View Single Post
      02-08-2007, 10:44 AM   #145
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,973
Posts

 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
The part of military planning that you do not seem to understand is that the enemy gets a vote in how the war goes as well. There were definitely some aspects of the post-Saddam military situation that unexpectedly occurred and some aspects that unexpectedly did not occur. This does not mean the planners failed in anything other than the ability to perfectly predict the future. .
I actually do understand that there is the other side in the War. However, what you fail to admit is that the planners did not only fail to perfectly predict the future (which no one should expect from them) but they failed the basics:
1) They failed to calculate the amount of troops needed
2) They failed to calculate how much time and money is needed
3) They failed to recognize that the borders with Iran and Syria would have to be controlled better
4) They failed to study the history and recognize that the multi-ethnic environment would be hard to please
5) They failed to recognize the end of the conflict by letting the clown do the air carrier thing
and much more

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Military operations are all about Action, Reaction, and Counteraction. For you to assume that our changing of tactics to react to a change in the enemy's tactics is evidence of a failure on our part simply highlights your ignorance on the subject.
.
Changing tactics is desired in every situation, in the Wars and in every day life. And it is good to recognize that. However, changing it just to change it is not good. Again, it needs to be pllanned right. It needs to assure the American public that this change will not only delay the next fiasco but contribute to something positive.

Also, I do blame GWB for the Nation division. Just look at the senate debate nowdays. They cannot pass the basic ammendments -- Republicans are stubborn to agree on anything, Dems are scared of Bush's tactics to call anyone unpatriotic that does not follow his ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
I am curious why you believe either Iran or North Korea would fare any better in a conventional war with us than Iraq did? If you wish to argue that both of these nations will learn the lessons of Iraq and choose to fight us in a protracted insurgent style rather than toe to toe you would have a valid point but to imply that they could go toe to toe is something else entirely.
.
The US Army has no chance engaging against...lets say a million people Army on Korean soil. Our Army is not properly trained for the engagement like that. Clinton's advisers have realized that in the War in Yugoslavia and they stuck to the Air assult. However, Yugoslavia had a lot to loose by allowing a complete infrastructure destruction and cities ruined. NK does not have much to loose because they do not have it to begin with and a regular person over there does not need highways because they do not own the cars. So, in their case it would be the ground war.
Also, you pointed out (before) that the colleteral damage is caused because the enemy is hiding within the populated areas -- therefore, putting the blame solely on the enemy. Well, they have two options -- 1) to hide among others and survive (kind of the only media propaganda they can have) or 2) be alive target. By causing more colleteral damage they are hopin the world (sane people) would react properly. It would be up to us to recognize all that.
Next -- the communications. Our military is modern military and trained that way. The comm systems jammers do not work in that situation when they use land lines, etc...
ANd yes, the guerilla (spell?) war would be their only option, and the best option. Of course no one would expect them to launch the Mig 21's up there to fight our F16's, or to try to match our weapons.
In the end -- we would have no chance in the ground war with the NK for example...unless a total draft was o be instituted...and then, again -- no chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
If you are expecting guarantees of future safety, I would chalk that up as further irrational thinking on your part. There can be no guarantees, the best we or anyone can do is make an assessment based on the information available. .
Of course, it is hard to guarantee anything nowdays..
However, it is easy to see the opposite nowdays.
If you're sinking the country into bankruptcy, if you're dividing the nation, if you're setting up this democracy to function on idea "If you don't agree with me, you're unpatriotic", if you're setting us up to be completely hated from the rest of the World, and more and more nations would turn against us, if you're setting up the future of your military to be understaffed because less people would join...when we actually need much more than we have... yes, I think it is rational to think that the future does not look bright.

You can protect yourself and your soil by exactly doing it -- protect it -- invest into protecting what you have -- like, lets say Germany, France, China, Russia, Japan...are trying to do. Trying to own the world and trying to occupy the World would leave too many holes and opportunities for the attacks back home...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
It is our war. It became our war the moment our President and our Congress sent our soldiers to fight it.
Correct, at the moment.
Yes, I did smoke for 17 yars. It was my issue, I decided on it. But I did not decide to switch from Marlboro to Dunhill or to Marlboro Ultra Lights because it has less nicotine, or so. I decided to quit because I thought it was best for my future... Someetims quitting does not make you a quitter, but a smart person. Looks to me that at this point it is all about the pride and Bush future reputation -- he cannot allow it to be another lost war in the history -- so he would rather spent trillions on it and many lives than close it when he can...