Originally Posted by dr325i
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
1- The number of troops required to deal with Iraq's regular military forces was not miscalculated. The problem occurred when the number and types of troops in the pipeline for the post-conventional phase were not the right type for the situation that developed. We planned for a situation where the most pressing problems would be civilian dislocation and deprivation and that was not the case. We were surprised by the speed at which the Ba'athists and the 'al-Qaeda elements were able to organize into an operational insurgency. We expected a window of opportunity to get a provisional Iraqi government on its feet and begin to train a new security force before opposition could organize, we assumed wrong. The alternative of course, was to pour more forces into the country after Saddam fell and then have people (like you) blame us for causing the insurgency and inflaming the populace by our heavy presence.
2 - I do not remember anyone giving a firm estimate on how long it would take or how much money. I do remember being told it would be a long, hard struggle.
3- I do not believe anyone underestimated the need to secure either the Iranian or Syrian border. Quite simply the failure to adequately do so flows from the same assumption mentioned above, the time the opposition would need to organize.
4- I defy you to read about GEN Abazaid
and tell me he does not understand and appreciate the history of the region.
5- Have you ever read the speech the President gave on the deck of the Lincoln? He said we successfully rid Iraq of Saddam. He never said our job was finished. He said,
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes... The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
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.
I am not sure how you come about the limited military knowledge you have but I would suggest you find another source. The idea that we would be unable to deal with North Korea in a conventional conflict and are not trained to do so is absurd. A conflict with north Korea would undoubtedly be very bloody and wreak havoc on the infrastructure of the RoK but there is little doubt that north Korean military would lose any conflict with the combined forces of the US and RoK. The confined mobility corridors
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...
Looks to me like you refuse to accept that there are consequences to quitting. Your pessimism and misguided delusions of what may motivate the conviction of the President and others that this is a fight we have to win is further evidence that you have allowed your irrational hatred of this President to control your thinking in this matter.
I am certainly glad you were not around during the dark days for the Union in 1863 or after Battle for Kasserine Pass in 1943. War's are won or lost, the only way we can lose this one is by quitting.