Cheetah772
Member
Hello,
Although my support for the war is still strong, the criticism of how the war is being conducted by both politicians and military commanders remains very strong.
First of all, I am saddened by several mistakes on part of the US military commanders, especially Gen. Franks.
I believe that Franks is mishandling the war right now. For example, I am disgusted at the handling of I MED, it is not designed for land warfare, it is primarily used as a rapid deployment force meant to establish a foothold temporarily, and allow the heavier divisions to make a speedy entry. Now, the MEDs are being used to fight the Republican Guard units around Al Kut 100 miles east of Baghdad on the Tirgis River.
Second example would be assigning 101st Airborne Division to guarding the supply lines and reinforcing the 3rd ID, IMO, this is a waste of a division. 101st Airborne Division is again designed for paradrops and rapid deployment, not for long and intensive combat.
The way I see it, Bush deserves sharp criticism even at this early stage in the war. I expected Bush and Franks to iron out the flaws and use common sense in war-gaming any scenario in Iraq.
I am furious with Bush, Blair, and Franks. Way I see it, it's such a political mess, everybody is scared of everything. Now, that Bush and Blair got what they wanted: a war with Iraq, and I do support it, but I believe that we has to go ALL WAY with NO LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS on the military, period.
If I had my way, I would rather wait for 4th ID, even if it means delaying the war for a few weeks, and assign 1st British Armored Division to race ahead with parts of 3rd ID toward west of Baghdad. The turkey crisis would never have happened because it wouldn't be a part of my war plan, anyway. I prefer to keep the staging areas limited to one or two countries, that's it, why need to make more political concessions to another country that's potentially hostile to rebuilding a war-ravaged country -- Iraq?
Instead of a princer movement due to limited manpower, I prefer a single but powerful thrust blasting all way into outer rings of Baghdad. Don't bother to try cross the bridges on the Euphrates River. It's not worth the hassle. We need economy of force, since, we have limited manpower, we need to concentrate our firepower instead of spreading them out even with air superiority.
This would force the Republican Guards to reposition its units east of Baghdad, and this would expose them to powerful allied air strikes facing south and west of Baghdad.
Assign lighter and infantry divisions to encircling Basra, and isolate the smaller cities, forget about trying to assault them, we don't have manpower to do it. As far I am concerned, I think if we're going to assault a single city, Baghdad should be it.
Above all, DON'T STOP MOVING, hit them fast and furious, get the war over with it, fast, period.
I am ANGRY that 1st British Armored Division and 101st Airborne Division are being wasted or geared to secondary roles, this is STUPID, STUPID political mess.
This doesn't make any sense to me, I am lost on such politicking maneuvers. Don't Bush and Blair realize they're playing with young men and women's lives on the political board?
I have to express my frustration with these political leaders.
While it's only eight days into war, the mistakes are tragic and quite obvious even to an amateurish military observer. This is a joke, kids.
After this war is over, I would rather shot both Bush and Blair for messing up the war. For once, I would rather have Rumsfeld shut up, and stop prattling on about being tough, I don't think Rumsfeld even understand the difference between a penetration and a breakthrough, not if it depended on his life.
Dan
Although my support for the war is still strong, the criticism of how the war is being conducted by both politicians and military commanders remains very strong.
First of all, I am saddened by several mistakes on part of the US military commanders, especially Gen. Franks.
I believe that Franks is mishandling the war right now. For example, I am disgusted at the handling of I MED, it is not designed for land warfare, it is primarily used as a rapid deployment force meant to establish a foothold temporarily, and allow the heavier divisions to make a speedy entry. Now, the MEDs are being used to fight the Republican Guard units around Al Kut 100 miles east of Baghdad on the Tirgis River.
Second example would be assigning 101st Airborne Division to guarding the supply lines and reinforcing the 3rd ID, IMO, this is a waste of a division. 101st Airborne Division is again designed for paradrops and rapid deployment, not for long and intensive combat.
The way I see it, Bush deserves sharp criticism even at this early stage in the war. I expected Bush and Franks to iron out the flaws and use common sense in war-gaming any scenario in Iraq.
I am furious with Bush, Blair, and Franks. Way I see it, it's such a political mess, everybody is scared of everything. Now, that Bush and Blair got what they wanted: a war with Iraq, and I do support it, but I believe that we has to go ALL WAY with NO LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS on the military, period.
If I had my way, I would rather wait for 4th ID, even if it means delaying the war for a few weeks, and assign 1st British Armored Division to race ahead with parts of 3rd ID toward west of Baghdad. The turkey crisis would never have happened because it wouldn't be a part of my war plan, anyway. I prefer to keep the staging areas limited to one or two countries, that's it, why need to make more political concessions to another country that's potentially hostile to rebuilding a war-ravaged country -- Iraq?
Instead of a princer movement due to limited manpower, I prefer a single but powerful thrust blasting all way into outer rings of Baghdad. Don't bother to try cross the bridges on the Euphrates River. It's not worth the hassle. We need economy of force, since, we have limited manpower, we need to concentrate our firepower instead of spreading them out even with air superiority.
This would force the Republican Guards to reposition its units east of Baghdad, and this would expose them to powerful allied air strikes facing south and west of Baghdad.
Assign lighter and infantry divisions to encircling Basra, and isolate the smaller cities, forget about trying to assault them, we don't have manpower to do it. As far I am concerned, I think if we're going to assault a single city, Baghdad should be it.
Above all, DON'T STOP MOVING, hit them fast and furious, get the war over with it, fast, period.
I am ANGRY that 1st British Armored Division and 101st Airborne Division are being wasted or geared to secondary roles, this is STUPID, STUPID political mess.
This doesn't make any sense to me, I am lost on such politicking maneuvers. Don't Bush and Blair realize they're playing with young men and women's lives on the political board?
I have to express my frustration with these political leaders.
While it's only eight days into war, the mistakes are tragic and quite obvious even to an amateurish military observer. This is a joke, kids.
After this war is over, I would rather shot both Bush and Blair for messing up the war. For once, I would rather have Rumsfeld shut up, and stop prattling on about being tough, I don't think Rumsfeld even understand the difference between a penetration and a breakthrough, not if it depended on his life.
Dan
