Dr. Miler

Then I guess you aren't all that up on warfare.The "entire" premise is built on strategy, Iraq/Thermopylae....makes no difference. It's ALL strategy!

You don't know the difference between strategy and tactics. Thermopylae is a good study of tactics and how to neutralize an invading enemy's superior numbers. The Greeks did as well as they could. Their hoplites were far and away the best fighters. They forced the numerically superior Persians to fight on a landscape that negated the numbers--a mountain pass that was about 50 ft. wide. They effectively used the feign retreat. How is this relevant to our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

And you seem to be missing the point. The point was and is you do NOT need over-whelming force to achieve a objective. The Greeks didn't have such a force and yet they achieved their objective (deny the Persians access). And we are not required to have such a force either. It's called "Peace through superior firepower".

You completely ignore what I wrote...

Me: Well, if our goals are very limited, then of course overwhelming force wouldn't be necessary. But we didn't just seek to remove Saddam from power--we were trying to transform Iraqi society. As impossible as that idea is, one shouldn't even contemplate the prospect without a willingness to employ overwhelming force.

Read it again five more times if you have to.

Stop comparing what we're doing in Iraq now to what the Spartans did at Thermopylae. The Greeks were trying to defend their poleis from Persian invasion in a day of massed infantry while they were heavily outnumbered. This does not apply to our situation in Iraq. We are not the Greeks and we have our own separate abilities and inabilities.

And just an FYI.....Thermopylae itself was a matter of tactics, PERIOD.

Wow. Well you told ME. Except that is what I said all along.

GP: You set up particular reasons that the Iraq war is failing. When I and others pose that those exact reasons to other wars, you simply wave it off. You can't, though. In terms of casualties, in terms of difficulty, in every last desciption you have given, we've done BETTER in Iraq than in other conflicts.

We haven't provided security in Iraq. The Iraqi National Guard as an independent fighting force is virtually non-existent. Casualty statistics have to be analyzed in light of the accomplishments in Iraq. Iraq is not going to be a beacon of liberty in the model of the West like war supporters initially claimed. What of substance is being achieved per casualty? We are depleting our resources to the tune of $1 billion a week, and for what? We lose three soldiers a day (and that's ONLY three because our medical capabilities are so much better now), but what are we gaining? The insurgency is not being stopped, Islam is becoming stronger, it's followers around the world are gaining confidence in their ability to succeed against us--thus emboldening them to attack us or our allies in the future, all while we're sitting around waiting for the Iraqis to step up themselves. I have no doubt Bush wants to win, but I am certain he has no stomach to do whatever it takes to win. The question is, would you rather have less casualties but accomplish nothing for years and years on end, or more casualties but actually accomplish something in a shorter period of time. American style government is not going to happen in Iraq. The cultural foundation is not there, and they don't seem interested in building it. Our goal should be to hit the insurgency and the terrorists so hard that they realize they cannot beat us, that they cannot drive us away at a time of their choosing; that we can inflict devastating damage upon their movement anytime, anyplace, in any way that we choose.

Our failure in Iraq stems from our inability to hold the ground we take. The ING is too incompetent to do the job, at least as of now. We took Fallujah with fairly low casualties and cleared out the terrorists and insurgents there and kept them out for a while. But some of them had fled Fallujah in advance of the siege. If we flush out all the strongholds at the same time, where are is the enemy going to hide? If they try fleeing to another city, they'll get caught at a checkpoint along the way. Where would they make their IED's? Where would they stockpile their weapons? Multiple simultaneous sieges of Sunni strongholds, along with a strong showing on the border entry points would clamp down on their ability to wage war.

In the end, you don't like why we are there, and I think that is tainting your objectivity. I haven't seen a single reason more troops would help, your fallujah example doesn't cut it. We could have diverted many, many more troops there had we needed to. Our hesitance to throw more troops into a meat grinder shouldn't be considered a flaw.

I don't like why we are there, because it's foolhardy. That's not subjective, that's the reality of the Middle East. I'd be quite happy if the Arabs could get their act together and act like us so we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore...but that's wishful thinking. The world doesn't run on wishful thinking. Removing Saddam was just part of an overall strategy to turn the Middle East into a beacon of democracy and human rights. Sorry, pal. It ain't gonna happen like that. I have no problem with removing Saddam. I would have suggested helping someone secular who's more helpful to us and who stands as a buffer against Iran to come to power. Democracy and the Arabo-Islamic culture that exists in Iraq are incompatible.

But like I said 80 times already, we wouldn't be putting troops there just to be sitting ducks. They will not be waiting to be attacked, they will be doing the attacking. Yes, more casualties will result, but it will accomplish something. Help the Kurds attain a good level of autonomy, so that after the Sunni offensive we can move some of our troops into friendly Kurdish territory and bring most of the rest home. Our continued presence among the Arabs IS inciting more to join the insurgency.

The Japanese in WW2, given situations like Fallujah, would have gotten a hundred thousand soldiers together, and just rushed the place. They would have lost 20K of them in several different battles, and then lauded their victory. If that is the kind of war you want to fight, well, frankly we don't have much common ground.

Bakerstreet, are you actually comparing the capabilities of the insurgency in Iraq to the Marines in the Pacific? The Marines suffered less than 50 dead and less than 300 wounded after more than a week of heavy house-to-house fighting in Fallujah. There were about 10,000 troops who took part in the operation.

The only other option would have been to soften the area up from a distance for a couple weeks, until they came limping out with white flags. I can imagine the world's response to Fallujah as a firebombed Tokyo. If you want to take another 100k solidiers to Iraq and use them as cannon fodder, shame on you. If you don't, then I don't think you really have a perspective on what tossing more personel into these situations would accomplish.

I don't think you've read anything I've actually written. American are getting killed because we haven't effectively taken away the insurgency's ability to attack us. They can attack us because we allow them to determine the nature of the fight. We allow the insurgency to flourish when they can attack us with impunity. We allow the insurgency to flourish when we attack an insurgent stronghold, and then abandon it after the fighting dies down. Having more numbers is not important just for the sake of statistics. They are important because they allow the US Military to operate in more effective ways. We can effectively occupy the trouble spots instead of weakly patrolling while waiting for an attack. We don't have the manpower to do that now. And unfortunately, we don't have the manpower available now in the military, so I guess maybe this whole argument is a moot point. My other point that at this point we must either try to win or try to be popular still stands. Pick your poison.

I have given you two generals that told Bush it would take far more troops to secure Iraq.

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By Eric Schmitt
New York Times
February 28, 2003

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq,

From Plan of Attack

Inadequate Troop Level

Page 36:

Op plan 1003 called for a force of some 500,000.



age 22:

Powell thought that Wolfowitz was talking as if 25 million Iraqis would rush to the side of a U.S.-supported opposition. In his opinion, it was one of the most absurd, strategically unsound proposals he had ever heard.

But Wolfowitz was like a drum that would not stop. He and his group of neoconservatives were rubbing their hands over the ideas, which were being presented as "draft plans".

And Powell, shaking his head, kept saying, "This is lunacy".

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not do an impressive job. His talks with General Franks amounted to Rummy micromanaging the war. The Generals were annoyed because Rumsfeld kept asking questions upon questions and not really formulating a strategy plan. The Op plan 1003 (Iraq War Plan) was cut down from a 500,000 force to roughly 165,000 troops. Additionally, there was extremely little planning on the aftermath of the war. These two points would later lead to the mess now prevalent in Iraq.

Bush and Rummy forced Franks to cut the force levels and the result is what we have today. This is what happens when a President who has no military experience begins making military decissions!

Bush and Rummy forced Franks to cut the force levels and the result is what we have today. This is what happens when a President who has no military experience begins making military decissions!

I disagree. A person with military experiences who becomes too reliant on ideology and who doesn't consider contingencies will have the same problems.

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country. Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq,

Old news, nothing here, just the same General that didn't work on the Plan and was not even the SoA at the time of it's enactment to an OP Order.

Page 36: Op plan 1003 called for a force of some 500,000.

That's all? What's his source? Is what Woodward have an official copy or just some unmanned source. Because I have a named source who signed off on the plan called General Franks, saying that he got all that he asked for.

But this is what I dug up about the OPPLAN 1003 out of Woodward’s book:

OPPLAN 1003 was originally approved in 1996 for an Iraqi regime change .

On 21st November 2002, during a one-on-one meeting with Rumsfeld in a cubbyhole office next to the White House situation room, Bush asked what kind of plan Rumsfeld had prepared. When the Secretary of Defense replied that it was "Outdated" -- meaning traditional and troop heavy -- the President told him to work on a new one immediately. Rumsfeld then ordered Gen. Tommy Franks to update the plan within a week.

So yes, the original plan created by an unnamed author nearly seven years before had 500,000 troops. But General Franks and his staff revised the OPPLAN and requested only 165,000 troops for the OP Order. I would guess that the meeting between Rumsfeld and Franks also included the "Open Checkbook" statement referred to in Franks book and hundred of interviews given by him and his staff since then. The only evidence you have is nearly seven years out of date.

Gene, we both have written more op orders/plans then we can count. When have you ever just retyped an order handed to you as an example without changing numbers to meet the present situation? If you have, shame on you.

Woodward also places the above quoted meeting between Bush and Rumsfeld on 21st November. That would also crush the theory that this attack was planned since before 9/11. Do to the simple fact, that the plan was not even dusted off until then and had to be updated quickly.

Powell thought that Wolfowitz was talking as if 25 million Iraqis would rush to the side of a U.S.-supported opposition. In his opinion, it was one of the most absurd, strategically unsound proposals he had ever heard. And Powell, shaking his head, kept saying, "This is lunacy".

I would have to agree with Powell that 25 million Iraqis would rush out was lunacy. But this statement by Powell does not in anyway mean that Powell advised the President to use more troops, just that he disagreed with Wolfowitz's statement. Powell, in interviews, has never said that he disagreed with troop numbers at the time of the invasion, only a year later after the invasion he felt that more troops could have been used.

So please stop claiming Franks and his Generals requested more troops, when all the evidence shows the opposite.

Also try accualy reading the book some day, and not just use cliff notes from a left-wing web site called Northernfence.org

perhaps it's time to consider permitting iraq to revert to pre-mandate status: 3 sovereign & smaller nations. not necessarily the exact 3 states (basra, mosul & bahgdad) but similar. separate sunni from shia from kurd and 1/3 the job is done immediately.

perhaps it's time to consider permitting iraq to revert to pre-mandate status: 3 sovereign & smaller nations. not necessarily the exact 3 states (basra, mosul & bahgdad) but similar. separate sunni from shia from kurd and 1/3 the job is done immediately.

I rarely ever agree with you, Kingbee. But I think you have the right idea here. I actually think MORE than 1/3 of the job would be done.

Lee1776

you ask for generals that told Bush he needed more troops and then say that is not new.

First, the two Generals I sighted are the Army CoS and second the 4 Star General who developed the plans to attack Iraq. There could not be two more qualified military experts on the subject of HOW to fignt a land war. Bush is not such an expert!

Second, is the proof that the way Bush fought the war HAS NOT WORKED. I know there is a difference of opinion as to if we should have invaded Iraq but there is no doubt, the WAY Bush fought the war HAS FAILED. The day after Saddam fell, we began to lose control of Iraq.

you ask for generals that told Bush he needed more troops and then say that is not new.

What I asked for was:

Either provide links to interviews for Generals consulting President Bush at that time, or stop using these false statements.

I have never said that the out going Army CofS (Gen. Eric K. Shinseki) did not advise more troops, but he is still the only one out of all the Bush's Generals. Where you keep stating:

Since then most Four Star generals have said the number of forces were not sufficient to establish and maintain control in Iraq after the government fell.

Now you’re saying:

second the 4 Star General who developed the plans to attack Iraq

This unmanned General (if even a General, because most shell plans like this one are developed by a staff COL) developed a generic shell plan that Bush would most likely never had seen, for a situation nearly seven years before. Our military had already restructured itself since 1996 and changed the general doctrine (i.e. methods) of fighting wars too.

If this is your idea of most Generals we need to fire all three other branch Chief of Staffs, all the theater Commanders and their staffs to achieve that goal. Your line up is getting VERY thin Gene.

Bush is not such an expert!

I agree, but you have not provided any evidence that he was using his own experience. He had used the experience of almost all the Generals working for him like Franks, his Staff, and the Future Chief of Army Staff who was going to be the one fighting the war. It would be negligent on Bush's part to ignore all this advice in exchange for one out going General. If he had done that I am one hundred percent sure you would be complaining about that too.

Just like your cherri picking of unemployment numbers, I'm just asking you to stop making inaccerate statements. There is many other ways of making damning statements about Bush that truely have merit.

Col is getting called out on his distortions again.

Lee 1776

Gen Franks is the second general that said we needed more troops. His op Plan 1003 called for first 500,000 and then he did mofify that to 300,000. Bush sent 1/2 the 300,000 and less then 1/3 the 500,000. The proof is that the troop levels that Bush agreed to send DID NOT SECURE IRAQ! I wish Gen Frank would have stood up to Bush and Rummy and said Sir we can not accomplich the mission without the level of troops our military doctrine and experience show we need. He caved and Invaded Iraq with far less troop levels that he and the Army CoF said were needed! They were BOTH correct and Americans have died because Bush DID NOT LET MILITARY CHOICES UP TO THE MILITARY!

IslandDog

No I have provided the info about TWO Generals best positioned to know what was required Gen. Shinsecki and Gen Franks. Since then many other four star generals have said we did not have the required troop levels to secure Iraq.

This is not a small issue for the loss of American Lives is because we NEVER controlled Iraq and that was because we did not and do not have the manpower required to stop the attacks on our troops.

"TOMMY FRANKS: We're reaping the negative benefits. Discussions, absolutely. Arguments, absolutely. Any sort of vitriol, absolutely not. This was an occasion where for 14 months, we iterated this plan back and forth and back and forth. It is a very interesting thing that if you say you want to have a lot of troops, then the next thing you say is how long will it take you to get them there and say, well, it may be six months. You say what would Saddam Hussein do during that six-month buildup? So we opted to go with a smaller force and a plan to build the force as necessary over time. It's very interesting. "

3 sovereign & smaller nations.

It appears that this is inevitable anyway.

We can effectively occupy the trouble spots instead of weakly patrolling while waiting for an attack. We don't have the manpower to do that now. And unfortunately, we don't have the manpower available now in the military, so I guess maybe this whole argument is a moot point.

Capital! Nor is there any longer the mentality to kick ass.