War strategy

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
I am very curious as to how many of you would have planned the liberation differently. There are a lot of people who state, with great confidence, that the war is being handled poorly. I want to know, in great detail, how many of you would have planned your own operation to liberate Iraq and bring about rapid peace...
 
#3
#3
I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place. Instead, I would have focused the troops and resources into going after Osama and Al Queda.
 
#5
#5
Also, do we have to include logistics, i.e. food, medicine, fuel?

Or are we talking in a general sense.....?
 
#6
#6
The starting point is anytime prior to the invasion. Logistics do not have to be included, however, be reasonable. You should also take into account the intel that you, as CENTCOM Commander, would be receiving. This includes corroborated reports from the CIA that Iraq not only possesses WMD, but that he is prepared to use them.
 
#11
#11
WMD's....Intel such as a picture of a refrigerator truck? What intel was there? How much was there? How much was completely verified? How much was discredited right up to the day before the war began by an inside source in Saddam's government? How mcuh came from sources already discredited and sources who clearly had motive and agenda to state so?
 
#12
#12
CSpindizzy said:
WMD's....Intel such as a picture of a refrigerator truck? What intel was there? How much was there? How much was completely verified? How much was discredited right up to the day before the war began by an inside source in Saddam's government? How mcuh came from sources already discredited and sources who clearly had motive and agenda to state so?
Click to expand...
So, David Kay had an agenda? Then, the reports in Britain which were reported by the BBC (a report that led to the top two editors at the BBC to resign in disgrace) to be exaggerated? Oh, yes, they were proven not to have been exaggerated by anyone, and it was a falsification by the journalist. That's ok, no harm no foul right? Except of course the unfortunate suicide committed by Dr. Kelly. Or maybe you are referring to Joseph Wilson's report? Which is it CSpin?
 
#13
#13
CSpindizzy said:
Try not going in there in the first place. No need.
Click to expand...
This response, along with OWB's and allvol's, leads to the following conclusion. Whether you agree with war or not, you cannot state that it has been prosecuted poorly.
 
#14
#14
Interesting starting post for the thread and interesting responses so far.

Suggesting that we shouldn't have gone anyway doesn't answer the question.

Regardless of whether or not you agreed with the decision - it was made. Criticizing the conduct (using the Dem slogan of we'd do it better) implies you know a better way to conduct the effort. How would a critic of how the war was conducted "do it better?"
 
#15
#15
Try a certain key government official who defected and told us up to the day of the invasion there were no WMD's.

Again, I ask you what evidence was there? I see what Powell took to the UN and see sketchy evidence at best. The logic was that there were WMD's and they posed a threat. Do you realize how many other nations surpassed our own definition of a threat? Do you realize how many other nations had greater qualifications to be invaded over Iraq?

So go ahead and keep attempting to put words in my mouth. Go ahead and take paths that have not even been taken. The fact remains the evidence was shaky, sources in Saddam's government discredited this, and there were far greater qualified nations than Iraq plus the fact that Osama himself along with Al Qaeda was run into Pakistan with a pathetic effort to pursue.
 
#16
#16
therealUT said:
This response, along with OWB's and allvol's, leads to the following conclusion. Whether you agree with war or not, you cannot state that it has been prosecuted poorly.
Click to expand...

Going to war when there is no need is not poor execution?
 
#17
#17
CSpindizzy said:
Going to war when there is no need is not poor execution?
Click to expand...
Again, you cannot answer the original question. I could sit here and lay out a better plan of attack for Saddam to invade Kuwait, one that would have caused the Western world to pause before going in 1991. I was asking for an operational analysis and plan, and you jump to: well, the intel was faulty and we should not have gone in the first place. Therefore, I am led to believe you are conceding that the military strategy, not political, was great.
 
#18
#18
I jump to? You yourself defined intel as important. So stick with your own statements. I only commented on what you had already listed and defined. If you cannot follow your own line of thinking, then don't ask for other people's.

Liberation could have easily waited if it was to be engaged in the first place. A coup could have easily been placed causing the infrastructure to remain and key leadership to also remain. Instead we provoked the dismantling of the military, a regret we are paying for even now. We instead destroyed large amounts of infrastructure causing not only billions of dollars to rebuild but opening an area for insurgents to attack and lose face with the people. I'm giving you the abridged version to which I'm sure will be disected. If given enough time I will be more than happy to write a synopsis for you.
 
#19
#19
CSpindizzy said:
I jump to? You yourself defined intel as important. So stick with your own statements. I only commented on what you had already listed and defined. If you cannot follow your own line of thinking, then don't ask for other people's.

Liberation could have easily waited if it was to be engaged in the first place. A coup could have easily been placed causing the infrastructure to remain and key leadership to also remain. Instead we provoked the dismantling of the military, a regret we are paying for even now. We instead destroyed large amounts of infrastructure causing not only billions of dollars to rebuild but opening an area for insurgents to attack and lose face with the people. I'm giving you the abridged version to which I'm sure will be disected. If given enough time I will be more than happy to write a synopsis for you.
Click to expand...
I will gladly disect it for you:
Your first option would have left the Baathist in charge, as long as it was not Saddam. Because we all know that military coups in totalitarian dictatorships lead to democracy, peace, and, above all, human rights. Except for that whole Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin historical example, your theory would have worked real well.

Your second option, would have been to invade, yet leave high level government jobs to those who were already in position. So as not to interrupt the governmental process. Most all of these officials would have been Baathists who were despised by the populus. In high level positions, they would have been in optimum positions to tamper with any and all democratic processes. They would have placated the U.S. for as long as it took, and when we removed our presence, would have reverted back to the governmental practices Saddam had used so often.

Your third option, leaving the Army in tact. Much of the Army disbanded before we even engaged in combat. During OIF 1, most of the battles were fought between American units and the Fedayeen. There were no traditional Iraqi armed units fighting other than the Republican Guard; it was as political as it was military. The Republican Guard was full of Saddam loyalists and Sunni's.

Great way to turn the country around, keep armed Sunni's in the country, with military authority to boot, and Baathists in high level positions. It is no small wonder that you revere Wesley Clark so much...
 
#20
#20
And there are plenty of Baathists in the government now. Either way, Baathists are in the government. Yes, and we also know that democracy cannot flourish in this region. Take a look at the authoritarian regimes there now. We're propping up 'democracy' with the end of a barrel...not exactly a great notion to consider this democracy. Once we leave, how long will it take for a coup to take place? Considering how we're cringing at Lebanese and Egyptian democracy but yet coddling military dictatorship by coup in Pakistan, your logic on Iraq is misguided.

The military disbanded because of constant bombing by the "shock and awe" campaign.

And the way the country is now is better? I guess you LOVE the fact that Sunnis are unarmed...ooops, they're not, and Baathists are not involved in government...ooops they are. Seeing how people cannot even walk the streets without attacks is a grand accomplishment. Seeing how many areas still have no power and others are on roving blackouts...wonderful. Seeing how people have 140K American soldiers protecting them but yet they're still dying and insurgents are still coming in from other nations....even better. Seeing keystone cops level of military and law enforcement on the part of the Iraqi government...magnificent. I guess this is your idea of better and success?

And FYI, try not to assume so much. It really makes you look flat out wrong and stupid. I don't "revere" Wesley Clark.
 
#21
#21
Yeah, I guess "we're going to bring forces home" within a certain timetable only to have to send more in after all is a great strategy as well. You seriously need to have been with Bremer running things. Wait, it sounds like you were. And we see where we are.
 
#22
#22
I am isolating these passages from your post, for obvious reasons.
CSpindizzy said:
The military disbanded because of constant bombing by the "shock and awe" campaign.

And FYI, try not to assume so much. It really makes you look flat out wrong and stupid. I don't "revere" Wesley Clark.
Click to expand...
Airpower was used to attack the divisions' rear areas and lines of retreat, so as to persuade the enemy that they were safer where they were. The procedure was successful.

Gen. Franks
Click to expand...

Oh, and also, prepping objectives prior to assaults, is a long established and proven military tactic. Franks himself has noted several times that his intent of the air campaign was not "shock and awe," that was simply the effect of what happened when our superior weaponry struck military targets.

Basically, you have said that we should not have disbanded the Army. In that case, apparently we should not have had an air campaign in Iraq.
Intelligence officers identified two waves of desertion: the first following coalition air attack preceding the advance, a second as the sound of approaching coalition armour was heard.

John Keegan
Click to expand...
Maybe we should have also left our tanks, HMMVs, Bradley's, Strikers, and Apaches at home too. Just so that the Iraqi Army would stay, so that we could use it in the aftermath. Of course, the Iraqi's might have also heard our troops 'locking and loading,' so maybe we should have left our weapons at home, too.

I will do my best to stop assuming things. However, E4, you should keep your trap shut when it comes to any discussions concerning military strategy. Believe me, you sound about as ignorant as someone who flaked out of the army after jump school and never saw combat can sound.
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
However, E4, you should keep your trap shut when it comes to any discussions concerning military strategy. Believe me, you sound about as ignorant as someone who flaked out of the army after jump school and never saw combat can sound.
Click to expand...

E4? Where did that come from? Someone who completely assumes wrongly and contradicts repeatedly their own posts, you sound as lousy as half the losers in Congress. Who flaked out?

When you decide to not sound like someone on the playground back in third grade with cheap insults, I'll consider you someone worthwhile and knowledgeable on the issues. Seeing you stumble over your own points makes me question your own credibility and background on history and current events.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top