"The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory."
Typical administration/neoconservative approach to everything.
posted on March 29, 2003 06:21:45 PM new
According to this article, Rumsfeld had to be convinced by Tommy Franks to increase the number of troops from 75,000 to 250,000 and now, even that's not enough. It's not the cakewalk that Rumsfeld and Adelman expected.
Helen
ubb.ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 29, 2003 06:22 PM ]
posted on March 29, 2003 07:19:07 PM new
This must be why Rumsfeld was recently lambasting what is already an almost acquiesent American press. Tony Blair recently tried the same tactic. Actually criticism of the war in Britian has strongly resurfaced again. Even the Telegraph isn't pleased.
posted on March 29, 2003 07:32:30 PM new
It will be interesting to see if he garners any criticism from the religious right, besides Pat Buchanan, of course. I never thought I'd say it, but I'm beginning to like that old blowhard...scarey
posted on March 29, 2003 08:38:56 PM new
From the press conference...it's really worth reading.
On Friday when Jamie McIntyre of CNN wondered whether it was "possible that you've miscalculated the desire of the Iraqi people to be liberated by an outside force," Mr. Rumsfeld sounded like a disappointed father.
"Jamie, don't you think it's a little premature?" he replied.
"We'll know the answer to that," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "As portions of the country are liberated, we'll have people on the ground, embedded with our forces, who have a chance to see what happens and see how they feel about it. Why do we want to guess?"
A few minutes later, when Mr. McIntyre's CNN colleague Barbara Starr asked how, if "you don't deem it important to know the mood of the Iraqi people," he could understand the military challenges of operating in Baghdad, Mr. Rumsfeld said: "I didn't say it wasn't important to know. I said it wasn't knowable."
posted on March 29, 2003 10:29:28 PM new
Who would have thought in their wildest dreams that the secular Iraqis would fight to the death? Air power defeated them in '91 leaving a cake walk for ground troops.
We defeated the fanatical mujahadin in Afghanistan from the air with some help on the ground from the Northern Alliance.
Rumsfeld's plan was good, but our "ally" Turkey screwed us and denied us a northern front which would have resulted in much less Iraqi resistance in the South.
As long as we're patient, we will adapt and destroy the remaining Iraqi army without too many more casualties.
Bush Sr. made the right decision at the time to not go into Baghad in '91. Of course, looking back we know it was wrong. Same thing with Rumsfeld's plan.
posted on March 29, 2003 11:23:17 PM new
We all knew the Military weren’t the ones puling the stings all along any way.
Rumsfeld is no fool, and it’s not as though he isn’t privy to accurate information.
But ask yourself if Rumsfeld didn’t intentionally wish to prolong the war, after promoting it, and if so Why?
He’s been the great spin doctor since the ‘alleged’ moon landing hasn’t he??????????
Call me paranoid but the fact remains that there is still debate over that.
I’m sure America will forgive him for what they may view as trying to ‘save money’, and now there will be even more support to give the war even more money.
Eg. At one stage I thought, you thought, Poindexter’s career was finished, but look now.
I wonder how long it will take for Iraq to pay of those ‘loans’/ war reparations,; food for oil???
Food for thought???.
Go Drumsfeld!! The guy’s a genius.
This is only light fire; but for the true neo-cons, this is not bad news, this is great ‘newsprint’.
posted on March 30, 2003 12:20:10 AM new
ebayauctionguy "Rumsfeld's plan was good, but our "ally" Turkey screwed us and denied us a northern front which would have resulted in much less Iraqi resistance in the South"
Oh contraire, I’m confident Drumsfeld’s plan is as good as it ever was.
If you and I can work out, after following things for a few weeks, that Turkey won’t want Kurds to control the other side of the border, don’t you think he was smart enough to know that 10 or 20 or more years ago.?????????
You don’t see anyone calling him Dumsfeld. Evil 'perhaps' but not dumb.
ebayauctionguy
"we'll just give 'em a pro-US dictator"
Just like it's been done before. Well you'd better hope you are one of the top % of Americans or others that might benefit greatly from this war.
Because ALL will not, especially families of those lost already, and those to come, and mainly from the lower classes.
And Australians, and Arabs and Israelis, and many others.
On the other hand it might be equal outcome for all, and I ain't talkin' +ve.
[ edited by austbounty on Mar 30, 2003 12:22 AM ]
posted on March 30, 2003 04:23:42 AM new
Let's say that I am a Southern Baptist who believes that Mormons are members of a cult and should all be converted. Someone decides to invade the US to deliver us from a leader who threw his state into economic chaos and now leads the nation the same way. They believe: "You know those Mormons will welcome us, because we are against the fundametal Baptists, too". Wrong, we are all Americans and we will all fight to the death (man, woman and child) if someone steps on our soil. A strategic plan is based on assumptions and if your assumptions are wrong your strategic plan is dead in the water. This has been a classic case of group think (remember Bay of Pigs), with our group believing what they wanted to believe in. Now, things are not going as planned. Why? The assumptions were wrong. BTW: War is a lose/lose Rev.
posted on March 30, 2003 04:42:55 AM new
War wasn't a lose lose prepossession in the early 1940's was it? Why would you analogize religion and war?
Chess is a game of strategy. You make a plan before you start. When your opponent makes changes to said plan you change too.
War sucks, Dictators Suck, Terrorist suck.
You must be one of those turn the other cheek people.
I'm not. I want to be here as long as possible. I won't lay down and die. America won't lay down and die.
Cowards and imbeciles lay down and die. The brave fight for liberty.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on March 30, 2003 06:01:16 AM new
Alegedly, Mahatma Gandi said
"Non-violence should never be used as a shield for cowardice. It is a weapon for the brave".
All those who support a peaceful solution should recognise their actions are working. They have caused military top brass around the world to modify their war tactics.
These tactical modifications may apear to be incidental but they are part of the big picture. Much strength to you.
posted on March 30, 2003 06:30:12 AM new
Apparently between 1985 & 1990 The Us administration of Reagan and Bush Senior oversaw more than 700 shipments of chemical, biological and nuclear technology to Iraq, This included shipments of anthrax and nerve gas. In 1998 Saddam'’ troops gassed 5000 Kurds while retreating from Iran. The US turned a blind eye to this atrocity. Meanwhile US shipments of biological weapons continued to Iraq.
In 1992,the UK exported Pralidoxine ( a nerve gas antidote which can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas) to Iraq. Why are Australian Troops cleaning up US & UK mess?
What threat would Saddam and Osama have been without US aid and training?
Poverty, oppression and expansionism breed terrorism.
Until the economic powers realise this, TERRORISM WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.
posted on March 30, 2003 07:41:35 AM newPoverty, oppression and expansionism breed terrorism. Until the economic powers realise this, TERRORISM WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.
That is exactly what we should be "rooting out"...poverty, oppression and expansionism.
Helen
BTW...ebayauctionguy...about the divergent scenarios for the outcome of the Iraq war...This article is interesting because the author predicts that very little will change. In fact, as you suggested a pro US dictator will likely be the result. One thug will just be replaced with another thug who will obey.
posted on March 30, 2003 08:11:39 AM new
Rev: The US did not enter the war until attacked...not sure what a "prepossession" is. According to my father who served in WWII in the Navy, war is lose/lose. He lost many men fighting his way across one Pacific island after the next. However, that action was necessary after we were attacked. As for the "analogizing" that is what the US did. They expected one religious group to rise up and support the US against fellow Iraqis...it did not work due to nationalism. To assume that their religion was stronger than their sense of nationalism was incorrect. Personal attacks when you can neither aruge cogently or spell, is apt, I suppose. I guess I just have one question: "Is ignorance bliss?"
posted on March 30, 2003 09:13:35 AM new
Come on now people...Does this all really matter to our present administration???? It's not like its THEIR children dying in the desert! If fact, they and their children will profit financially from this "war"
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
[ edited by mlecher on Mar 30, 2003 09:14 AM ]
posted on March 30, 2003 11:17:58 AM new
Yes, as individuals and as corporate beneficiaries, they are in a win/win scenario. The nation and the rest of the world is in a lose/lose scenario.
Whether the diplomacy and strategy orchestrating the attack on Iraq results from ignorance and arrogance alone or from promoting another agenda, I'm uncertain. To assume that because the Iraqi's depise Saddam that they would view the Americans and British as liberators and renounce their own sovereignity is another instance of the infamous either/or, black/white fallacy that has characterized the administration. Maybe they really are so delusional that they believe that whatever they chose to say creates reality.
Dowd does a good analysis in today's Times....................................
Back Off, Syria and Iran!
By MAUREEN DOWD
ASHINGTON —We're shocked that the enemy forces don't observe the rules of war. We're shocked that it's hard to tell civilians from combatants, and friends from foes. Adversaries use guerrilla tactics; they are irregulars; they take advantage of the hostile local weather and terrain; they refuse to stay in uniform. Golly, as our secretary of war likes to say, it's unfair.
Some of their soldiers are mere children. We know we have overwhelming, superior power, yet we can't use it all. We're stunned to discover that the local population treats our well-armed high-tech troops like invaders.
Why is all this a surprise again? I know our hawks avoided serving in Vietnam, but didn't they, like, read about it?
"The U.S. was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," a young marine named Jimmy Paiz told ABC News this weekend with a rueful smile. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"
We will conquer the country, and it will be gratifying to see the satanic Saddam running like a rat through the rubble of his palaces. But it was hard not to have a few acid flashbacks to Vietnam at warp speed.
The hawks want Iraq to be the un-Vietnam, to persuade us that war is a necessary disciplinary tool of the only superpower, that America has a moral duty to spread democracy. This time, we crush the opposition swiftly. This time, the domino theory works in reverse, as repressive regimes in the Middle East fall in a chain reaction set off by a democratic Baghdad. Yet in just a week we've seen peace marches, world opinion painting us as belligerent, and draining battlefield TV images.
We saw American commanders expressing doubts about a war plan that the Pentagon insisted was going splendidly while being vague about the body count. "The enemy we're fighting is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against," Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's senior ground commander, told reporters. (No doubt, that truthful heads up will earn General Wallace a slap down.)
Retired generals were even more critical of the Rumsfeld doctrine of underwhelming force. The defense chief is so enamored of technology and air power that he overrode the risk of pitting 130,000-strong American ground forces — the vast majority of the front-line troops have never fired at a live enemy before — against 350,000 Iraqi fighters, who have kept their aim sharp on their own people.
The incoherence of the battle plan — which some retired generals say is three infantry divisions short — has made the guts and stamina and ingenuity of American forces even more remarkable.
Rummy was beginning to erase his fingerprints. "The war plan," he said, "is Tom Franks's war plan." Tommy, we hardly knew ye.
Paul Wolfowitz, Rummy's deputy, conceded that the war planners may have underestimated the hardiness of the heartless Iraqi fighters.
This admission is galling. You can't pound the drums for war by saying Saddam is Hitler and then act surprised when he proves ruthless on the battlefield.
In their wild dreamscape, the hawks envision Iraq as the rolling start of a broader campaign to bring other rogue states, like Iran and North Korea, to heel.
But in pursuit of what they call a "moral" foreign policy, they stretched and obscured the truth. First, they hyped C.I.A. intelligence to fit their contention that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked. Then they sent Colin Powell out with hyped evidence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Then, when they were drawing up the battle plan, they soft-pedaled C.I.A. and Pentagon intelligence warnings that U.S. troops would face significant resistance from Saddam's guerrilla fighters.
In cranking up their war plan with expurgated intelligence, the hawks left the ground troops exposed and insufficiently briefed on the fedayeen. Ideology should not shape facts when lives are at stake.
Asked about General Wallace's remarks, Donald Rumsfeld shrugged them off, noting that anyone who read Amnesty International reports should have known the Iraqis were barbarians.
Rummy was too busy shaking his fist at Syria and Iran to worry about the shortage of troops in Iraq.
As one administration official marveled: "Hasn't the guy bitten off enough this week?"
posted on March 31, 2003 03:54:15 AM new
baylor45,
Personal attacks? What in the post bothered you? I pointed no finger. You must have seen something that fit your beliefs and it must bother you.
I have to feel you know the answer to your final question better then me. I always enjoy when someone changes the subject to spelling and grammar. I call it the sign of the little people.
It should have been proposition,
War wasn't a lose, lose proposition in the early 1940's was it? Why would you analogize religion and war?
As far as not been attacked, I disagree. 9/11, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 US sailors, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel, 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000.
My Mother and father were both in the service for WWII My father started early with the RCAF to the RAF and then when the US entered the war he moved to the US 8th. He was a bombadier/navagator. He believes in the freedoms that we saved for ourselves and the others of the world. I have to believe your father does too.
What's your problem?
Amen,
Hoping all is spelled correctly,
Reverend Colin
posted on March 31, 2003 05:34:27 AM new
Colin, do you know Iraq was responsible for all those deaths.
Also, do you realise that alqaida and other terrorist groups and ‘certain others’ that aided them are to be found outside that map?
Nuke’in that area won’t stop US deaths. I’m guessing that it will definitely increase US attacks.
posted on March 31, 2003 06:02:48 AM new
In a perfect world...the bomb crater feels with oil. When it runs low, we just run sidewells into surrounding countries.
posted on March 31, 2003 08:40:19 AM new
I've always love this thinking from those on the left...
Does this all really matter to our present administration???? It's not like its THEIR children dying in the desert! If fact, they and their children will profit financially from this "war".
mlecher - This present administraton and their children? Want to share how many other administrations in our nations history have had children fighting in a war that started when they were in office, please?
Again this 'think' seem to imply that no one can ever send our nation to war, for any reason, UNLESS they have children that are going to fight in that same war. What nonsense.
posted on March 31, 2003 08:52:28 AM new
Lincolns, Kennedys, early Bush, and others.
Yes, should have added to the above statement: politically-connected
But today, none of the Oil executive's children, younger Bushes or Cheney or large campaign contributors/politcally-connected, etc.... It is LET THE POOR SLOB FIGHT FOR OUR PROFIT!
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
[ edited by mlecher on Mar 31, 2003 08:54 AM ]
[ edited by mlecher on Mar 31, 2003 08:55 AM ]
