Rolling to war with too few troops

MSNBC ^ | 03/28/03 | Col. Jack Jacobs (Ret)

[CasearianDaoist]

Not to mention at least 2 brigades form the 82nd Airborne that no one can find. I cannot belive that effect the media is having - don't they remember Afghanistan. The sad thing is that after this brilliant campaign is over the media myths will linger. I was talking to some liberals this morning and they honestly believe that an American Division or MEF would be starving inside a week. It defies simple common sense.

[Jim Noble]

It's hard to know what's really going on here (I mean at home among the civilians and generals at the Pentagon, on the battlefield, we're kicking ass).

There is no question that there was vociferous dissent from three- and four-stars at the Pentagon to the Rumsfeld war plan. No doubt about it.

Some of the Ricks article was, I'm sure, fueled by backwash fom this dissent, which has otherwise been very well concealed.

Whether or not these retired "analysts" are being fed by their colleagues at the Pentagon, in an early outbreak of Fedayeen Clinton activity agaist Bush and Rummy, it is too soon to say.

We should remain open to the possibility that the dissenters were (are) correct, though.

However, the fact that we are confused by what's happening on the ground in Iraq, as opposed to on the ground in Crystal City, is probably deliberate.

[wideawake]

My little brother is a tank commander with the 4ID - he says they've been practicing for this for quite a while in some pretty challenging weather conditions.

[oyez]

If don't learn any thing from this war I will be able to sort out crapy reading material from the halfway good stuff.

[verity]

A gaggle of has-beens joins a flock of never were.

[HapaxLegamenon]

According to Ted Koppel, an expert on the military, we should be waging the war we are winning differently.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for sharing the reality of your brother versus the tryanny of the perfumed princes and their 5th column supporters on this board, pretending to be conservatives.

Here is another perfumed princess loudmouth who has been outed as another up the Clymer of the Clintoon.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876173/posts

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.

[MSgt Smith]

Last century the conventional wisdom was 10 attackers to 1 defender. What the armchair generals fail to realize is that was last century. What is the force multiplier for an A-10, B-52, B-2 or an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank that can take out their tanks before they can see us? You have to have boots on the ground to take territory; they don’t have to be the ones that take out the defenders.

[Utah Girl]

Rick Levanthal asked the military leader last night about what the armchair analysts are saying. The military guy said "With all due respect, this is NOT their war, this is our war. This is NOT the Gulf war, this is NOT Vietnam, this is Iraq, and different circumstances. We're kicking *ss and taking names. If any of the analysts would like to come over, we have room in some vehicles and some available rifles." It was excellent, I about stood up and cheered. Oh, and he said that things are going really well, they're right where they need to be.

[ought-six]

I have no real criticism per se about how the war is being fought. In fact, I share with the brass the surprise of only two things: The speed with which our ground troops raced north toward Baghdad outpaced their supply line (a logistical issue); and the failure of the Iraqis to surrender as we had thought and apparent aggressiveness of the Saddamite thugs of the fedayeen and their ilk (an intelligence gaff). These things happen in war. NO WAR PLAN survives the first shot. The fact we can adjust, and at the same time continue to pound Iraqi forces and assets, simply reinforces the fact we have the world's best military and the outcome of this war is obvious. God bless our troops, and keep them safe.

[LS]

Well, just by the addition of what is out there, it is at least somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 men---and maybe, depending on how many of the pre-hostilities troops that moved through Saudi Arabia WITHOUT REPORTERS, are in there, it could be 30,000. That is more than a division that has "disappeared." Someone is in for a surprise.

[68skylark]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm aware of the ways that reporters can get small nuances of a story wrong (especially if they don't have military experience themselves). I don't mean that as a harsh slam on reporters -- I'd probably make the same mistakes if I told a story about a topic I don't know much about.

From what I know, 120,000 troops have received deployment orders by yesterday to start leaving the U. S. for the Centcom theatre of operations -- these are active duty troops or reserves that were called to active duty some time ago. I've seen this from multiple sources.

I think it may be likely that we'll have a new wave of Guard and Reserve troops called to active duty after the current troops ship out of their stateside bases. Or maybe not -- I don't really know, and I'm following the call ups as closely as I can (because they have a small effect on me personally).

Like I say, if you come across new information about this topic that can be posted to a public forum, please keep us up to date. Thanks, and take care.

[Conspiracy Guy]

See post #26. If Ted said it, we should surrender now.

[Spruce]

We are witnessing the biggest Ass-Kicking in military history

[Coop]

Not trying to look down on the fine efforts of our troops thus far, I'm just saying that I personally have a bad feeling about what we might be facing and how we may or may not have planned for battle in terms of troop strength and enemy ferocity.

Mike, if our military forces aren't capable of planning for groups of rag-tag terrorists in pickup trucks, then we would not be a superpower.

We're at war, so consequently I'm worried about our troops (especially relating to WMD). But I'm not at all worried about the handwringers. Iraq has shown me next to nothing so far. We'll see what the future holds.

[MEGoody]

This guy sounds like Chicken Little to me.

[Consort]

Stop watching MSNBC....take a deep breath....be optimistic.... Did I say stop watching MSNBC?

[Lysander]

Despite the enormous success of the campaign, we're about to lose after just 7 days!

War is win-lose. Having enormous success the first week is like almost getting pregnant.

[The Vast Right Wing]

If you have a bad feeling about the war. Go to National Review Online and read the article by Victor Davis Hanson. I think you will have a different perspective. Military people always want more troops in the field, it makes their job easier and less deadly. At any rate, more troops are arriving every day and the 4ID will be there and ready to go in 7-10 days.