A Plan Under Attack [America's Losing the War Alert]

Dammit! We're in a tight spot!

It is hard to know the true level of discontent in the Arab world...
Who gives a rat's ass?!!
The Islamofacsist Arabs will hate us no matter what.
They will hate us as long as we do not embrace their pathological hatred of Israel and their death wish for every Jew on the planet.
Unless we embrace their madness, they will continue to hate us.

Iraqis seething with hatred for the US
and Israel ripped an American flag
after Friday prayers outside the mosque
of Al Azhar University in Cairo.

Well if newsweak say it it's gota be true- lets all surrender now and become good little socialists!

I remain unconvinced that the "Abab Street," or even the "Muslim"world wide street can be decisive. Mobs have played a role in that part of the world forever, but without leaders their force is easily disapated.

And not ONCE have I seen ANY suggestions from the Arabian Communities as to HOW else to deal or handle the situation.

The arabs have always hated us...SO WHAT!!

That will never change... unless we kill ALL the Jews for them and place their heads on pikes and give them as presents of for ramadamadingdong!

OH, Please...like I care if arabs like us. NOT!!

There is poll to freep on that article. Lower left hand side of the page.

BUMP!!!!!

Any mideast report given by the CIA is by definition wrong. The CIA made no mention of how Saddam's son groomed Ba'ath party goons to be suicide terrorists. If the CIA had reported this, it could have been included in the war plan.

As far as Arab anger is concerned, that is solved with firepower.

We've a war to win,let them fret.God Bless our Armed Forces!

There is poll to freep on that article. Lower left hand side of the page.

Maybe we should not even give them the web hits.

When my wife was in college, she was ordered to subscribe to Newsweek for one of her classes.

Just to make sure she Thought Right, I guess.

and their death wish for every Jew on the planet. And even if we did, they would continue to hate us: our individualism, which made us prosperous and victorious of the last 500 years, is the anti-thesis to Islam (submission). Israelis are just closer to them and are on the land of the Caliphate. When they killed 3,000 on Sep 11, they were not fighting Israel or even Jews in general.

Once again, Evans Thomas and his fellow media-heads have their basic facts right, but they are completely incapable of interpreting what it means. They have joined in the cacaphony of bleeting that is totally irrelevant.

My views were laboriously expressed in another thread, extracted below.

I have listened to this argument for several days now, and am now finally compelled to try and bring some reason to the discussion. Your point is right on the mark - not sure that our fellow travellers are prepared to listen, but, let's give it a try.

The Vernon Loeb article is actually the best I have seen on the subject so far. Except for the remarks by Tony Cordesman, he has got it just about right.

Before I start what will be a lengthy discussion, let me first make a few necessary stipulations:

1) The press are clueless. Even when they accurately record events, they are unable to interprete what they are seeing. The combination of their ignorance, their bias, and their pack mentality is amazing to watch. Fortunately, the American people have become more sophisticated consumers of news, and recognize that these morons are making fools of themselves. Seymour Hersch, who has written a similar article, is a known liar, and left wing zealot. But, he does gets the facts generally right in this case. We need to separate Hersch's and the media's agenda from the information that thhe report.

2) Secretary Rumsfeld is one of a group of so-called Hawks who recognized during the Clinton Administration that the policy of containment vis a vis Iraq was fatally flawed. Wolfowicz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, et. al. understood that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the United States through their pursuit of WMD and their willingness to use them to achieve their aims. Likewise, the rise of Islamofacists organizations, bent on attacking the U. S. by whatever means possible represented a serious threat to the country. The combination of the two presented an unacceptable state of affairs. They tried to persuade Clinton to change our policy, but, not surprisingly, were not successful. After 9/11, President Bush became convinced that a change of policy was in order and he endorsed the views of the Hawks. They have been proven right, and we are fortunate to have a President willing to make the tough decisions to do what needs to be done. Rumsfeld and the rest of the hawks deserve our respect and admiration for their foresight, judgment, and tenactiy to get U.S. policy aligned against the threats facing us (see the Frontline piece for a good discussion of this).

3) Much of the sharpshooting among Freepers has been directed against the "Clinton Generals". In fact, there are no "Clinton Generals". After Clinton got his nose bloodied over the homosexuals in the military flap, he decided to leave the military alone. The services were free to select their own senior generals and their recommendations for key positions were not overuled by the Administration. These guys were not Clinton Toadies - the toadies were the usual suspects - the political appointees in DOD. GEN Wesley Clark is often cited as an example, but this view is off the mark. Wes Clark and Bill Clinton are friendly toward one another, and share many personality traits. But, Wes Clark thinks that he would make a better President than Bill Clinton, and like Bill Clinton, he is supremely ambitious. Like Bill Clinton's self-absorbed behavior, everything that Wes Clark does is for the betterment of Wesley K. Clark. This sometimes results in the two men getting crosswises.

Now, to get on with the question at hand. Rumsfeld did exactly as reported by Mr. Loeb. He micromanaged the OPLAN and the TPFDD. He reduced the numbers of ground forces required by the original plan. He played a petty litlle bureaucratic game by delaying decisions and postponing deployments in order to get what he wanted. He hedged his bets so that he could cover his butt in case things didn't go the way he thought they would. In short, he has directed the war effort in exactly the same way he has directed every other activity in DOD. He runs the Pentagon from the top down, listening only to a small group of OSD insiders, all civilians. He has great disdain for the military in general, and for the Army in particular. He has put a number of noses out of joint. Of course, he is the boss, all of this is his call. He correctly sees a need to make big changes within DOD and believes that this is the best way to do it. Change isn't easy and there are going to be a lot of broken rice bowls when this is all over. What we need to ask ourselves is whether Rumsfeld is going in the right direction, and are his decisions harmful to the war effort.

To the second question first. We are clearly at least one heavy division and one Armored Cavalry Regiment short of what we need to prosecute this war the way any good soldier would want to do it. I would like to have a couple more divisions just to be on the safe side. God favors big battalions, and MASS is still the preemminent principle of war. Of course, if the Turks had approved the deployment of the 4th Infantry Division, we wouldn't be having this dicussion. But, they didn't, and we got caught a little short. It seems to me that someone made an operational mistake, by delaying the decision to redirect the 4th ID's equipment. I don't know the source of the delay, some reports say Rumsfeld, some say Franks - I can't say, but in the end the decision was made and the division is on the way. From a military perspective, the shortage of combat power is a short term problem - not very significant. We can and will mass combat power, attack, and achieve our objectives. After executing the greatest approach march, movement to contact, and hasty attack in the history of warfare, a tactical, not operational pause, to build combat power and prepare for a deliberate attack is exactly what any competent commander would do. The press frenzy over this is nonsense, and the overall effect on the military plan in insignificant. The delay in getting 4th ID, 3ACR, and 2ACR into the fight will, in the end, be just a minor hiccup.

What is perhaps more important in the long run, and what has been completely missed by the press, is the long term effect of Rumsfeld's decision and his reasons for making those decisions. Just as Rumsfeld is right on mark on the national policy issues of Iraqi containment - he is equally wrong in his views of how to operationally and tactically execute a campaign. The SECDEF is a strong supporter of the Shock and Awe school that holds that military objectives can be quickly achieved by the massive and precise application of military power directed at the political and military leadership of an opponent. He is not alone in this view, many others, mostly airmen, are of a similar mind. We have seen this argument playing out in recent conflicts: Gulf War I, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq. The airmen crowd cite evidence that supports their view, their critics point out the flaws in their logic. This debate will have enormous consequences. It will shape the size and composition of our future military force and will dictate the scope of military options available to the President.

Rumsfeld strongly believes that airpower will be the dominant arm of 21st Century warfare. A shock and awe campaign, support by Special Operating Forces (read, Afghanistan), followed by a small follow-on force of MP's, Civil Affairs, etc. to restore order and administer humanitarian aid will be all that's required. For those nasty little uprisings where our Embassies and tourists find themselves in harm's way, we have the Marine Corps. In short, the SECDEF sees little use for much of an Army and this is the crux of the debate. His views were reinforced by the events of the Afghan campaign. CENTCOM recommended a much heavier force, but in the end, achieved great success with the precise application of Special Ops directed air. He was convinced he could do the same thing in Iraq. He thought that Iraqi forces would collapse like a house of cards as they had done in Kuwait 12 years ago. He believed that the Kurds and the Shiites would rise up and overthrow the evil oppressors. It would all be over in a week. Of course, he might have been right. It was worth the risk of giving it a try. It might still work. But, he made his decisions not for strategic or operational reasons. He made them because he wanted to prove to the military that his views on warfighting were correct and that the Army was wrong. He did it to provide ammunition for the political and policy battles to come over transformation. He did it because he is arrogant and pig-headed.

I don't agree with Rumfeld's view of 21st Century warfare. Events are demonstrating that you still need mass. You still need to seize and control terrain by force of arms. You still need both a strong Army and Marine Corps. We are fortunate to have the most potent Air Force and Naval Aviation force that the world has ever seen. Their combat capabilities are awesome and they are essential to success. But, they can't do it alone and that's what this is all about.

OK, I've said my piece. I have donned my Asbestos suit, barricaded myself behind chunks of Space Shuttle ceramic tile, and am prepared to defend myself. Flame away.

THANK YOU... Mr. Perle.

"Well if newsweak say it it's gota be true- lets all surrender now and become good little socialists!"

That's exactly what they want, IMO, too.

It's nauseating to see how much the Left hopes for failure in this, their only motivation being to accumulate even more power.

US WarPlan on schedule - efreedomnews

Why did we try to kill Iraq's leaders but leave the trappings of power i.e. mass comunications intact? This strategy just may have allowed the second team to win the propoganda war!

Franks: 'Where we stand today is . . . truly remarkable' (LIBERAL NEWS won't report this)

Evan Thomas is a POS.

Go to the story and participate in the poll located down on the left side of the webpage.

Did the United States underestimate the strength of the Iraqi military?

* 7043 responses

Yes. The fight is much more difficult than anyone seemed to expect - 49%

No. The battle is going according to plan; the media is overreacting - 47%

I don't know - 4%