Experience may not fit present foe

Excerpts
Retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a strategic planner, said the United States may be embarking on “an endless war of attrition against a faceless enemy — think of a global Viet Cong.”
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is said by associates to enjoy his description by Henry Kissinger, years ago, as the most ruthless man he knew.
Then, and far more important, Bush administration officials describe their determination to prosecute a sustained campaign. Military insiders say there is talk of hitting multiple targets in several nations repeatedly and in a variety of ways, using everything from Special Forces “direct action” teams to airstrikes and even to large-scale ground attacks.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, overruled by Bush’s father as he pressed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 for U.S. ground troops to take control of Baghdad, announced a policy of “ending states who sponsor terrorism.”
Partly for that reason, there are already differences of emphasis becoming evident among the president’s advisers, a phenomenon that policymaking veterans described as inevitable and healthy. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, by practice more nuanced than some of his peers, said Washington is “not threatening” other nations, even those “serving as a haven” for America’s foes.
Some Bush advisers are inclined by history to favor a ground war to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University, expects them to advocate just that should evidence emerge of his involvement in Tuesday’s attacks.
There has been less public speculation about how the enemy in this war will choose to respond. Every war has two sides, and the U.S. public needs to expect reprisals, warned James Bodner, a former Pentagon official. “Future attacks against us will be planned, and some may occur,” Bodner said. As in no other American conflict, civilians are on the front line. That’s especially worrisome because the public infrastructure of the United States — especially its airports and border controls — wasn’t designed with a long military campaign in mind. “The safest place to be in this kind of warfare may be in uniform,” noted retired Army Col. Johnny Brooks.

Excerpts

Retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a strategic planner, said the United States may be embarking on “an endless war of attrition against a faceless enemy — think of a global Viet Cong.”

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is said by associates to enjoy his description by Henry Kissinger, years ago, as the most ruthless man he knew.

Then, and far more important, Bush administration officials describe their determination to prosecute a sustained campaign. Military insiders say there is talk of hitting multiple targets in several nations repeatedly and in a variety of ways, using everything from Special Forces “direct action” teams to airstrikes and even to large-scale ground attacks.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, overruled by Bush’s father as he pressed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 for U.S. ground troops to take control of Baghdad, announced a policy of “ending states who sponsor terrorism.”

Partly for that reason, there are already differences of emphasis becoming evident among the president’s advisers, a phenomenon that policymaking veterans described as inevitable and healthy. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, by practice more nuanced than some of his peers, said Washington is “not threatening” other nations, even those “serving as a haven” for America’s foes.

Some Bush advisers are inclined by history to favor a ground war to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University, expects them to advocate just that should evidence emerge of his involvement in Tuesday’s attacks.

There has been less public speculation about how the enemy in this war will choose to respond. Every war has two sides, and the U.S. public needs to expect reprisals, warned James Bodner, a former Pentagon official. “Future attacks against us will be planned, and some may occur,” Bodner said. As in no other American conflict, civilians are on the front line. That’s especially worrisome because the public infrastructure of the United States — especially its airports and border controls — wasn’t designed with a long military campaign in mind. “The safest place to be in this kind of warfare may be in uniform,” noted retired Army Col. Johnny Brooks.

Both MacNamara under Johnson and Kissenger under Nixon did not have a clue. There is nothing more helpless than a nasty bast#rd who does not know how to fight. The Johnson and Nixon administration read the polls and feared the wrath of Walter Cronkite. You will see none of that in this Bush Administration.

There is no way that anyone in the Bush administration will buy the graduated respone bit. The policy of the 60's and 70's was started under Kennedy. It was based on the fact the United states was very powerful, and we should only use as much force was was needed to win. The idea was we would teach them a little lesson and they would fold.

It was a disaster. We taught them that they could win if they just held on long enough for us to tire of not winning. They did and we lost. Each attempt by us to use more force was attacked by our own media. Nixon failed to understand that if he had used all our force in ruthless persuit of victory he would have had victory. Victory would have made Nixon more popular than Clinton. His failure to understand that there is no substitute for victory, cost him his presidency.

Bush Sr., Cheney, Powell and Company decided that the way to win was overwhelming force applied every where it could be applied. That indeed does work.

People are misreading the "This will take time statements." You can bet no nation is misreading it. It means we will take whatever time it requires to build up our forces and military power. When the odds for our immediate victory are 99.99999 out of 100 we will attack. Vietnam was, "If we bloody your nose you will surrender." This time it will be, "We will not require dead people to surrender in person."

Look for the media to be put under limits. In World War II General's Eisenhower and MacArthur exercised complete control over all coverage. Our military put the media under some control in Desert Storm. But Bush Sr. only had 36 percent approval for his attack. Bush Jr. has a 90 percent approval for his. He will use that approval to control two forces that oppose him. They are the Taliban and the media.

Don't fail to understand what is being said. It will take time to build up our military power. It is less than 1/4 what it was before Desert Storm and it took 7 months to build up enough force then. It may take longer than 7 months to build up enough force now. This war in tone and strategy will be like WWII. It took us from Dec,7th 1941 until June 6th, 1944 to build a force that could defeat Hitler in Europe. Eisenhower did not attack until he was ready. Stalin and Churhill both wanted a much quicker attack. Had Eisenhower done so, it is likely we would have lost. Bush Jr. will not follow the advice to act too quickly. Bush will assemble what it takes to win. Then win. And that is the name of that tune.

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.