RUMSFELD UNDER FIRE(Wesley Clark has accused Rumsfeld of putting troops at risk )

SKY NEWS ^ | 03/26/2003 | SKYNEWS

[KQQL]

The former supreme allied commander of Nato has accused US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of putting allied troops at risk through poor planning.

Wesley Clark said Mr Rumsfeld's insistence on a smaller invasion force had left troops vulnerable and the 300-mile oil supply line between Kuwait and Basra open to guerilla attack.

Troops had been tied up in "messy fighting" around Nasiriyah and Baghdad, he said, leading to "logistics problems".

He added that hopes of a quick victory spurred by a popular revolt against Saddam had been dashed.

"The simple fact is that the liberation didn't quite occur. They didn't rise up."

Other war veterans have also spoken out against the early stages of war planning.

Miscalculations

Ralph Peters, a military scientist and former Army officer, wrote in the Washington Post that a coalition victory would be achieved "despite serious strategic miscalculations by the office of the Defence Secretary".

The "shock and awe" strategy of aerial bombardment had failed to shatter the will of Saddam's regime, he said, and if anything had encouraged greater resistance.

"It delayed essential attacks on Iraq's military capabilities," said Mr Peters. "This encouraged at least some Iraqis in uniform to believe they had a chance to fight and win.

"Now our forces advancing on Baghdad face the possibility of more serious combat than would otherwise have been the case."

Coalition commander General Tommy Franks's draft invasion plan proposed using four or five heavy divisions moving slowly towards Baghdad.

New warfare

Mr Rumsfeld is said to have rejected this, complaining that it was too similar to the strategy used in the 1991 Gulf War. Instead he insisted on a smaller, lighter force relying heavily on special forces and air power.

Retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said Mr Rumsfeld had ignored warnings that he was underestimating the number of troops needed.

"I think he thought these were generals with feet planted in World War Two who didn't understand the new way of warfare," he said.

"If the Iraqis actually fight it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take a couple to 3,000 casualties."

Mr Rumsfeld insisted his strategy was working.

"It's a good plan everybody agrees to, and it is a plan that in four and a half or five days has moved ground forces to within a short distance of Baghdad."

[TLBSHOW]

I don't believe I brought up that you are a lair tonight, you did.

[info_scout]

>>> The person ( info_scout ), who employed this word, referring to the FIRST SEVEN DAYS of this war, doesn't know the meaning of this word.<<<

>>>If ONLY people would NOT talk about things they know little to NOTHING about, FR wouldn't have to spend so much money on wasted bandwidtdh. :-) <<<

Again, your reply resorts to the personal. If your convictions are secure, why attack an individual expressing another opinion? And I assure you my opinions are entirely my own, although as all of us are influenced by the information we have available (or are willing to consider).

Are you sure that people should not express opinions just because you do not agree? If they do not agree with an opinion does that mean the individual does not know what they are talking about, and are unworthy of 'bandwidth'? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that was the whole point of maintaining a forum for the exchange of ideas among conservatives.

[Howlin]

Give it a rest; we all know who the fraud is here.

[montag813]

By who?

By Powell himself, as told through the media via unnamed "aides" (the "TIME" story was the most prominent), that he would resign before the 2004 elections if the U.S. did not seek a resolution authorizing the use of force via the U.N. A matter of record, confirmed by my own sources in the West Wing.

[nopardons]

" EMOTINALY " ? i AM not " e-m-o-t-i-o-n-a-l " at all. I am PASSIONATE and do NOT suffer fools lightly. Attempting to blame , whatever it is you are attempting to pin on me, by claiming that I am emtional, is obviously your only means of refutation. That's pathetic.

WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN ? You have yet to state it, how YOU know what that plan was, explain your erronious use of the word " debacle ", how it is that YOU and YOU alone, on this thread, know more about this war's plans and strategt than the rest of us. What makes YOU the expert ? And NO, all " opinions " are NOT equal; not here and not anywhere.

Have you ever read Julius Caesar's " THE GALLIC WARS " ? I have; in Latin, translated it, in its entirity into English, and read true experts' translations. His " war plans " changed, as necessary. Have YOU ever read ANY general's memoirs ? I have. They ALL, from Alexander, to Caesar, to Napoleon,to George Washington, to whomever else you'd care to name, have plans and then change them, when they MUST be changed.

What's " apparent " , mordantly so, is that YOU haven't a clue; not a glimmer of an idea, about what you are attempting to opine about and are utterly bereft of logic, or common sense. In 90 days, or less, those , who are running this war will, no doubt about it, change their battle strategy, as events come and go. " SPIN " ? What " spin " ? You and I and the rest of us don't KNOW what their plans are now !

[Cold Heat]

Uk centcom briefing on FOX.

It is/was getting testy!

[Howlin]

Got a link to that?

[nopardons]

You may be " honest "; you certainly aren't a Conservative !

[Grampa Dave]

BS Massfey is another perfumed prince of the Clintoons:

Jed Babbin's Warnings Re: Barry McCaffrey
National Review Online ^ | March 26, 2003 | Jed Babbin


Posted on 03/26/2003 7:54 AM PST by the_doc


You might wonder why Gen. McCaffrey--like Gen. Wesley Clark and several others--seem to be shilling for the Dems who oppose the war.


A pal of mine, who was a Navy officer at the time, told me about how the entire staff of the European command he served in was summoned on short notice for an urgent briefing one day in 1996. Seems like some bigshot White House general was coming to get everyone straightened out about life. My pal glanced at his classified files, threw them in the safe, straightened his tie, and went into the briefing room.


Forty-five minutes late, Gen. Barry McCaffrey walked in, and not to do business with the staff. McCaffrey took the occasion to lecture them roundly and soundly about how the kiddie corral that made up the Clinton White House were the best and brightest ever, and how the assembled officers should be proud to serve under such a president.


McCaffrey--once Clinton's drug czar--had been seduced, and remains so. His judgment, like Clark's (who wants to be the Dem candidate for president), is entirely suspect.

---

Rummy is responsible for the lives of about 400,000 people, and he has clymers like McAssrey and Clark, two perfumed prince generals who fawned and suckled under the Clintoon attacking him from the Clintoon News Network. No wonder he is tired. He has to do what is best in the war over there and remove the knives from his back planted by Clark and McAssrey from the Clintoon News Network.

[TLBSHOW]

You give it up. I have already made a truce with one your friends this week and I bet you and I could have a truce too. Well maybe. At least I will put out my hand. Its up to you.

[Howlin]

I don't do truces with people who say that the sitting president of the United States is a traitor.

[info_scout]

>>>Your erronious use of quite simple English words, led me to ask the question. Your vocabulary use & comprehnsion stink...

More personal assaults. Why not focus on the ideas? That is what has been great about FR. Let's stick to the topic rather than attacking one anothers intellect, writing, etc.

[Carolinamom]

Any man has a right to his own opinions as long as he can defend them with facts.

[TLBSHOW]

I said Grover was a traitor not the President. You know that already. I tried for a truce with you but you're beyond hope I guess.

[thoughtomator]

I'll be the first to say it:

Weasely Clark

*bow* thank you, you know you will be using it all the way to 2004

[TLBSHOW]

Then answer the question.

[Howlin]

I guess Jim misunderstood, too, eh?

To: Fred Mertz

I was po'd at TLB because he was using this series to imply that Bush was a traitor in bed with the terrorists. Sorry, but this is about the silliest thing I've ever seen him post. Well, maybe not the silliest. There's a whole lot of silliness in Todd's many thousands of posts.

119 posted on 02/27/2003 1:25 AM EST by Jim Robinson

[TLBSHOW]

I will admit that I did say that about a sitting President once and his name was Bill Clinton. I said it from 1993 to 2000. In fact I bet you did too.

[Howlin]

Nice try. Your words stand.

[info_scout]

>>>Pretty soon we will utterly destroy the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen.<<<

No admiration here for Clintonian Clark. I may disagree with many here about the war and the way it has been executed, but on that last point, I sincerely hope you're right. Regards.