To: Grampa Dave
An excellent London Times OPED without the lies and spin of our left wing mediots.
Yes, it's a good article. Rather than being automatically anti-Bush - including any and all subordinates - it actually provides a respectful analysis of someone in a position of responsibility, for whom most answers have good and bad elements.
However, it's a one-sided article as well. It's all pro-Rumsfeld. I'm prepared to believe that any officer who was at general-officer rank during the Clinton era should be discounted at least and put in jail at best (unless he quit, like Shoemaker). However, there are two sides to most issues. This op-ed is probably too space-limited to develop both sides, but there are some things that Rumsfeld has done that should be cause for concern.
He has put all out eggs in the Afghanistan/Iraq type of conflict. His assumption is that we will be fighting a low-technology enemy who will allow our aircraft to roam at will through the airspace. As a result, the enemy will not benefit from set-piece battles or massed armor formations, so these can be essentially ignored. A lightning strike will work.
But what happens if we go up against a technologically sophisticated foe, with legitimate air defenses? With no Crusader artillery (as one example), we're going to have a hard time delivering ordnance. What happens if we have another sanctuary situation where the bad guy slips back and forth over a line our own forces cannot cross? (And don't think that won't happen. It's happening now with 'insurgents' from both Iran and Syria. But it could happen with raiding aircraft as in Korea instead of just 'insurgents.')
Perhaps he's made the right decisions, but those who are concerned have a valid point. You can use a high-tech answer in a low-tech war, but you better not bring a low-tech force structure (or one that requires your opponent be low-tech) to a high-tech war.
When we go up against the Chinese, or against Muslims with French/German/Japanese jammers and SAMs, we're going to find that light infantry has a very, very hard time, even if they're as good as our Special Forces are.
posted on 04/19/2006 1:58:36 PM PDT
You state the real issues well.
One of Rumsfeld's ideas is apparently to substitute helicopters and missiles for artillery like the Crusader. I read of one battle where this was put to the test as we moved toward Baghdad. Helicopters were sent against an entrenched Iraqi line, but got shot up without dislodging them. Field pieces were eventually brought up to greater effect. Sandstorms are also not a helicopter's friend, artillery is a good deal less impressed by bad weather.
posted on 04/19/2006 2:12:51 PM PDT
"When we go up against the Chinese, or against Muslims with French/German/Japanese jammers and SAMs, we're going to find that light infantry has a very, very hard time, even if they're as good as our Special Forces are."
I see your comment and reasoning as an insult to our Navy Personnel and Air Force Personnel and a bs way to defend these rotten generals. The same bs as the old Admirals tried to use when we phased out our battleships and heavy cruisers.
posted on 04/19/2006 4:53:00 PM PDT
by Grampa Dave
(There's a dwindling market for Marxist homosexual lunatic wet dreams posing as journalism)
With no Crusader artillery (as one example), we're going to have a hard time delivering ordnance.
For that matter, I can't imagine the administration allowing a weapons system named "Crusader" to be deployed in Middle East. I'm not saying that's why it was killed. I just find the name ironic.
posted on 04/19/2006 7:13:10 PM PDT
Put in jail!!! What? Someone has lost all perspective and, hopefully, only temporary loss of their common sense. It sounds more like the Stalinesque purge that cost the Soviet Union more than 3 million dead during Hitler's Operation Barbarossa than any statement of rationality.
posted on 04/20/2006 3:38:05 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson