Originally posted by Awakened Don't think it really matters, I don't forsee much change in the current situation in Iraq regardless of who has the job.
/agreed
its not winnable. It never was.
And thats what makes this leadership (used loosley) so bad. I read posts by 14 year olds at the start of this conflict, saying things like "it will be like Northern Island, decades of intractible conflict, car bombs and chaos". Some random teenager could easily see an outcome that completely eluded the poeple in positions to manage the situation.
Our former head of defence forces Major General Peter Cosgrove, whom I until recently (this comment) respected greatly. "No one could have predicted the level of resistance currently being experienced in Iraq".
Well all I have to say to that is BULL$HIT!!
Plenty of people predicted how tough it would be and plenty of so called experts on the other side said how much royal ass they would kick and how everyone would be home in bed drinking hot chocolate by no later than 9pm.
Pretty clear to everyone now who was right.... So far I have avoided the temptation to drive home some I told ya so's........ but Im getting weaker all the time.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Originally posted by Draenor You also clipped the wrong person's name
Well either I suck.... or you deserve it... its all point of view
And Rumsfeld a good Orator ? He spoke just enough gibberish to confuse or impress anyone who wasnt really listening. Thats about the nicest thing I could say.
As my dad used to say "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit."
I think the only thing that will change in Iraq is the excuses. If republicans want to know what cost them the house and senate take a good look at who just walked out the door.
Originally posted by Awakened Don't think it really matters, I don't forsee much change in the current situation in Iraq regardless of who has the job.
/agreed
its not winnable. It never was.
It's been won for some time, but that's not enough for the zealots. They need to topple every other regime in the region too. Shine the righteous light of democracy on all the oldest civilisations of man and force them to become cultured.
Nothing is going to change in Iraq, Blair and Bush are still there, unshakeable in their holy crusades.
What did Rumsfield ever do wrong? He must have done something wrong of course, but nothing particular springs to mind. Guilt by association is his problem. Bush likes him so he's a target.
Tell the families of the 100+ soldiers that died last month that its "already won". I think theyd like to know what the reasons for losing thier children were if the battle is already over.
And what did Rummy do ?
Well when your prepared to take the credit for the tiny, tiny victories that have happened along the way, I guess its only fair you should carry at least some of the can for the massive, massive failures too. Not that fairness has ever featured strongly on his list of personal qualities.
Hes a double talking war monger that didnt get his taste for the blood of his countrymen filled in Vietnam. Hopefully its been filled now.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Is it just me or is that right up there the lightest ever casualties in the history of warfare.
No offense but I was asking what he did wrong.
What are these massive failures he's made?
.
I agree that he's a warmonger, but if I'm not wrong he is head of the war department so that isn't an entirely misplaced talent. Once they tell him to go, he has to do the best he can. The decision to go to war wasn't his, the most influence he had on that decision was saying whether or not it was within their capabilities. He said it was, and he was right.
Now I've caught him double talking on TV and saying stupid stuff too, but I've also caught him being as straight up as he can quite often too. He seems more frank than many. As I said, he's bound to have made a few mistakes in a 6 year period, it's a given with any human being, but what are these massive ones? That seems to be a bit unfair.
Did he forget to buy the troops any bullets, like the British War minister did? Did he ship the body armour to the wrong country a week after the invasion had already ended? Or disband a 1/4 of the army halfway through it's largest deployment in 25 years? Comparatively speaking, Rummy did alright I thought. Damn sight better than his British counterpart did.
Originally posted by baff 100+ dead soldiers? Is it just me or is that right up there the lightest ever casualties in the history of warfare. No offense but I was asking what he did wrong. What are these massive failures he's made? . I agree that he's a warmonger, but if I'm not wrong he is head of the war department so that isn't an entirely misplaced talent. Once they tell him to go, he has to do the best he can. The decision to go to war wasn't his, the most influence he had on that decision was saying whether or not it was within their capabilities. He said it was, and he was right.
I guess if you adopt the Stalinist principle of war deaths then yeah.... 100 lives is nothing.... Still puzzling how they are dying if the battle is won though. Additionally it pays to keep in mind, this is not the Nazi war machine in opposition here. This is a handfull of used donkey salesemen with antiquated soviet weaponry. When you put it in context, its a strategic disastour.
It was my firm understanding that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheyney were the chief architects of the plan to attack Iraq, against the advice of almost everyone else in a position of influence at the time.
Thats the massive mistake, everything that has snowballed down hill since is just more flakes on the same snowball.
Rumsfeld has been allowed to employ the same failed strategies in Iraq that lost the war in Vietnam. Send out just enough guys to almost do the job, when they die, send out almost enough guys to hunt down the killers, when they die, rinse and repeat.... 2000 + mistakes and counting.
The one thing I respect about Rumsfeld is that he has tried to resign twice before. He knew 2 years ago that he had lost control of the situation and tried to fall on his sword, but was unable to because it would be seen as a "victory" for the terrorists.
Well just like in Vietnam, the situation everyone tried to avoid has come to pass, just like in Nam, the sky has not collapsed. I doubt Rumsfeld's replacement can do any better, hes being asked to unscramble eggs now....
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
The commonwealth forces originally conquered and united Iraq with 15,000 and held the place for another 30 years with only 3,000. He has troops coming out of his ears.
.
Casualties are far far lighter than Vietnam. It really doesn't compare. 3,000 over 3 years in Iraq, vs 200,000 over 7 in Vietnam. You can hardly complain about the casualties in this war. It's almost fifty times less than their previous occupation.
.
I suspect that Rumsfields planning in the war was primarily military. He might have made plans to convert Islam to democracy, I'm not saying he didn't, but I think his role was probably more along the lines of how many troops and what equipment would be needed, how to get it there and who to get to lead them. All of these things he did excellently.
He's Bush's mate and an "architect of the war", he's not exactly going to get a fair trial by media. I'll be taking what they say about him with a pinch of salt.
Originally posted by baff just enough guys? He sent hundreds of thousands! The commonwealth forces conquered and united Iraq with 15,000 and held the place for another 30 years with 3,000. Casualties are far far lighter than Vietnam. It really doesn't compare. 3,000 over 3 years in Iraq, vs 200,000 over 7 in Vietnam. You can hardly complain about the casualties in this war it's almost a hundred times less than their previous occupation.,
140K troops.... is one thing.
Splitting them up into groups of 6 and sending them into harms way is what Im talking about.
An IED is not gonna do squat to an Abrams, so why just send 6 guys in a Humvee. Thats what Im saying. If your gonna move around... move around in a force that cant be challenged... But $hit what do I know... greater minds than mine are running it... Im sure they are doing just fine...
Im saying the general strategies employed on the ground are identical to Vietnam and are failing with identical regularity.
The victory conditions are so heavily skewed in favour of the terrorists, its amazing to think anyone would consider exposing thier forces to a conflict like this, unless you were either a moron or had absolutley no care for the lives of your soldiers whatsoever. Rummy can choose which description he prefers.
For the insurgents to score a major victory, all they have to do is kill or injure 1 allied sldier. To destroy a humvee and 4-6 marines..... thats like the Normandy landings to these guys in terms of the level of victory achieved. For the Allies to achive anything like a victory point, they have to capture a major name in the insurgency or hold a town for months (preferably for good).
With that imbalance in the fighting, its not possible to "win"
When the allies pull out sometime in the next 1-2 years (yes I believe they will "cut and run" in the end). Iraq will quickly revert to either another dictatorship or simply degrade into the same kind of religious/tribal factionalism that is now the norm in Afghanistan. The only other possible outcome is that Iran or Syria will engineer an Islamic state somehow. Then what ?......
Iraq has never been a democratic society. The level of naievety required to think it could ever be one, especially in a time frame of 5 or so years.... boggles my mind completely.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Now I agree with you about the victory conditions. They aren't winning them, and they aren't very likely too. But they are hardly losing out there.
They have installed a friendly democracy and higher percentage of Iraqi people voted for it than did for any of ours. That said, I think they are onto a loser from the outset there.
But war is a fluid thing. What's achieveable is a changing goal. Our impressions change from day to day.
.
If you patrol the roads with Abrams, they will build roadside bombs that blow up Abrams. Plenty of Abrams have been blown up in Iraq. I do think patrolling the cities, other than supply routes is stupid. Even so, even playing the enemy on his own turf by his own rules, casualties are incredibly low. It isn't exactly a military defeat. Athough much like you, I don't belive they are gaining anything in return for most of those lives.
Mistakes will happen in wars and you don't know what tactics will be successful until you try them. It is wrong to expect every single aspect of the fight to achieve successful results.
.
6 men dead in a Humvee (or 1 man dead and 5 wounded) is not the equivalent of the Normandy landings. The Normandy landings or at least Omaha Beach is 30,000 dead in one day. 10% of their entire national army or the population of a small city or medium sized town. 30,000 In one day before even capturing 200 ft of enemy territory.
I really do think you are being quite hysterical about the casualites. Clearly I'm not looking forward to any of my friends coming home dead or limbless either, but please, reality check.
.
I agree that the coalition will pull out sooner or later. The trick has always been, making it later not sooner. As long as we are there and they are not here, then all moronacy aside, we are winning.
What I thought was such a remarkable failure in his ability as a Defense Secretary is that he lost the confidence of the officers in the military.
You have the army calling out for more equipment, and Rumsfeld answering: you go to war with the army you have. That's one thing if America's being invaded on its own soil. But for an invasion? At least ASK congress for supplies before going to war, dude.
Besides that, there are really more failures, firstly in his responsibility as a public figure and secondly as his responsibility to the men and women in uniform. Why stifle the requests of one general (whose name I do not remember clearly) who loudly remonstrated that more troops were needed for an invasion in Iraq. The man was forced to resign from his post later.
I always enjoy debating with you because you actually talk sense
Maybe the Normandy landings was not a good example.... I guess 9/11 was more like thier Normandy... but Im sure you appreciate my point.
I just cant help seeing the thing a lot like a strategy game and I see moves being made that only a complete noob would make...
I still remain almost completely convinced that more could have been achieved using only the CIA and Seals than has been achieved with conventional methods.
Conventional forces just seem to be nothing more than ideal targets for a bunch of guys that had nothing to attack until they were presented with these nice juicy young marines to shoot at. I always remember the quote (probably a Sun Tzu) that "even soldiers sleep". In other words you attack when conditions favour you, not the other guy. So CIA and Seals, hitting these guys where they sleep, would have to be so much more effective than trying to use conventional arms in a guerilla war, a strategy that has probably never worked in the entire history of warfare.
Maybe as a former CIA director... the new guy might see things more from this PoV
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Originally posted by bhagamu What I thought was such a remarkable failure in his ability as a Defense Secretary is that he lost the confidence of the officers in the military.
You have the army calling out for more equipment, and Rumsfeld answering: you go to war with the army you have. That's one thing if America's being invaded on its own soil. But for an invasion? At least ASK congress for supplies before going to war, dude.
Besides that, there are really more failures, firstly in his responsibility as a public figure and secondly as his responsibility to the men and women in uniform. Why stifle the requests of one general (whose name I do not remember clearly) who loudly remonstrated that more troops were needed for an invasion in Iraq. The man was forced to resign from his post later.
I agree about the confidence of your troops, and I agree about the shamefulness of not equiping them to the best of your ability. Nonethelss they were still among the best equiped troops on the battlefield. And what they had was more than enough to do the job and in many cases up to 55 years more technologically advanced than their enemies.
In peacetime the armies budget will just get cut and cut and cut. In wartime, the army is a strong position to put political pressure on the war dept and publicly shame and guilt them into upping the budget. New supplies and equipment cannot be magiced up overnight, however. Factories to make them have to be built and once built troops still need a few years to learn how to use them. When it's time to go, the army has to go with what it's got.
With respect to the sacked General. He was wrong and Rumsfield was right. There is no two ways around this. There isn't any place in my army for cowards, Rumsfield did well to sack him. The Iraqi military was massively overpowered by coalition forces. Could they even have destroyed them any faster if they had more troops? Most of the casualties were from friendly fire. Adding more friendlies is more likely to have increased the casualties than decreased it.
There are two types of generals, the ones that will march, and the ones that won't. Get rid of the ones that won't. One of the things that makes a veteran army tougher than a green army, is that all the cowards have already been spotted and removed from the chain of command.
Originally posted by Razorback I still remain almost completely convinced that more could have been achieved using only the CIA and Seals than has been achieved with conventional methods. Conventional forces just seem to be nothing more than ideal targets for a bunch of guys that had nothing to attack until they were presented with these nice juicy young marines to shoot at. I always remember the quote (probably a Sun Tzu) that "even soldiers sleep". In other words you attack when conditions favour you, not the other guy. So CIA and Seals, hitting these guys where they sleep, would have to be so much more effective than trying to use conventional arms in a guerilla war, a strategy that has probably never worked in the entire history of warfare. Maybe as a former CIA director... the new guy might see things more from this PoV
How much has going after Osama with an army been a total waste of time.
9/11 bloodlust. Better they take it out on Afghanistan, I suppose, than somewhere that we actually care about.
What did Rumsfield ever do wrong? He must have done something wrong of course, but nothing particular springs to mind. Guilt by association is his problem. Bush likes him so he's a target.
The US extensively plan wars. They run numerous war games, go over thousands of different plans, get constant feedback from experts in the area about every cultural factor that could come into play.
But who needs that when you have an ex flight instructor to make military and nation building plans? 500,000 men to secure and stabilize? Nah, we only need 150,000. Xenophobic history? Nope, we'll be liberators. Neighbors with direct interests? They'll stay out of it. Full armor? Not necessary, we'll just bomb the enemy. Rumsfeld threw out years of planning that was done by people with a lifetime of experience, who do such work as a career, to implement his and various paid think tank's bright idea. Surprise, Iraq's a clusterfuck and people are dying because of it.
The problem is, and will always be the eventual reality of nuclear terrorism. You cannot appease Islamofacsim (except by bowing to their religion and demands).
Regardless of who is in office, the Islamofacists plot and plan and will try their best to gain a strategic weapon to set off on an unsuspecting Western city.
There wasn't any victory in this election, not for Dem's or Rep's.
The US extensively plan wars. They run numerous war games, go over thousands of different plans, get constant feedback from experts in the area about every cultural factor that could come into play.
But who needs that when you have an ex flight instructor to make military and nation building plans? 500,000 men to secure and stabilize? Nah, we only need 150,000. Xenophobic history? Nope, we'll be liberators. Neighbors with direct interests? They'll stay out of it. Full armor? Not necessary, we'll just bomb the enemy. Rumsfeld threw out years of planning that was done by people with a lifetime of experience, who do such work as a career, to implement his and various paid think tank's bright idea. Surprise, Iraq's a clusterfuck and people are dying because of it.
Years of planning by no one with any experience eitheris what he threw out. And he was right to do so.
And the real people with actual experience could of told you that they did it last time with only 3,000 if you had wanted to listen. Those same people are currently holding an area in Iraq the same size you are with only 15,000 instead of the 150,000 you think is too few.
But no one does want to listen.
I'm not saying Rumsfield coudn't have done better than he has, but he's doing it a damn sight better than what his run of the mill detractors have in mind and what he has done is by no stretch of the imagination a military disaster.
This war is very unpopular, everyone is looking for a way to discredit anyone and everyone involved in it. Take what you read with a pinch of salt.
N.B. in his day everyone thought Eisenhower was a totally inefficient prat too.
Originally posted by baff I agree about the confidence of your troops, and I agree about the shamefulness of not equiping them to the best of your ability. Nonethelss they were still among the best equiped troops on the battlefield. And what they had was more than enough to do the job and in many cases up to 55 years more technologically advanced than their enemies. In peacetime the armies budget will just get cut and cut and cut. In wartime, the army is a strong position to put political pressure on the war dept and publicly shame and guilt them into upping the budget. New supplies and equipment cannot be magiced up overnight, however. Factories to make them have to be built and once built troops still need a few years to learn how to use them. When it's time to go, the army has to go with what it's got. Again, in an invasion on American soil, that's one thing. But having all the time in the world to plan an invasion in another country - it's pretty sad that our troops didn't have the equipment that they have the right to have. With respect to the sacked General. He was wrong and Rumsfield was right. There is no two ways around this. There isn't any place in my army for cowards, Rumsfield did well to sack him. The Iraqi military was massively overpowered by coalition forces. Could they even have destroyed them any faster if they had more troops? Most of the casualties were from friendly fire. Adding more friendlies is more likely to have increased the casualties than decreased it. Cowardice? This is not about the invasion itself. Defeating the Iraqi army?? We could have done that by pushing buttons and launching missiles. But Rumsfeld did not listen to the generals who asked for more troops to secure Iraq. Defeating Saddam's army is one thing - securing the country? completely different. Preparing for an occupation? completely different.
Accusing a general who believes that more troops are needed of cowardice? Since when has military experience and differing opinions been deserving of cowardice. Besides, he was right - we did, according to several military experts, did need more troops on the ground.
Comments
/agreed
its not winnable. It never was.
And thats what makes this leadership (used loosley) so bad. I read posts by 14 year olds at the start of this conflict, saying things like "it will be like Northern Island, decades of intractible conflict, car bombs and chaos". Some random teenager could easily see an outcome that completely eluded the poeple in positions to manage the situation.
Our former head of defence forces Major General Peter Cosgrove, whom I until recently (this comment) respected greatly. "No one could have predicted the level of resistance currently being experienced in Iraq".
Well all I have to say to that is BULL$HIT!!
Plenty of people predicted how tough it would be and plenty of so called experts on the other side said how much royal ass they would kick and how everyone would be home in bed drinking hot chocolate by no later than 9pm.
Pretty clear to everyone now who was right.... So far I have avoided the temptation to drive home some I told ya so's........ but Im getting weaker all the time.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Well either I suck.... or you deserve it... its all point of view
And Rumsfeld a good Orator ? He spoke just enough gibberish to confuse or impress anyone who wasnt really listening. Thats about the nicest thing I could say.
As my dad used to say "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit."
I think the only thing that will change in Iraq is the excuses. If republicans want to know what cost them the house and senate take a good look at who just walked out the door.
/agreed
its not winnable. It never was.
It's been won for some time, but that's not enough for the zealots. They need to topple every other regime in the region too. Shine the righteous light of democracy on all the oldest civilisations of man and force them to become cultured.
Nothing is going to change in Iraq, Blair and Bush are still there, unshakeable in their holy crusades.
What did Rumsfield ever do wrong? He must have done something wrong of course, but nothing particular springs to mind. Guilt by association is his problem. Bush likes him so he's a target.
What did Rumsfield ever do wrong?
Tell the families of the 100+ soldiers that died last month that its "already won". I think theyd like to know what the reasons for losing thier children were if the battle is already over.
And what did Rummy do ?
Well when your prepared to take the credit for the tiny, tiny victories that have happened along the way, I guess its only fair you should carry at least some of the can for the massive, massive failures too. Not that fairness has ever featured strongly on his list of personal qualities.
Hes a double talking war monger that didnt get his taste for the blood of his countrymen filled in Vietnam. Hopefully its been filled now.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
100+ dead soldiers?
Is it just me or is that right up there the lightest ever casualties in the history of warfare.
No offense but I was asking what he did wrong.
What are these massive failures he's made?
.
I agree that he's a warmonger, but if I'm not wrong he is head of the war department so that isn't an entirely misplaced talent. Once they tell him to go, he has to do the best he can. The decision to go to war wasn't his, the most influence he had on that decision was saying whether or not it was within their capabilities. He said it was, and he was right.
Now I've caught him double talking on TV and saying stupid stuff too, but I've also caught him being as straight up as he can quite often too. He seems more frank than many. As I said, he's bound to have made a few mistakes in a 6 year period, it's a given with any human being, but what are these massive ones? That seems to be a bit unfair.
Did he forget to buy the troops any bullets, like the British War minister did? Did he ship the body armour to the wrong country a week after the invasion had already ended? Or disband a 1/4 of the army halfway through it's largest deployment in 25 years? Comparatively speaking, Rummy did alright I thought. Damn sight better than his British counterpart did.
I guess if you adopt the Stalinist principle of war deaths then yeah.... 100 lives is nothing.... Still puzzling how they are dying if the battle is won though. Additionally it pays to keep in mind, this is not the Nazi war machine in opposition here. This is a handfull of used donkey salesemen with antiquated soviet weaponry. When you put it in context, its a strategic disastour.
It was my firm understanding that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheyney were the chief architects of the plan to attack Iraq, against the advice of almost everyone else in a position of influence at the time.
Thats the massive mistake, everything that has snowballed down hill since is just more flakes on the same snowball.
Rumsfeld has been allowed to employ the same failed strategies in Iraq that lost the war in Vietnam. Send out just enough guys to almost do the job, when they die, send out almost enough guys to hunt down the killers, when they die, rinse and repeat.... 2000 + mistakes and counting.
The one thing I respect about Rumsfeld is that he has tried to resign twice before. He knew 2 years ago that he had lost control of the situation and tried to fall on his sword, but was unable to because it would be seen as a "victory" for the terrorists.
Well just like in Vietnam, the situation everyone tried to avoid has come to pass, just like in Nam, the sky has not collapsed. I doubt Rumsfeld's replacement can do any better, hes being asked to unscramble eggs now....
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Just enough guys?
He sent hundreds of thousands!
The commonwealth forces originally conquered and united Iraq with 15,000 and held the place for another 30 years with only 3,000. He has troops coming out of his ears.
.
Casualties are far far lighter than Vietnam. It really doesn't compare. 3,000 over 3 years in Iraq, vs 200,000 over 7 in Vietnam. You can hardly complain about the casualties in this war. It's almost fifty times less than their previous occupation.
.
I suspect that Rumsfields planning in the war was primarily military. He might have made plans to convert Islam to democracy, I'm not saying he didn't, but I think his role was probably more along the lines of how many troops and what equipment would be needed, how to get it there and who to get to lead them. All of these things he did excellently.
He's Bush's mate and an "architect of the war", he's not exactly going to get a fair trial by media. I'll be taking what they say about him with a pinch of salt.
140K troops.... is one thing.
Splitting them up into groups of 6 and sending them into harms way is what Im talking about.
An IED is not gonna do squat to an Abrams, so why just send 6 guys in a Humvee. Thats what Im saying. If your gonna move around... move around in a force that cant be challenged... But $hit what do I know... greater minds than mine are running it... Im sure they are doing just fine...
Im saying the general strategies employed on the ground are identical to Vietnam and are failing with identical regularity.
The victory conditions are so heavily skewed in favour of the terrorists, its amazing to think anyone would consider exposing thier forces to a conflict like this, unless you were either a moron or had absolutley no care for the lives of your soldiers whatsoever. Rummy can choose which description he prefers.
For the insurgents to score a major victory, all they have to do is kill or injure 1 allied sldier. To destroy a humvee and 4-6 marines..... thats like the Normandy landings to these guys in terms of the level of victory achieved. For the Allies to achive anything like a victory point, they have to capture a major name in the insurgency or hold a town for months (preferably for good).
With that imbalance in the fighting, its not possible to "win"
When the allies pull out sometime in the next 1-2 years (yes I believe they will "cut and run" in the end). Iraq will quickly revert to either another dictatorship or simply degrade into the same kind of religious/tribal factionalism that is now the norm in Afghanistan. The only other possible outcome is that Iran or Syria will engineer an Islamic state somehow. Then what ?......
Iraq has never been a democratic society. The level of naievety required to think it could ever be one, especially in a time frame of 5 or so years.... boggles my mind completely.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Now I agree with you about the victory conditions. They aren't winning them, and they aren't very likely too. But they are hardly losing out there.
They have installed a friendly democracy and higher percentage of Iraqi people voted for it than did for any of ours. That said, I think they are onto a loser from the outset there.
But war is a fluid thing. What's achieveable is a changing goal. Our impressions change from day to day.
.
If you patrol the roads with Abrams, they will build roadside bombs that blow up Abrams. Plenty of Abrams have been blown up in Iraq. I do think patrolling the cities, other than supply routes is stupid. Even so, even playing the enemy on his own turf by his own rules, casualties are incredibly low. It isn't exactly a military defeat. Athough much like you, I don't belive they are gaining anything in return for most of those lives.
Mistakes will happen in wars and you don't know what tactics will be successful until you try them. It is wrong to expect every single aspect of the fight to achieve successful results.
.
6 men dead in a Humvee (or 1 man dead and 5 wounded) is not the equivalent of the Normandy landings. The Normandy landings or at least Omaha Beach is 30,000 dead in one day. 10% of their entire national army or the population of a small city or medium sized town. 30,000 In one day before even capturing 200 ft of enemy territory.
I really do think you are being quite hysterical about the casualites. Clearly I'm not looking forward to any of my friends coming home dead or limbless either, but please, reality check.
.
I agree that the coalition will pull out sooner or later. The trick has always been, making it later not sooner. As long as we are there and they are not here, then all moronacy aside, we are winning.
What I thought was such a remarkable failure in his ability as a Defense Secretary is that he lost the confidence of the officers in the military.
You have the army calling out for more equipment, and Rumsfeld answering: you go to war with the army you have. That's one thing if America's being invaded on its own soil. But for an invasion? At least ASK congress for supplies before going to war, dude.
Besides that, there are really more failures, firstly in his responsibility as a public figure and secondly as his responsibility to the men and women in uniform. Why stifle the requests of one general (whose name I do not remember clearly) who loudly remonstrated that more troops were needed for an invasion in Iraq. The man was forced to resign from his post later.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
I always enjoy debating with you because you actually talk sense
Maybe the Normandy landings was not a good example....
I guess 9/11 was more like thier Normandy... but Im sure you appreciate my point.
I just cant help seeing the thing a lot like a strategy game and I see moves being made that only a complete noob would make...
I still remain almost completely convinced that more could have been achieved using only the CIA and Seals than has been achieved with conventional methods.
Conventional forces just seem to be nothing more than ideal targets for a bunch of guys that had nothing to attack until they were presented with these nice juicy young marines to shoot at. I always remember the quote (probably a Sun Tzu) that "even soldiers sleep". In other words you attack when conditions favour you, not the other guy. So CIA and Seals, hitting these guys where they sleep, would have to be so much more effective than trying to use conventional arms in a guerilla war, a strategy that has probably never worked in the entire history of warfare.
Maybe as a former CIA director... the new guy might see things more from this PoV
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
I agree about the confidence of your troops, and I agree about the shamefulness of not equiping them to the best of your ability. Nonethelss they were still among the best equiped troops on the battlefield. And what they had was more than enough to do the job and in many cases up to 55 years more technologically advanced than their enemies.
In peacetime the armies budget will just get cut and cut and cut. In wartime, the army is a strong position to put political pressure on the war dept and publicly shame and guilt them into upping the budget. New supplies and equipment cannot be magiced up overnight, however. Factories to make them have to be built and once built troops still need a few years to learn how to use them. When it's time to go, the army has to go with what it's got.
With respect to the sacked General. He was wrong and Rumsfield was right. There is no two ways around this. There isn't any place in my army for cowards, Rumsfield did well to sack him. The Iraqi military was massively overpowered by coalition forces. Could they even have destroyed them any faster if they had more troops? Most of the casualties were from friendly fire. Adding more friendlies is more likely to have increased the casualties than decreased it.
There are two types of generals, the ones that will march, and the ones that won't. Get rid of the ones that won't. One of the things that makes a veteran army tougher than a green army, is that all the cowards have already been spotted and removed from the chain of command.
How much has going after Osama with an army been a total waste of time.
9/11 bloodlust. Better they take it out on Afghanistan, I suppose, than somewhere that we actually care about.
The US extensively plan wars. They run numerous war games, go over thousands of different plans, get constant feedback from experts in the area about every cultural factor that could come into play.
But who needs that when you have an ex flight instructor to make military and nation building plans? 500,000 men to secure and stabilize? Nah, we only need 150,000. Xenophobic history? Nope, we'll be liberators. Neighbors with direct interests? They'll stay out of it. Full armor? Not necessary, we'll just bomb the enemy. Rumsfeld threw out years of planning that was done by people with a lifetime of experience, who do such work as a career, to implement his and various paid think tank's bright idea. Surprise, Iraq's a clusterfuck and people are dying because of it.
The problem is, and will always be the eventual reality of nuclear terrorism. You cannot appease Islamofacsim (except by bowing to their religion and demands).
Regardless of who is in office, the Islamofacists plot and plan and will try their best to gain a strategic weapon to set off on an unsuspecting Western city.
There wasn't any victory in this election, not for Dem's or Rep's.
The US extensively plan wars. They run numerous war games, go over thousands of different plans, get constant feedback from experts in the area about every cultural factor that could come into play.
But who needs that when you have an ex flight instructor to make military and nation building plans? 500,000 men to secure and stabilize? Nah, we only need 150,000. Xenophobic history? Nope, we'll be liberators. Neighbors with direct interests? They'll stay out of it. Full armor? Not necessary, we'll just bomb the enemy. Rumsfeld threw out years of planning that was done by people with a lifetime of experience, who do such work as a career, to implement his and various paid think tank's bright idea. Surprise, Iraq's a clusterfuck and people are dying because of it.
Years of planning by no one with any experience either is what he threw out. And he was right to do so.
And the real people with actual experience could of told you that they did it last time with only 3,000 if you had wanted to listen. Those same people are currently holding an area in Iraq the same size you are with only 15,000 instead of the 150,000 you think is too few.
But no one does want to listen.
I'm not saying Rumsfield coudn't have done better than he has, but he's doing it a damn sight better than what his run of the mill detractors have in mind and what he has done is by no stretch of the imagination a military disaster.
This war is very unpopular, everyone is looking for a way to discredit anyone and everyone involved in it. Take what you read with a pinch of salt.
N.B. in his day everyone thought Eisenhower was a totally inefficient prat too.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08