Why we must never abandon this historic struggle in Iraq - Page 13

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-22-2004, 11:26 AM

The original intent of NATO was to keep the US in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.

donnie · 05-22-2004, 14:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw-acs

If you are going to police the whole world, why dont you just take it over. Make it official.

nah, that would be egotistical

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-24-2004, 00:43 AM

I've met Gen Zinni once. One hell of a Marine.

Quote:

From CBS News | Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up' | May 23, 2004 19:58:29

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.

tw-acs · 05-24-2004, 03:03 AM

I think it was a war the civilians were tricked in to wanting. After 9-11 the search was on Osama Bin Laden, he is still at large. In the change of one day the news said that the #1 target for USA was Saddam Hussien. With the picture of Osama Bin Laden replaced by a picture of Saddam Hussien with the names changed also, but nothing else. Bush had plans for war in Iraq before it was ever discussed in congress or ever made public to civilians; he even had it before 9-11.

Praxus · 05-24-2004, 15:33 PM

I watch that, and he was so right. To bad people like him aren't in charge in the Pentagon.

He would toss out this "small force" BS. At least the USMC isn't buying into it.

Confed999 · 05-24-2004, 18:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.

I submit: generals who want war, should not be allowed to command.

ChrisF202 · 05-24-2004, 18:45 PM

When was thiz Zinni guy in charge at CENTCOM? And wasent he sent by Clinton in the late 90's to try and broker a peace deal betweem the Israelis and the Palestinians?

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-25-2004, 00:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisF202

When was thiz Zinni guy in charge at CENTCOM? And wasent he sent by Clinton in the late 90's to try and broker a peace deal betweem the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Gen Zinni was Gen Tommy Franks' pre-successor and he was sent by the Bush Jr Administration and was subsquently fired for his views on the Iraq War.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-25-2004, 00:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxus

He would toss out this "small force" BS. At least the USMC isn't buying into it.

On the contrary, the USMC is the epitomy of unit force actions. Marine Expeditionary Units is the standard to which all initial entry force are measured against.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-25-2004, 01:03 AM

I can recall only one other civilian who did as much damage as Rumps-felt did - MacNamara. MacNamara was also an advocat for the very ill-advised dependence on SOF.

The US definetely needs another SECDEF.

Quote:

From ARMY Article: Speed and Power: Complements, Not Substitutes, June 2004

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wants to radically restructure the U.S. military, particularly the Army, to put even more emphasis on the speed of strategic deployment. Under the so-called "10-30-30 plan," major forces must be capable of deploying to a distant theater in 10 days, defeating an enemy within 30 days and then be ready for redeployment to a new battle somewhere else within another 30 days. This is a much more ambitious goal than the previous standard of being able to deploy a corps-sized force of up to five divisions in 30 days.

Yet at a time when 20,000 American soldiers have been told they are needed in Iraq for up to three months beyond their initial one year deployment, there is a serious question of whether the 10-30-30 objective matches the real world. One is reminded of Karl von Clausewitz’ distinction between "ideal" war, which is dominated entirely by operational considerations taken to the extreme, and wars as actually fought, bounded by politics and subject to "friction." The Iraq campaign has shown an abundance of both politics and friction.

It is not clear that higher speeds of strategic deployment are necessary beyond the occasional raid or evacuation operation conducted by special operations units, airborne forces or the Marines. The kind of major crisis that would lead to the commitment of corps-sized American forces does not materialize out of the blue, nor do the diplomatic foundations for large-scale intervention fall into place overnight. Though some chafe under these delays--especially when the pursuit of a peaceful resolution appears futile--planners should welcome the chance to better prepare for an impending test of arms and its aftermath.

The most telling example of the superior speed of military deployment compared to diplomatic preparation was the arrival of a fleet of ships carrying the heavy equipment of the 4th Infantry Division (4ID) (Mechanized) off the coast of Turkey well before the process of obtaining Ankara’s permission to unload had reached its disappointing climax. This diplomatic failure on the eve of the Iraq War prevented the opening of a major offensive on the northern front aimed at pacifying the Sunni areas and blocking the Syrian border. The too rapid initial deployment of the 4ID, one of the most technically advanced units in the Army and a test bed for new tactics and doctrine, kept the division out of the fight until it could be redeployed to the Persian Gulf.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-25-2004, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Confed999

I submit: generals who want war, should not be allowed to command.

I submit when the warriors are telling you not to fight this war, you should damned well listen.

Anon · 05-25-2004, 12:21 PM

I have taken to calling Rumsfeld "Rumnamara".

MacNamara <spit> makes Rumsfeld look like a rocket scientist by comparison though.

Anon · 05-25-2004, 12:25 PM

"Bush had plans for war in Iraq before it was ever discussed in congress or ever made public to civilians; he even had it before 9-11."

We've had plans for a full on invasion of Iraq since 1990.

Leader · 05-25-2004, 15:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw-acs

I think it was a war the civilians were tricked in to wanting. After 9-11 the search was on Osama Bin Laden, he is still at large. In the change of one day the news said that the #1 target for USA was Saddam Hussien. With the picture of Osama Bin Laden replaced by a picture of Saddam Hussien with the names changed also, but nothing else. Bush had plans for war in Iraq before it was ever discussed in congress or ever made public to civilians; he even had it before 9-11.

The military has plans for almost every eventuality. And they should. If we were attacked by Iran tomorrow, you wouldn’t want the military drawing up war plans on the fly.

tw-acs · 05-25-2004, 15:17 PM

I understand that, President Bush is not part of the military.

05-22-2004, 11:26 AM	#181 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 16,553 Country:	The original intent of NATO was to keep the US in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. __________________ Chimo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	35	05-20-2008 03:48 AM
Iraq in Books - Review Essay	Shek	The War in Iraq	9	02-29-2008 06:08 AM
Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis	Shek	The War in Iraq	0	08-24-2005 07:29 AM
Quagmire or not?	Shek	The War in Iraq	72	07-04-2005 12:18 PM
Why We Are in Iraq	Leader	The War in Iraq	107	12-16-2004 21:23 PM

05-24-2004, 03:03 AM	#184 (permalink)
tw-acs Contributor Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Planet #3 Earth Posts: 374	I think it was a war the civilians were tricked in to wanting. After 9-11 the search was on Osama Bin Laden, he is still at large. In the change of one day the news said that the #1 target for USA was Saddam Hussien. With the picture of Osama Bin Laden replaced by a picture of Saddam Hussien with the names changed also, but nothing else. Bush had plans for war in Iraq before it was ever discussed in congress or ever made public to civilians; he even had it before 9-11.

05-24-2004, 15:33 PM	#185 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	I watch that, and he was so right. To bad people like him aren't in charge in the Pentagon. He would toss out this "small force" BS. At least the USMC isn't buying into it.

05-24-2004, 18:45 PM	#187 (permalink)
ChrisF202 *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-12-03 Location: Long Island, New York, USA Posts: 2,587 Country:	When was thiz Zinni guy in charge at CENTCOM? And wasent he sent by Clinton in the late 90's to try and broker a peace deal betweem the Israelis and the Palestinians?

05-25-2004, 12:21 PM	#192 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	I have taken to calling Rumsfeld "Rumnamara". MacNamara <spit> makes Rumsfeld look like a rocket scientist by comparison though.

05-25-2004, 12:25 PM	#193 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	"Bush had plans for war in Iraq before it was ever discussed in congress or ever made public to civilians; he even had it before 9-11." We've had plans for a full on invasion of Iraq since 1990.

05-25-2004, 15:17 PM	#195 (permalink)
tw-acs Contributor Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Planet #3 Earth Posts: 374	I understand that, President Bush is not part of the military.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)