Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Supposition. We cannot speculate what would have happened if the US drove to Baghdad in '91. Would Saddam use chem/bio weapons, would or could he mobilize his population for total war, would Iran seize an opportunity to invade, would fractional fighting break out, would the US population (still not far removed from Vietnam) continue to support military operations, etc.

Originally Posted by LetsTalk

Example of a perfect invasion, I am not sure if one exists but a much better executed invasion was Desert Storm. I am confident that you can also come up with many more examples of better executed invasions, wars...

"In February, 2003, the U.S. Army's top general, Eric Shinseki, told the
Senate Armed Services Committee that it would take "several hundred
thousand soldiers" to secure Iraq.[96] Two days later, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the
number of troops required to win the war and, "the idea that it would take
several hundred thousand U.S. forces is far from the mark." Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Shineski's estimate was "way off the mark,"
because other countries would take part in an occupying force.[97]"

He was just one of many critics, and experts that warned the administration, just like most posters on this Topic, the administration failed to truly listen and understand people with a different views.

Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by gunnut

Likewise, you cannot say the invasion is wrong because you are assuming no invasion is the correct course of action.

Originally Posted by Shek

What the heck are you talking about?!? What we need is more embedded reporters. Embedded reporters by and large have done an absolutely tremendous job, and the lack of coverage (notice that I state lack and not slant - coverage overall has been pretty darn good with a handful of prominent exceptions, with the MSM being just about the only show in town anymore) is due to not enough embeds, some of which has been the fault of the Army.

Originally Posted by gunnut

The problem is what do you mean by "correctly?"

I hear that a lot. We didn't plan the invasion correctly. Our troops didn't have the right equipment. We didn't know what we're getting into... blah blah blah....

Give me one example, just one, of a well planned invasion in the history of mankind.

Originally Posted by Zemco

The Franco-Prussian War? You gotta like that one.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Did I say the invasion was wrong, or that no invasion was the correct course of action? Not on this thread. Given certain conditions I would argue that the invasion could have been the correct course of action. However there is a lot of area between absoultely no action and full on years of occupation to resolve the issue with Saddam; targeted assassination(s), proxy wars, tougher sanctions regime (yes I understand that the regime was "collapsing" any day now, but increased interdiction efforts could have helped it ala Libya) increased troop presence in the Gulf (making a show of force before an actual invasion), even allowing weapons inspectors to finish (novel idea I know) all could have been used to some degree to ensure Iraqi compliance.

Originally Posted by Zemco

All of that has to be viewed in the context of geo-political strategy. You need to be looking now at the world as it might be 25-35 years from now.

All of the actions you listed are more than feasible and would have been viable options, if Iraq was North Korea, or Libya, or the island nation of Fiji, none of which are relevant to US geo-political strategy.

So tell me what US "geo-political strategy" are you talking about?

However, the US Grand Master All-Star Game Plan has not changed in the last 30 years, and part of the game plane requires the US to control Iraq so that it can be used as a base for future military operations, rather than merely having access to Iraq or the ability to influence Iraq.

What is the "US Grand Master All-Star Game Plan" that hasn't changed in 30 years and requires a US occupation of Iraq? Is this in regards to Iran or the Cold War? Who authored the above "Plan", and what national security paradigms are they using?

The US certainly could have used Iraqi "freedom fighters" trained in Pakistan with US tax payer money channeled through the Pakistani ISI to fight a proxy war, just like it does Chechnyan "freedom fighters" and just like it did the "mujhadeen," but there are no guarantees. A proxy war could last for a decade or more, just like Afghanistan, and the end result could be a government that does not march in lock-step with the US, just like in Afghanistan, which ultimately required military action by the US.

And this Iraqi government marches in lock-step with the US? What is Maliki's position on Israel, or Iran?

If the US must attain certain objectives within a given time period in order to be successful in its geo-political strategy, then its options become increasingly limited as time runs out. That was the situation in Iraq, and it is the present situation in Iran. If the US does not act on Iran soon, the US will have increasing limited options, lose control, and may have its geo-political strategy disrupted for the long term, even thwarted to the extent that it results in failure, which would be devastating to the US, since it has bet the farm on the eastern Russian republics and has no other viable alternative strategy plan.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

D-Day went over pretty well, so did Germany's invasion of France 1940, Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939, the Roman invasion of Britain, the British invasion of Quebec in the French and Indian War, the Danish-Prussian War, etc.

Originally Posted by brokensickle

Like Geraldo Rivera giving the where abouts/coordinates of the division he was with. You mean that one.

Or the embedded reporters that find anything bad and write home about it even if it's a total fabrication.

The one that saw Lt. Pantano doing his job and reported it as an abuse.

The problem is that to many of the embeds have an agenda which is not including victory and more resembles treason IMHO.

Ivan

Originally Posted by gunnut

D-Day, compare the casualties of American forces on the first day against Operation Iraqi freedom. Our troops drowned by the scores due to the weight of their equipment and lack of training. There would be a congressional inquiry if Bush were in charge. Bloody Omaha, why did we lose so many men there and why weren't they properly equipped?

Battle of France, Germany allowed more than 1/4 million Allied troops to escape to fight another day. A great tactical victory, but a strategic defeat.