap.

If the media has nothing new to report on, "then nothing's going on." I hope you see the fallacy of that type of mentality.

Edit: OH, I see you were talking about the war in "Afghanistan" not being "over" yet. Agree and disagree. There will always be action in Afghanistan as long as we feel terrorism / terrorists are still hiding out/plotting there.

However, the operational objective of removing the taliban from any "governmental control" has been won.

 

[DemoCoder]

Yes, there is still police action in Afghanistan, but the war is over and the government was toppled.

If you argument is that as long as there are guys with guns there shooting people, there is war, then war is never over, even in the western states, or in any country where there are separatists. Is Spain at war? Northern Ireland?

There will be fighting for years in Afghanistan, but you must admit, the difference between the US occupational situation and the Soviet occupation situation, are qualitatively different.

 

[nutball]

Sorry but when I read that Rumsfeld was giving "full credit for the miltary campaign" to the US military planners (that being the military campaign which wasn't over in seven days, and which neither shocked nor awed anyone, and was his idea), my personal reaction was:

"You two faced lying piece of dumb f*****t s***head traitor".

I can't you guys can let him get away with that nonsense! If the war was over ten days ago, do you honestly believe he'd'ave been giving credit to his "who he?" Generals? I don't think so!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Um, can you explain your logic? I don't follow you at all.

Assuming that Rumsfeld is giving "full credit" to the military planners (quote? Link?), and Rumsfeld continually praises the operation thus far....

what exactly is the problem?

 

[Nagorak]

The picture painted by the administration as to how the war was going to go was pretty unrealistic. Whether or not they actually believed it was going to be over in a week and "everyone would surrender", that's what they implied. In that way, I think Rumsfeld and his generals deserve all the heat they get.

Just as a rule of thumb: never assume the absolute best outcome. Reality will almost never live up to your expectations, and you'll just end up being disappointed. Meanwhile, if you assume the worst, you'll almost always be pleasantly surprised, and if worst comes to worst, at least you're prepared for it.

I'm sure the US military was prepared for the worst, but the American public was not, thus the backlash by the media.

I just wish I'd known how gullible the people on Wall street were going to be. I would have gone on a short selling frenzy.

 

[Vince]

The picture painted by the administration as to how the war was going to go was pretty unrealistic. Whether or not they actually believed it was going to be over in a week and "everyone would surrender", that's what they implied. In that way, I think Rumsfeld and his generals deserve all the heat they get.

What "heat"? You people drive me insane, what did you expect them to battle this out like you do sitting on your ass playing Counter-Strike?

How was the "picture painted by the administration as to how the war was going to go was pretty unrealistic"?

Here's some facts:

-We're in Baghdad proper after 2 weeks of fighting; having traveled over 250miles in ~ 3 days. Well beyond anything accomplished thus far in mechanized warfare.
-We've taken under 20 American dead and a smiliar amount for the Brits.
-The Iraqi government is in shambles, there is no Command & Control structure.
-The much 'vaunted' Republican Guard has been routed and a few divisions are operating at ~15-20% after an encounter.
-There was no IRBM strikes at Israel, or Saudi, or Jordan
-There are, AFAIK, no Oil fires buring in Iraq
-The number of Iraqi killed are astronomical, the 3rd ID alone killed over 400 in a little over a day.
-The collateral damage to the indigenous population has been minor.

I could keep going to, this has been one of the most sucessfull military operations EVER thus far. To say it doesn't meet your expectations just shows your ignorance - this is unpresidented. We've entered a foreign country, and killed the enemy on their land (which they know well) consistently with a kill to loss ratio thats probobly in the region of 1000:1 or higher. This isn't a war, its a route.

Where you get off saying it hasn't met your expectations just escapes my grasp of reality. It's like saying, "Why couldn't the Yankees have beat the Mets with a score of 500 to 3". Give me a break.