Cheetah772
Member
Re: Re: Is the US Strategy misfired?
It would be nice to get several divisions to Baghdad instead of just one, that's all I am saying.
I just pray that Franks did warn Bush not to rush into the war so causally. Personally to me, I think Bush was tired of diplomacy and wanted to get the war rolling no matter how many troops we had.
My point was that Bush placed restrictions on the military in order to save his political career, it had nothing to do with rebuilding or protecting civilians, it was just plain politics.
I question just how much we should place restrictions on the military. Once a military war machine is unleashed, it makes little sense to place so many restrictions, as far I am concerned, war is hell, but if we went all way, it would end the war soon even with high casualty rates or collateral damage.
The one thing that upsets me that is that we take cautious measures when Iraqis aren't doing the same. They are going out all way to protect themselves, and they're desperate. They could care less about winning a PR war.
We're all too concerned with the casualties, and I appreciate, but we should know the risks, and ignore the peaceniks' rants.
Tim, but, I disagree about Turkey crisis. I don't think it was a decent idea, in fact, it was downright foolish even to think about it.
Trying to launch an invasion against Iraq is hard enough, why made it tougher by coordinating the invading forces from multiple directions so far away from each other.
We're not having them supporting each other, keeping in close proximty of each other.
But even so, I think Franks and Bush should have taken in account how fiercuous the Iraqis can be in time of war and defending their homeland.
If it were me, I would prefer to keep all of my forces west of Euphrate River, which the Republican units would have to cross the bridges and engage them out in open, which is exactly what I wanted, and moreover, the desert out alone would protect my forces as it's uninhabited and reduces the chances of Saddam's Fedayeen units running amok around.
I never wanted my forces to travel up middle between Euphrates and Tirgis Rivers. It's useless, and would expose my forces to countless ambushes and difficulties in resupplying such forces.
But no matter what plan we select, Saddam would want to go out fighting to death.
Because of distance to Baghdad, it's virtually impossible to reach in time to prevent the Iraqis from fading into Baghdad, so as far I am concerned, we could have two choices.
1.) concentrating our forces around Baghdad to punch through quickly.
2.) or to wait for the other divisions to arrive, but it would Iraqis more time to prepare themselves for long siege or fierce street-to-street fighting.
Either way, we're going to see some Iraqi units retreating back into Baghdad.
If we don't have stomach for fighting street-to-street in large cities, then what's the point? The British troops outside of Basra are just waiting simply because they know it's useless to go in as long the British public is opposed and squeamish at the sight of a few deaths at hands of Iraqi soldiers.
The Marines are fighting through smaller cities, how would they fare if they were thrown at Baghdad? They wouldn't last very long, now would they? Saddam is hell-bent on fighting inside the city, so what choice do we have? It's either fighting or waiting them out, hoping that the people will rebel against Saddam inside.
I would prefer to fight some way into Basra or Baghdad, even only to establish safe havens for these civilians fleeing the city.
In my view, we need to secure the areas quickly and the best way to do this is to use the mechanized and armored divisions. We need to isolate all major cities to keep the irregular troops and paramilitary units from exercising the control over large areas and hitting us in rear & harrassing the supply lines.
If we could encircle Baghdad and Basra in a few days quickly, then it would cut down the abilities of Fedayeen units and other paramilitary units moving around to slow us down.
that's for light divisions and other smaller units' primary function.
If we're going to end this war quickly. Then we're going to need a lot of forces available at hand to use instead of handing out deployment orders late in war and more in the next month (100,000 more).
If Bush cares to end this war soon, then he needs to have the forces do it quickly and bring the war to a rapid conclusion.
By rapid conclusion, I don't mean it to be like a nightstand with a prosituite, I don't mean that one. I realize this war is going to take time, but I wish Bush would have thought of it and send for more troops before starting this war late with heat raising. OR to start the war way back in January instead of March.
I think Bush thought France would be coming around to his view, but obviously, this wasn't to be the case.
Bush should have drawn some contigency plans for 4th ID in case of Turkey balking.
But it only angers me that Franks or Bush isn't thinking this through carefully, and messing up different units, and were completely puzzled by fierce resistance, either forced or real, from the Iraqis.
There are always second-guesses in this kind of war, I'm not alone out there, there are a lot of people like me, upset at politicking and bickering among the allies and military generals.
If the war actually goes very well, I'll swallow my pride and rants.
One thing, Bush and Franks could is to admit that they're making a ton of mistakes instead of deterring the questions.
I just want them be man enough to swallow their prides and say like a man, "I messed up pretty badly..." instead of lashing out at media.
Tim, do you have a better war plan? At least, I have my idea, what's yours? I don't mean disrespect, I only mean it as a curiousity.
Best regards,
Dan
Tim, I never said they should be used for fighting, but speed and try to reach Baghdad with all of its forces rather than just one division. We have only one, that's 3rd ID, division 50 miles south and west of Baghdad, all other units are having a tough time.
It would be nice to get several divisions to Baghdad instead of just one, that's all I am saying.
No, I would prefer to have 3rd and 4th ID to cover my flanks, or at least protect my supply lines. With all fairness to the military commanders, I think they were surprised that the Iraqis weren't surrendering en masse. I think it's one of the reasons why there's only one division close to Baghdad, which made me uneasy.
I never said it was like TAOW or the other wargames. I fully acknowledge it's very real and deadly.
I just pray that Franks did warn Bush not to rush into the war so causally. Personally to me, I think Bush was tired of diplomacy and wanted to get the war rolling no matter how many troops we had.
I don't know about carpet-bombing Baghdad, but waiting only means we're going to lose our initiative, and we can't have that happening to us.
My point was that Bush placed restrictions on the military in order to save his political career, it had nothing to do with rebuilding or protecting civilians, it was just plain politics.
I question just how much we should place restrictions on the military. Once a military war machine is unleashed, it makes little sense to place so many restrictions, as far I am concerned, war is hell, but if we went all way, it would end the war soon even with high casualty rates or collateral damage.
The one thing that upsets me that is that we take cautious measures when Iraqis aren't doing the same. They are going out all way to protect themselves, and they're desperate. They could care less about winning a PR war.
We're all too concerned with the casualties, and I appreciate, but we should know the risks, and ignore the peaceniks' rants.
I'll bite on this one. I agree with you.
Tim, but, I disagree about Turkey crisis. I don't think it was a decent idea, in fact, it was downright foolish even to think about it.
Trying to launch an invasion against Iraq is hard enough, why made it tougher by coordinating the invading forces from multiple directions so far away from each other.
We're not having them supporting each other, keeping in close proximty of each other.
Again, I'll concede this, I do agree with you.
But even so, I think Franks and Bush should have taken in account how fiercuous the Iraqis can be in time of war and defending their homeland.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
If it were me, I would prefer to keep all of my forces west of Euphrate River, which the Republican units would have to cross the bridges and engage them out in open, which is exactly what I wanted, and moreover, the desert out alone would protect my forces as it's uninhabited and reduces the chances of Saddam's Fedayeen units running amok around.
I never wanted my forces to travel up middle between Euphrates and Tirgis Rivers. It's useless, and would expose my forces to countless ambushes and difficulties in resupplying such forces.
Maybe you're right.
But no matter what plan we select, Saddam would want to go out fighting to death.
Because of distance to Baghdad, it's virtually impossible to reach in time to prevent the Iraqis from fading into Baghdad, so as far I am concerned, we could have two choices.
1.) concentrating our forces around Baghdad to punch through quickly.
2.) or to wait for the other divisions to arrive, but it would Iraqis more time to prepare themselves for long siege or fierce street-to-street fighting.
Either way, we're going to see some Iraqi units retreating back into Baghdad.
Yes, we did reach Baghdad in a few days, but only with one division, which is not the way to do it, considering there's seven or eight Republican Guard divisions defending Baghdad.
If we don't have stomach for fighting street-to-street in large cities, then what's the point? The British troops outside of Basra are just waiting simply because they know it's useless to go in as long the British public is opposed and squeamish at the sight of a few deaths at hands of Iraqi soldiers.
The Marines are fighting through smaller cities, how would they fare if they were thrown at Baghdad? They wouldn't last very long, now would they? Saddam is hell-bent on fighting inside the city, so what choice do we have? It's either fighting or waiting them out, hoping that the people will rebel against Saddam inside.
I would prefer to fight some way into Basra or Baghdad, even only to establish safe havens for these civilians fleeing the city.
As a reaction force? To what?
In my view, we need to secure the areas quickly and the best way to do this is to use the mechanized and armored divisions. We need to isolate all major cities to keep the irregular troops and paramilitary units from exercising the control over large areas and hitting us in rear & harrassing the supply lines.
If we could encircle Baghdad and Basra in a few days quickly, then it would cut down the abilities of Fedayeen units and other paramilitary units moving around to slow us down.
that's for light divisions and other smaller units' primary function.
Tim, we're already waiting thanks to France's stubborn refusal and UN bickering. It has cost a lot of Iraqi lives, I'll be a man enough to admit it.
If we're going to end this war quickly. Then we're going to need a lot of forces available at hand to use instead of handing out deployment orders late in war and more in the next month (100,000 more).
If Bush cares to end this war soon, then he needs to have the forces do it quickly and bring the war to a rapid conclusion.
By rapid conclusion, I don't mean it to be like a nightstand with a prosituite, I don't mean that one. I realize this war is going to take time, but I wish Bush would have thought of it and send for more troops before starting this war late with heat raising. OR to start the war way back in January instead of March.
I think Bush thought France would be coming around to his view, but obviously, this wasn't to be the case.
Bush should have drawn some contigency plans for 4th ID in case of Turkey balking.
Okay, I can understand your frustration.
But it only angers me that Franks or Bush isn't thinking this through carefully, and messing up different units, and were completely puzzled by fierce resistance, either forced or real, from the Iraqis.
There are always second-guesses in this kind of war, I'm not alone out there, there are a lot of people like me, upset at politicking and bickering among the allies and military generals.
If the war actually goes very well, I'll swallow my pride and rants.
One thing, Bush and Franks could is to admit that they're making a ton of mistakes instead of deterring the questions.
I just want them be man enough to swallow their prides and say like a man, "I messed up pretty badly..." instead of lashing out at media.
Tim, do you have a better war plan? At least, I have my idea, what's yours? I don't mean disrespect, I only mean it as a curiousity.
Best regards,
Dan
