[Mastrap]

There is fresh controversy in the United States about the Iraq battle plan.

The White House continues to say that the troops in Iraq are making progress.

But a magazine article to be published on Monday claims that the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, forced his military chiefs to accept his ideas for a relatively small, lightly armed force.

Mr Rumsfeld is a famously abrasive character who has been accused in the past of bullying his generals.

It is widely accepted that he argued strongly before the war for a small, manoeuvrable force to attack Iraq.

But a lengthy article in this week's edition of the New Yorker magazine goes much further.

It quotes unnamed Pentagon sources as saying Mr Rumsfeld insisted at least six times before the conflict on the proposed numbers of troops being reduced.

It also claims that Mr Rumsfeld overruled the war commander, General Tommy Franks, who wanted to delay the invasion until the American troops denied access to Turkey were brought to Kuwait.

The Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the article but the allegations are likely to cause a political storm here and lead to further difficulties for Mr Rumsfeld and his team.

They desperately need some decisive victories in battle if the American people are to continue to believe what the White House is telling them - that this war is going roughly according to plan.

[clod]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
They desperately need some decisive victories in battle if the American people are to continue to believe what the White House is telling them - that this war is going roughly according to plan.

I think taking 2/3 of Iraq in a week is a start.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by clod:
I think taking 2/3 of Iraq in a week is a start.

If that would be the case that would have been a start, yes. As it stands, the rushed deployment of another 100.000 troops into this war doesn't say "everything is going according to plan" to me.

[climber]

anyone know if Rumsfield has any formal military training and what that is?

[eVil_kEybOarD]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
They desperately need some decisive victories in battle if the American people are to continue to believe what the White House is telling them - that this war is going roughly according to plan.

Oh really. Just the other day the scorecard for one battle was 150-500 Iraqi's dead to zero American casualties, that's pretty decisive in my book. The only set back in this whole thing was Turkey. They held up the 4th Infantry Division from opening a northern front at the same time the 3ID and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force where advancing from the south. It's a minor set back because the 4ID are already enroute to kuwait and should be in Iraq sometime early next month.

BTW/ the 4ID is the world's most advanced mechanized fighting unit and their delay is seen by some as a major set back. It's not. The Republican Guard have proven to be little match for what the US/UK have on the ground already.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
Oh really. Just the other day the scorecard for one battle was 150-500 Iraqi's dead to zero American casualties, that's pretty decisive in my book. The only set back in this whole thing was Turkey. They held up the 4th Infantry Division from opening a northern front at the same time the 3ID and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force where advancing from the south. It's a minor set back because the 4ID are already enroute to kuwait and should be in Iraq sometime early next month.

BTW/ the 4ID is the world's most advanced mechanized fighting unit and their delay is seen by some as a major set back. It's not. The Republican Guard have proven to be little match for what the US/UK have on the ground already.

Senior US generals appear to be disagreeing with you. As posted in a seperate thread:

By Rick Atkinson and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, March 30, 2003; Page A01


Ten days into the invasion of Iraq, the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign is increasingly at odds with the military necessity of preparing for a protracted, more violent and costly war, according to senior military officials.



Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.



This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussei

[ThinkInsane]

Rumsfield is a tool, and I hope that Tommy Franks kicks the crap out of him during the next press conference. The only reason we have the amount of forces on the ground that we do is because Franks kicked and shouted until he got more units. It was a friggin' blessing that Turkey refused to allow troops to operate from their country, because at least now the 4th I.D. can be used as a reserve in the south, if their ****ing armor ever arrives.

Mr. Rumsfield, AIRPOWER ALONE CANNOT WIN WARS! Yes, the Nintendo pilots do a fine job, but their is a limit to what they can accomplish. It's called air SUPPORT for a reason. Air power supports the grunts on the ground, not the other way around.

You can not send your division in to invade another country unless you have troops to SECURE YOUR SUPPLY ROUTES! It's not a good idea to have your convoys shoot their way all the way to front. That's how your supplies don't get where they are supposed to go, or how a bunch of REMF's end up as POW's on Al Jazzerra (sp?).

YOU NEED A RESERVE FORCE! 3rd/7th fought for 72 hours straight, with no relief. 1st Marines have done the same. Three days of no sleep= falling asleep over the barrel of your rifle. I know this from experience. You need to bring in fresh troops for relief so the guys on the line can get rest, tend their wounds, eat, and resupply. Ammo is your friend, and just like people friends, it some times runs out. That's a bad thing.

Anyway, end of rant. Just had to get that off my chest.

[Face Ache]

Has anyone else noticed that in the last three days whenever Rumsfeld appears on TV he seems to be trying to pull his head in, like a turtle? I guess he doesn't want anyone taking a swing at it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...925140,00.html

[Ver de Terre]

Originally posted by climber:
anyone know if Rumsfield has any formal military training and what that is?

He has training in evasion. And I don't mean Special Ops.

[Nicko]

More examples of his 'toolness'

Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq
Sat March 29, 2003 06:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.

"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."

It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.

"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying.

A spokesman at the Pentagon declined to comment on the article.

Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons while he commands strong loyalty from U.S. special operations forces, a key component in the war.

He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait.

Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.

Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said.

"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said.

The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory.

Some 125,000 U.S. and British troops are now in Iraq. U.S. officials on Thursday said they planned to bring in another 100,000 U.S. soldiers by the end of April.

It's official, he's a butt head.

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

What people are forgetting is that Perle was the one who was telling Rumsfeld that only small force was necessary. He also seemed to have the idea that Iraqis would shower the American soldiers with petals when they arrived, and all the Republican Guard would surrender.

Perle has been knocked down, and so should Rumsfeld.

[Speckledstone]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
"Rumsfield is a tool, and I hope that Tommy Franks kicks the crap out of him during the next press conference..."

I couldn't agree with you more. There's no sense in fighting a war of attrition when you have superior technology and fire power.

BTW, what�s up with this thread? Did we finally find something we can all agree on?

[mo]

I was thrown by Rumsfeld's remarks the other day that the plan was General Franks' creation -- he emphasized it a couple of times in speaking with reporters after a meeting with Congressional leaders. I assume he was responding to potential criticism that the force numbers were not what military experts had said were necessary, but it came off sounding more as if he was trying to establish a little space between himself and Franks.

I do concede it's probably a mistake to make too much of one remark from a man who is notoriously impatient with questions from reporters.

[BRussell]

Here's an interview with Perle about what he thought would win the war:

Perle : Secondly, Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.
...
James P. Rubin: So what would your guesstimate be of the level of effort that would be involved?

Richard Perle: Well, I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient.

Ken Adleman, in this article, said:

I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps

So according to Perle the regime would "collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder" and according to Adleman it would be a "cakewalk."

It's hard to tell if they were saying that just to sell the war, or if they really honestly believed it.

Originally posted by mo:
I was thrown by Rumsfeld's remarks the other day that the plan was General Franks' creation -- he emphasized it a couple of times in speaking with reporters after a meeting with Congressional leaders. I assume he was responding to potential criticism that the force numbers were not what military experts had said were necessary, but it came off sounding more as if he was trying to establish a little space between himself and Franks.

I do concede it's probably a mistake to make too much of one remark from a man who is notoriously impatient with questions from reporters.

I don't think you're making too much of it, because he again emphasized this morning that it was Franks' plan.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

How many of you critics have seen the battle plan?

How many of you critics have ever been involved in the creation of a battle plan?

Has it ever crossed your mind the plan they decided on *is* flexible enough to taken into account *both* a quick victory and a rolling start. That it just might be flexible enough to deal with 100,000 Iraqi POWs or 5,000 Iraqi POWs. That it is flexible enough to move the 4ID from a northern front through Turkey to a southern front through Kuwait 3 weeks after the operation started. That the plan is flexible enough to either have troops fight with Iraqi opposition forces or without Iraqi opposition forces.

No, most of you, including me, and the media haven't. So, the easiest thing to do is quickly point out something a Gen. says and blow it out of context. The media is hungry for bad news on the American side of this war and this story, among others, is like throwing a steak into a pit of half starved lions.

[mo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't think you're making too much of it, because he again emphasized this morning that it was Franks' plan.

Yeah, and now I see that on CNN, and read in the Washington Post of various unnamed military sources arguing about it. I guess I also shouldn't have said "potential" criticism, either, given that.

One possible reason to associate the plan with Franks is that he's not the lightning rod for criticism that Rumsfeld is, and to say, hey, a regular Army guy said this was a good plan -- it's not just suits like me and Perle and Wolfowitz. Also, Franks is one of Bush's favorites. Rumsfeld is a pretty experienced political infighter himself.

[MacGorilla]

It is well known that Rumsfeld and Franks have different opinions on war. Franks likes to build up and then use crushing force, Rumsfeld likes a small, mobile, quick striking force.

From what I have read, the build up in the Gulf was a balance between the two. Its too soon in the war to know which option would have been better. Even though we've seemed to stalled now as we clean up, its too soon to know if we should have sent more troops in,

[OreoCookie]

Politicians have always been far more optimistic than the people from the Pentagon.

It's easier to sell the war to the people that way (like a commercial).

[spacefreak]

The military always wants to grossly outnumber the opposition. If Franks could have 2 million troops fighting in Iraq, he'd take it.

Rumsfeld, since day one of his tenure, has challenged the military to transform itself into a smaller, faster, more mobile force. He has also ordered the Pentagon to revise it's stock of battle plans to address the changing nature of enemy warfare.

The results in Iraq remain to be seen, but so far things seem to be going well. There may be supply-line delays here and there, but in no way are the US (and coalition) forces facing defeat.

I give Rummy the thumbs-up for having the balls to address the changing nature of warfare. Military leaders may not be comfortable with this, but in time, the US military will be better prepared to deal with the 'non-traditional' tactics that are present on the battlefields of today and in the future.

[V]

The first mistake made by Rumsfeld and Co has been to ignored the reports by secret sevices that the shiite south would not rise up against Saddam.

The second mistake has been to take Iraquis for fools. It looks like everybody thought that the Iraqui army would fight again using the old soviet doctrine, a war of positions with classical and massive confrontations, a doctrine that had lead them to a quick crash in 1991. They rather opt for a dispersion of their forces, harassment operations and urban querilla.

[MacGorilla]

I have been surprised by the amount of resistance. I think I, along with many other, thought we'd roll right over Iraq until we got to Baghdad. I sure thought the Shiite would rise up as well.

[finboy]

Rumsfeld could have sent too many, not enough or exactly the right number and it would make no difference -- the Leftist media (and Mastrap and others) would still step up to crucify him. They'd find an argument either way. If he left it to Tommy Franks, he didn't take it seriously enough. If he directed the warplan development himself, he would be portrayed as having no faith in his subordinates, or he'd be lambasted for playing "squad leader in the sky" from Washington.

This is what the war is all about for some -- politics.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I have been surprised by the amount of resistance. I think I, along with many other, thought we'd roll right over Iraq until we got to Baghdad. I sure thought the Shiite would rise up as well.

I think we all did to some extent. I never thought the Iraqis would welcome the invaders, but the amount of resistance and determination is stunning.
Bush should have listened to the rest of the world.

[finboy]

Bush should have listened to the rest of the world.

Just like Roosevelt and/or Truman.

Pinheads.

[idjeff]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
It is well known that Rumsfeld and Franks have different opinions on war. Franks likes to build up and then use crushing force, Rumsfeld likes a small, mobile, quick striking force.

From what I have read, the build up in the Gulf was a balance between the two. Its too soon in the war to know which option would have been better. Even though we've seemed to stalled now as we clean up, its too soon to know if we should have sent more troops in,

I'm sorry, but how is it "well known" that Rumsfield and Franks have different opinons on war? Is this from the publications that quote unamed and annonymous government sources? How is there any credibility to these reports?

I personally don't believe much of the news from either side of the press whether it be from the right or the left. I feel that 95% of anything we hear is PURE speculation and most would be wise to bear this in mind. The only people who "know" what's happening are exactly those who do know and are in the theatre of operations.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The military always wants to grossly outnumber the opposition. If Franks could have 2 million troops fighting in Iraq, he'd take it.

Rumsfeld, since day one of his tenure, has challenged the military to transform itself into a smaller, faster, more mobile force. He has also ordered the Pentagon to revise it's stock of battle plans to address the changing nature of enemy warfare.

The results in Iraq remain to be seen, but so far things seem to be going well. There may be supply-line delays here and there, but in no way are the US (and coalition) forces facing defeat.

I give Rummy the thumbs-up for having the balls to address the changing nature of warfare. Military leaders may not be comfortable with this, but in time, the US military will be better prepared to deal with the 'non-traditional' tactics that are present on the battlefields of today and in the future.

Tell that to the dead troops.

[Jacket]

i don't care what anyone says. Rummy is awesome..

the media just loves to make short term predictions on the war and when things go different, people think the war is not going as planned and that it's not going so well.. please.... things are going extremely well. we ought to be thankful Rummy is in there.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Jacket:

the media just loves to make short term predictions on the war and when things go different, people think the war is not going as planned and that it's not going so well.. please.... things are going extremely well.

Hello?

From the Washington Post, as mentioned above:

Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by finboy:
Rumsfeld could have sent too many, not enough or exactly the right number and it would make no difference -- the Leftist media (and Mastrap and others) would still step up to crucify him. They'd find an argument either way. If he left it to Tommy Franks, he didn't take it seriously enough. If he directed the warplan development himself, he would be portrayed as having no faith in his subordinates, or he'd be lambasted for playing "squad leader in the sky" from Washington.

This is what the war is all about for some -- politics.

You're off to paranoia land again. The sources I quoted were the BBC and the Washington Post, quoting senior military personnel. None of which are your typical left wing publication I believe.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You're off to paranoia land again. The sources I quoted were the BBC and the Washington Post, quoting senior military personnel. None of which are your typical left wing publication I believe.

For our local MacNN neonazi, anything to the left of Heinrich Himmler is "left-wing".

[theolein]

Originally posted by mo:
I was thrown by Rumsfeld's remarks the other day that the plan was General Franks' creation -- he emphasized it a couple of times in speaking with reporters after a meeting with Congressional leaders. I assume he was responding to potential criticism that the force numbers were not what military experts had said were necessary, but it came off sounding more as if he was trying to establish a little space between himself and Franks.

I do concede it's probably a mistake to make too much of one remark from a man who is notoriously impatient with questions from reporters.

Ever heard of the term, "Fallguy"?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
Ever heard of the term, "Fallguy"?

I don't think Franks is going to be any kind of fall guy. Nor Rumsfeld, for that matter. Both serve at the pleasure of the president, and only the president. All the evidence is that they both have his confidence.

At the end of the day, Truman said it best with his desk sign. The buck stops here. If there is criticism to be made about the plan, the only proper place to lodge it is with the commander in chief.

But to do that, people have to wait more than 11 days into a military campaign. I know you are all itching for failure, but you are going to have to be patient like the rest of us and see how it actually turns out. All this quagmire and failure talk is vastly premature, not to say inconsistent with the facts on the ground. This is not "Task Force Smith" and even if it was, the US managed to survive that mistake. If a mistake was made here, it can and will be corrected.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I know you are all itching for failure, but you are going to have to be patient like the rest of us and see how it actually turns out.

Hey, no fair. I don't wish to see our military fail. I thought it was interesting to take note of the recent blame-shifting and recriminations (a Washington, DC, tradition not unique to any administration) -- that's not the same as wishing for failure.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
Hey, no fair. I don't wish to see our military fail. I thought it was interesting to take note of the recent blame-shifting and recriminations (a Washington, DC, tradition not unique to any administration) -- that's not the same as wishing for failure.

It is a Washington, DC tradition. We saw it for example in the war in Afghanistan after about 2 weeks, and before that in Kosovo. In both cases, the criticisms were absurdly premature.

I came across this interesting piece in the Spectator (linked by Andrew Sullivan). It's a British piece, but I think it is applicable to sections of the US media as well, not to mention some of the more hyperventilating people on these boards.

Anti-war journalists hope for the worst � because the worst will prove them right

Stephen Glover

. . . . There were lots of reasons for opposing the war against Iraq. But even anti-war people would always admit that Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has tortured and killed many people, and impoverished his nation. They worried about legality and fretted about whether it was right to invade a country which had not made a declaration of war. I shared these anxieties. The anti-war brigade has also been sustained by anti-Americanism. Now that the allies have embarked on war, it is natural that many of the opponents in the media should want to be proven right. This helps to explain why the BBC and the anti-war press have seized on every small setback as potentially a vast misfortune. There is the war between the allies and Saddam Hussein, and there is the other, hidden war between the opponents of war in the media and those in the field who seem to be prosecuting it with remarkable success.

A friend of mine said to me the other day that he hoped lots of Americans were killed because the United States would be brought down a peg or two. I suspect there are many people, otherwise decent and enlightened, who would like this war to be prolonged and bloody. They may even in a twisted sort of way want lots of Iraqi civilians to be killed because their deaths will vindicate the anti-war arguments. If we did not care about our reputations, if we did not in our silly, selfish way wish always to be shown to be right, we would all ardently hope for the war to be ended as soon as possible with as few deaths as possible, and with Saddam Hussein safely under lock and key. This is, in truth, what every person and every journalist should wish for, whatever their opinions on the war. But I am not sure it is what the Daily Mirror or John Pilger or the (admittedly brilliant) Robert Fisk of the Independent wants. One feels that, whatever happens, they and their sometimes less openly anti-war colleagues in the media will continue to say that the war is not going as well as the allies expected, and they will declare a successful outcome to be deeply unsatisfactory. The war will go on in the newspaper columns and on the airwaves long after the last shot has been fired, as journalists fight to show that they were right. . . .

Ugly, perhaps. But human nature.

[davesimondotcom]

The interesting thing about all the unnamed "senior officials" in articles and reports is that you could easily find someone to express any diverse point of view and describe them as a "senior official."

They did it when Clinton was President too.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I came across this interesting piece in the Spectator (linked by Andrew Sullivan). It's a British piece, but I think it is applicable to sections of the US media as well, not to mention some of the more hyperventilating people on these boards.

Fascinating article.

What he describes is what I see in the majority of American print and television media. It's an overall, very pessimistic view of the war.

[fxbezak]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
If that would be the case that would have been a start, yes. As it stands, the rushed deployment of another 100.000 troops into this war doesn't say "everything is going according to plan" to me.

Since when is a war textbook?
I hear this a lot.. all is not going as planned...when does it ever... and who the hell came up with the notion it did. This is somethign the press has been saying and aparently has stuck in peoples heads. There is no a->b->c here... you never know what your going to encounter and therefore need to make changes on the fly..

The main objective is to win. how you get there may take adjustments to the plan. No general or official ever said.. this is exactly how the war is going to go or how we expect it to go.

go watch more CNN if you think anyone ever said there is a timeframe or concrete plan

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Since when is a war textbook?
I hear this a lot.. all is not going as planned...when does it ever... and who the hell came up with the notion it did. This is somethign the press has been saying and aparently has stuck in peoples heads. There is no a->b->c here... you never know what your going to encounter and therefore need to make changes on the fly..

The main objective is to win. how you get there may take adjustments to the plan. No general or official ever said.. this is exactly how the war is going to go or how we expect it to go.

go watch more CNN if you think anyone ever said there is a timeframe or concrete plan

You haven't actually read this thread, have you?

Here's a repost of an article posted earlier, just for you:


Source: Washington Post

"Ten days into the invasion of Iraq, the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign is increasingly at odds with the military necessity of preparing for a protracted, more violent and costly war, according to senior military officials.



Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.



This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussein"

[fxbezak]

Another one...
You cannot belilve what you read in the NY times or the Washington Post. They would love to see the US lose this war and as their buddy at Columbia Univ said see the US troops dragged through the streets.



That quote means nothing. It says to me that things are getting mroe costly and we need more resources... it does NOT say... oh crap.. things arent following the black and white we planned on.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Another one...
You cannot belilve what you read in the NY times or the Washington Post. They would love to see the US lose this war and as their buddy at Columbia Univ said see the US troops dragged through the streets.

So I am not supposed to believe what the Post or the NYT tell me ( I am reading both, daily, to get a balanced view of what's happening) but you are publishing a hatefilled site devoid of fact called conservativefrontline (emphasis added). Now when was the last time I've came across rethoric like that again?

[fxbezak]

Ok so you are saying that by what they write and the spin they put on their news, that does not translate to you their anti war stance?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Ok so you are saying that by what they write and the spin they put on their news, that does not translate to you their anti war stance?

The Washington Post is not anti war. Neither is the British Times, also I paper I read.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think Franks is going to be any kind of fall guy. Nor Rumsfeld, for that matter. Both serve at the pleasure of the president, and only the president. All the evidence is that they both have his confidence.

At the end of the day, Truman said it best with his desk sign. The buck stops here. If there is criticism to be made about the plan, the only proper place to lodge it is with the commander in chief.

But to do that, people have to wait more than 11 days into a military campaign. I know you are all itching for failure, but you are going to have to be patient like the rest of us and see how it actually turns out. All this quagmire and failure talk is vastly premature, not to say inconsistent with the facts on the ground. This is not "Task Force Smith" and even if it was, the US managed to survive that mistake. If a mistake was made here, it can and will be corrected.

Iran-Contra springs to mind, as do the names Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and Admiral William Poindexter. Letting others take the fall is a time honoured tradition in many countries, yours not excluded.

[theolein]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Another one...
You cannot belilve what you read in the NY times or the Washington Post. They would love to see the US lose this war and as their buddy at Columbia Univ said see the US troops dragged through the streets.



That quote means nothing. It says to me that things are getting mroe costly and we need more resources... it does NOT say... oh crap.. things arent following the black and white we planned on.

So you're suggesting one should follow the war through the peaceful and unpartisan views of Soldier of fortune?

[mo]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Ok so you are saying that by what they write and the spin they put on their news, that does not translate to you their anti war stance?

Well, the Washington Post's editorial page has consistently supported the U.S. action against Iraq. Today's editorial included this passage:

"By remaining resolute in its campaign to rid Iraq of those murderous formations, along with their dictator and his weapons of mass destruction, the United States will eliminate a serious threat to its own security and open the way for positive change in a vital region. It must stay the course."

So I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the WP has an anti-war stance. ... I read it every day, and I've seen nothing to support that notion.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...


But to do that, people have to wait more than 11 days into a military campaign. I know you are all itching for failure, but you are going to have to be patient like the rest of us and see how it actually turns out. ...

A question. How long does one have to wait? "Until it's done", perhaps? When will that be, if ever?

I am not itching for failure. I want the war to stop. Point. Men, women and especially little children dying is absolutely disgusting and has no justification. There is NO JUSTIFICATION in the claim that this war is to liberate the Iraqi people, because the Iraqi people seem to object being shot at, bombed, made homeless and strved in the name of their liberation, which should be obvious, even to you. What is it with you Americans that you can only understand your own ideas of patriotism and yet no one elses? I understand the horrors of losing close friends in a war very well, and I DO NOT FEEL HAPPY at seeing American dead or dying. But I also understand the pain of others losing loved ones.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You can win a war in the military sense and yet still lose it. You can lose it the other way because the people of the defeated country hate your presence and the humiliation. The US and the UK are on the best road to losing this war in that sense.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
A question. How long does one have to wait? "Until it's done", perhaps? When will that be, if ever?

Whenever it will be, it was always likely to be more than 11 days into the campaign. Beginning the criticism now is vastly premature. It's so unrealistic that charges of opportunism are bound to follow.

Of course, the regime in Baghdad could bring the suffering to a close immediately. All they have to do is surrender now as opposed to being dug out by force later. This has always been their choice, but instead the regime seems to be going for the strategy of maximizing suffering in order to win sympathy in the Arab world, and in the west.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Whenever it will be, it was always likely to be more than 11 days into the campaign. Beginning the criticism now is vastly premature. It's so unrealistic that charges of opportunism are bound to follow.

Of course, the regime in Baghdad could bring the suffering to a close immediately. All they have to do is surrender now as opposed to being dug out by force later. This has always been their choice, but instead the regime seems to be going for the strategy of maximizing suffering in order to win sympathy in the Arab world, and in the west.

On the other hand, the US and the UK could go home, now!

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by theolein:
On the other hand, the US and the UK could go home, now!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
On the other hand, the US and the UK could go home, now!

Could, but won't. That would hand victory to Saddam. Is that what you want?