Quote:
Originally posted by Tim Hancock
[B]Sniper, you say that we needed more troops for the initial military operation, yet it went rather smoothly.]
|
That is hardly the case.
We had a complete and total inability to either A) secure our own LOCs(Lines Of Communications, aka "Supply lines"), and B) we completely lacked the pesonnel to secure the over 50,000 suspected WMD and governmental sites that were critical to the overall objective. This does not even include the thousands of conventional weapons dumps that went unguarded after the war.
We all watched "Victory" being looted before our eyes on CNN. The truth is the post war looting did several times the damage to the Iraqi infrastructure than the shooting part of it did.
Quote:
|
I value your opinion, but cleary the toppling of the SH regime was a walk in the park.
|
First, thanx for the kind word, but, you should really read the books Cobra II and Thunder run.
The actual fight to, and into, Baghdad, was an utter blood bath. It was only because of the complete tactical dominance and unparalled protection levels of the US Army Heavy forces that we did not suffer many times more casualties.
The Iraqis however, were slaughtered at a wholesale pace.
Quote:
|
The aftermath has grown into a mess, but I am not sure that more troops alone would neccesarily have prevented that. On one hand you state that our losses are low compared to past military conflicts, but in your next breath you claim Rumsfeld botched it from the start.
|
The war was lost before the first shot was fired due to insufficient force levels and NO(as opposed to Poor) post-war plan.
Quote:
I do not doubt that some in the military did not like Rumsfeld, but I don't think he can be painted as a bumbling idiot either.
I am guessing that removing Rumsfeld in part was done to keep him from getting grilled by the dem's 2 yr long Iraq inquisition
|
I highly reccomend you read the book Cobra II by ret. General Bernard E. Trainor.
It's a real eye opener.