Posted on 03/26/2003 8:08:17 PM PST by 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."
Here's a bold proposal: Why don't we seize Baghdad's civilian and military airports and fly our supplies ... C-130 and C-17 direct to YOU! Operators are standing by.
There will be no extended guerilla warfare in Baghdad. The citizens are currently non-committal because Baghdad is controlled by Saddam's sociopath butchers, also known as "House Security". They may use the domiciles and businesses of regular schlumps for safe houses, but that request usually entails threatening the immediate execution of the nearest family member as a persuasive closing technique. If a rifle-weilding guy wanders from a house into the middle of a Baghdad street in full view of Force Recon, Ranger or British SF guys ... they just might shoot up the doorway of the building he just emerged from.
Guerilla warfare requires a greater population invested in the survival of the government or regime. Nobody in Iraq, besides the war criminals liable to hang anyway, is going to willingly fight for Saddam Hussein. They're out there fighting at the barrel-end of a gun. A gun weilded by the guys who need to get their ongoing protection and sanctuary.
It won't happen. Saddam forbade his Revolutionary Guard regulars from entering Baghdad BECAUSE he feared a violent overthrow of his regime. It's like the SS, Gestapo vs. the German regulars who took thrill filled and chronically fatal business trips to Turkey, Anzio, Tunis, Stalingrad, the bottom of the North Atlantic minus the U-Boat and the doozy of a landing crash pads of Belgium, France and the English countryside.
Berliners wouldn't support the sanctuary and guerilla operations of Hitler's henchmen. Sans Hitler, when the end was near? Pffffft! The shiny black booted guys were the folks who scared the hell out of everyone and made people disappear.
OK .. read the article
All this over Clinton's Butt Boy Clark? .. They man is a Jack** .. always was and always will be
Secondly, it is NOT a " personal attack ", to state a proven fact about another poster. You used the word " debacle " erroniously. Neither did you correct use the two word phrase " screw up " ! You claim that you have the RIGHT to state your opinion and that it is a " good " as everyone else's. You have that right; however, when based on biases , is simple conjecture, with out merit, AND a total waste of bandwidth, it is MY right and everyone eles's , to go at you with FACTS, refute your solophisms, and show you the errors of your ways.
I have yet to leave this topic, whilst discussing this with you.
Off topic; however, salient to the matter... WHOM DID YOU VOTE FOR IN 2000 ? Oh, and whom were you for in the primaries ?
The thread has been somewhat entertaining. It has kept me up way past bed time.
Not surprising at all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.