Posted on 08/17/2002 4:53:49 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Also, let me know if you can't find it, and I will dig it up.
Could you do that? I would really appreciate it. You should see my self-search! hehe
Morning, btw =^)
Here is the link..I found this VERY interesting:
The sheer volume of replies to threads I post makes it impossible for me to reply to all...lol.
The successes of the 1990s led to a school of thought within the military, particularly in the U.S. Air Force, that a qualitative shift in warfare already had taken place. Advances in both the technology and the doctrine of the air campaign had advanced to the point that air power could paralyze an enemy's capability to wage war.
The Air Force has always believed they could single handedly win any war. The only time troops on the ground were not required was when two atom bombs were dropped.
Saddam's security forces are highly effective, in large part because of their brutality.
Bullies are always effective when none can stand against them. They have proven cowards before.
There is an analogy here with the Bay of Pigs, which was predicated on the assumption that the landing of a few hundred paramilitaries, coupled with U.S. air power, would trigger a rising against Cuban leader Fidel Castro. There was never an expectation that the direct force would be successful, only that it would trigger indigenous forces. It could be argued that the cancellation of planned air strikes represented a major shift from the original plan, but it is extremely unlikely that even air strikes would have led to an uprising. Castro's security services were simply too good and his popularity was too secure.
The plan was to provide air support so that the landing could succeed and the units move into the hills to organize the opposition. The planning and schedule left a lot to be desired. But when JFK pulled the air support that screwed everyone on the ground. The landing would never have been executed if JFK’s cowardice had been known ahead of time.
The U.S. Army has not assaulted a very large, defended city in its history.
Golly-gosh, I guess Hue doesn’t count. Oh that’s right, it was a U. S. Marine operation.
Since the United States is casualty-averse, its doctrine calls for maneuvering around urban areas without entering them.
I don’t believe that the United States is alone in that doctrine. Only the ChiComs believe in the massive assault theory of war.
On the other side – in its extreme form – there is Stalingrad and the memory of what defensive warfare can do to a mobile enemy when drawn into a major city.
Stalingrad was a fixation of Hitler and not based on sound military strategy. In addition, Russia has always relied on slowly surrendering territory until its greatest defensive weapon comes to bear, the Russian Winter.
Have yet to take a position regarding Iraq? Haven't made up your mind yet where you stand? Still not quite sure if you're for or against toppling Saddam?Well, let me help you.
The roster of opponents to action in Iraq reads like a who's who of the finest, most brilliant military thinkers today. Take it from me, these people are pillars -- indeed, the creme-de-la-creme -- of the national security community, unparalleled paragons of winning war strategy, tactics -- you name it.
Take Gen. Maureen Dowd.
For those of you in Palm Beach county, Gen. Dowd unquestionably stands among the world's most preeminent thinkers -- a venerable authority not just on military affairs, but on darn near everything you can think of. Whether it's brokering peace in the Middle East, to the sex lives of Hollywood apotheosis Michael Douglas, Gen. Dowd has the answers.
Heck, my motto is, 'when in doubt, just ask Gen. Dowd -- she's the sage'.
Not impressed?
Okay, I'll toss out another name.
How's about Gen. Bill Press?
Not familiar with him? Ha! Shame on you.
Look, he may be a political commentator, but don't let that fool you. Beneath that goofy, geeky, dorky, cartoonish facade, lies a military genius, a true oracle on war and peace.
Okay, okay, so he's not exactly a General.
So what? Let me tell you, the man is battle-hardened, a veteran of combat like few men have ever seen.
Remember the Monica wars and the battle of impeachment? That's when he earned his metals and honors, courageously defending his commander-in-briefs, Der Schlickmeister, directing the tanks and artillery, heroically fending off Republican fusillades of mean-spirited allegations.
Battle-hardened, indeed!
Huh? Still not impressed? Sheesh. You're one tough customer, aren't you?
Does the name Chris Matthews ring a bell?
Some swill-spewing, silly, giddy TV talking-airhead, you say?
Think again.
Talk about intellectual fire-power! Maxine Waters -- step aside.
The Hardball host once worked in the White House of one of history's greatest successes -- Jimmy 'Killer-Rabbit' Carter!
Yes-siree, Bob.
Sure he was wrong about Reagan and the Soviets and the Cold War and 'Star Wars' and the military and Bush and the Taliban and Afghanistan and the 'axis-of-evil'......
...okay, okay, never mind. You're still not impressed, I see.
Of course, if VIPs as towering as Dowd and Press and Matthews won't jolt you off the fence, well then, what about foreign policy savants like Barbara Streisand?
Or Madeline Albright?
Or Sandy Burger?
No? Still not impressed?
All right. I've got just the name: Gen. Brent Scowcroft!
Ah, yes! The media's flavor-of-the-week (it was Dick Armey last week).
Scowcroft was Bush-the-elder's National Security Affairs Advisor during Desert Storm.
In an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal, Don't Attack Saddam, Scowcroft warned the Bush administration to keep hands-off Iraq.
Basically, he offers the following:
1) Forget about being pro-active. Be reactive. Pretend 9/11 never happened. Bury your head in the sand. Wait till the enemy strikes first, then, and only then, strike back. Wait till he hits us with weapons of mass destruction -- then react.
The Scowcroft principle: Don't just do something, stand there!
2) The "coalition" is more important than the mission itself. In fact, it should determine the mission. As President, your first duty is to protect and defend the coalition. It says so in the constitution. The U.N. constitution, that is.
3) Forget about leadership. Go wobbly, George. Be a follower. Listen to the Euroweenies. Be an Angloweenie. Listen to the Saudis. Listen to the Syrians. Let them know you feel their pain. Listen to the people who danced and pranced and celebrated in the streets when the towers fell. Don't -- repeat: Don't -- do anything that might make them mad. They might not like us if we do. Make 'em mad, and they'll unleash Armageddon on you! Can't do that, wouldn't be prudent.
(Backing down now would shatter the credibility of the United States. Our reputation would be left in tatters, our enemies, emboldened.)
4) Forget about making a case. There is no case against Saddam. He's not a terrorist, nor is he connected to terrorism.
(Saddam is funding the families of homicide bombers in Israel, $50,000 each. Moreover, Iraq was behind the first World Trade Center bombing in February of '93. Saddam plotted the attempted assassination of President Bush (41) in Kuwait in '93. New Yorker reporter Jeffery Goldberg has extensively documented close connections between Iraqi intelligence and top al-Qaeda leaders. No link to terrorism, eh, Scowcroft? Nice try.)
5) Forget that Saddam is blatantly violating the terms and conditions of a ceasefire. No big deal.
6) Trust weapons inspections. We all know how good that worked for 10 years, right?
Wait a minute.....hmmmmmmm.....Gee, did you notice something? Scowcroft sounds awfully defensive, doesn't he? Why, come to think of it, he's really defending himself -- his harebrained advise to leave Saddam in power after Desert Storm.
In short, this is damage control, pure and simple. Big time C.Y.A. This is about ego. Scowcroft's ego. He just can't bring himself to admit he was wrong.
Scowcroft memo to Bush: Forget history. Don't learn from our mistakes. Repeat them.
To the American people, Scowcroft's message is:
Trust me. Don't trust Bush. Don't trust Rumsfeld. Don't trust Tommy Franks. Don't trust Condi Rice. No, I'm not in the loop, nor am I privy to high-level info nor high-level planning nor secret intelligence. Nor do I get any briefings. I'm completely in the dark. But trust me.
Uh, trust you, Gen. Scowcroft?
Gee, excuse me, but I see one itsy-bitsy problem with this: Your track record. According to you (circa summer 1990), Saddam would never invade Kuwait and the Soviet Union would never collapse.
Not exactly confidence building, now is it?
One more thing -- this is a big one:
"[Scowcroft] OPPOSED even toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, which he thought would be, diplomatically, too difficult to do", Rich Lowry of National Review told Hardball Thursday night.
Trust you, Gen. Scowcroft? Ah, thanks, but no thanks.
Team Bush has earned my trust.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Georgie Patton's Third Army at Metz in 1944 comes to mind. Heavily defended, Patton crippled by a shortage of fuel and supplies [to the extent that Third Army's Corps artillery support sometimes came from captured German 88MM and other guns and ammunition- which worked just fine!] and the first foothold across the Rhine into German territory. I ccan't think of anything directly equivalent, unless it would be the occupation of Santo Domingo, the capital city, during the Dominican Republic *incursion* of 1965-66, Operation Power Pack. But in that instance, the idea was to minimize damage and casualties, and at Metz, which included direct-fire artillery support from 155-mm Howitzers, that was certainly less the case.
Amateurs and lieutenants study tactics and strategy; professionals sweat the logistics.
-archy-/-
When the PLO stood and fought, Israel declined combat, knowing that urban warfare provides a huge advantage for the defender, particularly one familiar with the landscape. When the Soviet army closed on Berlin in 1945, it had complete air superiority, ringed the city with artillery, outnumbered the defenders and was enormously better armed, equipped and trained. The German defenders – children and old men in many cases – knew that the war was lost. Nevertheless, the Soviets suffered tens of thousands of casualties taking the city.
***** *****
Those familiar with the war will recall that General Zhukov was a major hero at the end of the war for his drive on Berlin, but even then he was prepared to sacrifice soldiers to his cause. As Glantz notes, he "would replicate this bloodletting in strikingly similar fashion when, in April and May 1945, the 1st Belorussian Front, under his direct command, would lose 37,610 killed and missing and 141,880 wounded in the Berlin operation, about half of the total casualties suffered by the three participating Soviet fronts."Gregori Arbatov was a rifle company commander in the Red Army in the Battle of Berlin. He took terrible casualties. Some of them were men he had led in the Battle of Moscow, and so many others. Fifty years later he still shook with fury at the thought of Stalin's insistence on taking the city. Arbatov said any sane man would have surrounded Berlin, pounded it with artillery, and waited for the inevitable capitulation. 'But not that son of a bitch Stalin. He sent us into the city, with all those crazy Nazi kids, and we bled.' The estimated casualty cost was 100,000.--David M. Glantz, Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942 (University Press of Kansas, 1999; David M. Glantz
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.