PDA

View Full Version : Eg8r: Analyze this!



03-28-2003, 02:18 PM
[b]Almighty Eg8r, please analyze this! Do you still believe our Commander in Chief and his gunho Army Generals know what they are doing? [b]

[b] <font color="red"> Not What America Expected </font color>
By Rod Nordland
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
The first week of war has challenged U.S. military assumptions about the Iraqis. <font color="green"> In spite of an impressive advance, much could still go wrong.</font color>

March 27 — Remember Little Big Horn. That historic example of asymmetric warfare probably overstates the case—at the moment. But the U.S. Army’s Seventh Cavalry is charging ahead into Iraq with <font color="orange"> a dangerously overstretched and underguarded line of supply, with utter self-confidence in the enemy’s military inability to mount a significant challenge and with no interest in a secure line of retreat, just in case. <font color="blue"> In the end, it was ignoring those same basic principles of warfare that defeated Custer.</font color>

<font color="#666666"> In deciding on an advance in Iraq, Army commanders justify throwing centuries of military doctrine into the trash heap by citing a couple of fairly new and relatively untested theories—the “Rolling Start” deployment and the “Bypass Criteria.” Both are departures from Colin Powell’s doctrine of massive, overwhelming force.

Rolling Start, in which attacks are launched while additional forces continue to arrive, is based on the assumption that the Iraqi Army was so inferior that the United States could begin the ground campaign even though the Iraqis had a 10-to-1 numerical advantage in ground forces (it may even be more than that, though actual figures on how many combat troops are now inside the country are a bit murky). Bypass Criteria, by which regiment-size combat teams decide to skip intermediary objectives and race ahead to major targets, is based on two assumptions: 1.) that the population in the rear is friendly and that bypassed enemy units are not very dangerous, and 2.) that air power could make up for the lack of manpower when it comes to defending the supply line and to securing any possible line of retreat.

Events of the first week of war challenge all of these assumptions, at least to some extent. The Iraqi Army is inferior, but not as inferior as expected; even the 51st Division, a regular army unit in the Basra area that was considered cannon fodder that would collapse on first contact, is still fighting as a cohesive unit in Basra. In Umm Qasr, a small contingent of Republican Guard held out against a larger force of U.S. Marines for four or five days (assuming coalition reports that Umm Qasr was pacified today prove more accurate than similar claims last Friday, and again on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday).

Throughout Iraq, much of the population is indeed friendly, soldiers are indeed seizing opportunities to surrender, but much larger numbers than expected are not only hostile, they also seem devoted to fighting a guerrilla war in our rear. And as for air power being a replacement for boots on the ground: well, we saw what good that did the soldiers from the 507th Maintenance Company who were killed or taken prisoner in Nasiriya on Sunday.

Along what is now a nearly 300-mile-long supply line (which splits after less than 100 miles into three major spurs), I’ve seen key choke points, such as a bridge or an overpass, where as few as three soldiers are standing guard. I can’t remember another modern instance in which American forces operated with such a long and vulnerable tail.

The picture is not all dreary. The advance is impressive, and U.S. and British forces have taken light casualties so far (although most troops have not yet engaged). Bombing exacts a daily toll that cannot be easy for the Iraqis to sustain. Iraqi attacks have not yet managed to cut the supply lines for more than a few hours at a time. In the course of this week U.S. and British troops will be at the red line around Baghdad; some may already be there.

Much could continue to go wrong, though. Major sandstorms, like one that blew for three days this week, could delay the advance—and this is the sandstorm season. Long-enough delays could push the fight into extreme summer weather, which usually begins by April. The Iraqis may even manage to launch counterattacks. What if they actually flank the advance and attack the Third Infantry Division’s rear? Or cut off a battalion of Marines and cut them up before help comes? Certainly U.S. air power, firepower and superior maneuverability would suppress such a move before it goes too far, but the propoganda bonanza will be tremendous. Last week, U.S. military intelligence reported that thousands of Republican Guard troops were on the move, heading to cut off the Seventh Cavalry and other units far in the front. That report turned out to be false—at least for now.

In the meantime, the Iraqis are really scoring points, especially in the Arab world, with the more ambiguous than expected picture of the Iraqi public’s reaction to the invasion. In the first couple days, American troops were greeted warmly, but the Baathists and other loyalists quickly reasserted themselves when it was clear no one was hanging around to hunt them down. Then the general mood sobered quickly as folks began fearing it might be 1991 all over again, when the United States abandoned the Shiite uprising to its bloody fate. It became abundantly clear to them that Washington didn’t have the troops to pacify their communities, arrest the Baathists, put the Saddamites out of office and so on. By the time I pulled out of southern Iraq early this week, no one was smiling and waving anymore—even had they wanted to.

Meanwhile, the United States continues to put its faith in the prospect of a knockout punch in Baghdad. Decapitate the beast, then worry about holding down its twitching extremities. Politically, especially overseas, the Americans could use a quick victory. In the Vietnam War it took decades to approach the level of opposition this war has aroused, even before it started. That can only worsen. Same with the Iraqi public reaction. In Az-Zubayr, I saw a single accidental shooting incident inflame an entire town that had been cheering only hours before. Not far from Safwan on Wednesday, people accepted food and water from an aid convoy while party hacks led them in provocative chants of “With our blood and our souls, we sacrifice our lives for you, Saddam.”

A few days earlier, the same small community was pulling down and stomping on the posters of Saddam. But troops can’t do much about that; they’re stretched too thin, merely holding the line of supply open. Reinforcements are on the way; the Army seems anxious to step up its deployment of troops to Iraq, bringing the Fourth Infantry Division in ahead of schedule, for instance. And along the way, by the middle of this week, they realized they couldn’t just push through when they were sniped on and ambushed; they had to pause and hunt down the perpetrators and put them out of action.

Tommy Franks is certainly no Custer. But he has a much more daunting job than his Iraqi opponents. To succeed, Franks has to subdue the country, take its capital and eliminate its leader. All Saddam has to do is kill enough Americans, and cause enough embarrassments and setbacks that the war becomes unsustainable politically. That hasn’t happened, but I’m not sure the Americans appreciate the danger that it might. </font color>

<font color="green"> </font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
03-28-2003, 02:37 PM
<font color="blue">The media is always going to put the worst possible spin on a war run by Republicans. Look at the headlines in USA Today today. All doom and gloom.

A war is never going to go as expected. The first gulf war was easier than anticipated. This one's harder.

Buried in the article is this:</font color>

quote: Rod Nordland

The picture is not all dreary. The advance is impressive, and U.S. and British forces have taken light casualties so far (although most troops have not yet engaged). Bombing exacts a daily toll that cannot be easy for the Iraqis to sustain. Iraqi attacks have not yet managed to cut the supply lines for more than a few hours at a time. In the course of this week U.S. and British troops will be at the red line around Baghdad; some may already be there.

.... What if they actually flank the advance and attack the Third Infantry Division&amp;#8217;s rear? Or cut off a battalion of Marines and cut them up before help comes?

<font color="blue">Yeah right. They can't make a move without us knowing it, then we blast the hell out of them. </font color>

Certainly U.S. air power, firepower and superior maneuverability would suppress such a move before it goes too far

<font color="blue">Yep. </font color>

eg8r
03-29-2003, 12:13 AM
This is pretty funny. You are a chump and you show it here. You come with someone elses work and expect something in return. LOL

eg8r

Kato
03-29-2003, 07:37 AM
President Bush has come on the air countless times to tell the American people that this war is going to be long and hard fought. Now, I'm no brain surgeon but these people live in the desert. They are not wimps. The Republican guard is loyal to Saddam and they know how to fight. When the 4th Infantry Division gets there look out, that's the baddest division on the planet. Baghdad will fall. Saddam will be gone.

I take it Israel is not getting involved?

Kato

03-29-2003, 10:38 AM
Oh, man I'm truly dissapointed with you! I thought you would jump up all over this guy defending our chump President. Couldn't find and get rid of Bin Laden and has to bully the people of Irak! Our Prez is an idiot just like you eg8r! How can you defend a Prez, and his gunho Generals who don't know squat of what there doing, and who goes on TV to tell us all that the war will take longer than expected because he was too dumb to figure out that the Iraqi people would not bend over and surrender. What a joke! Bozo the clown would have done a better job than the Prez. Even Bozo would have figured we needed to better train our troops for desert warfare!

Eg8r, lets switch user names. 9BallChump is a better suited name for you than it is for me.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

9BallChump ~ believes eg8r to be a joke of a guy!

Kato
03-29-2003, 10:50 AM
Nice spelling Chump. I don't always agree with Eg but at least if you're gonna punk him out in public make it readable.

Kato

03-30-2003, 07:14 PM
Please don't tell me you don't know what the "Prez" is! Everything else was quite understandable unless you don't "comprende" the English language!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Kato
03-30-2003, 08:09 PM
I'm sorry. It was "Irak" that confused me. I'm much too simple for this kind of talk.

Kato

AndyG
03-31-2003, 09:39 AM
I can't believe there's still people out there who'd prefer that Al Gore (or Heaven forbid, Bill Clinton) had been in office when 9/11 came.
AndyG

Deeman
03-31-2003, 09:48 AM
Guys,

You ever sit in on a pro nine ball tournament. There's always a guy who is sitting there saying in low voice, "These guys can't shoot. I could beat them. Look at him miss!" I always invite these guys to play after the set is over. Never had one that could play a lick and most won't accept the challenge. These are the same guys who are naysaying our president. The frightering point is they WOULD rather see Al Gore or Bill Clinton in command. Hey, I don't like war. I hate that many will die. I just want us to win and get our boys home but I don't want them to have to fight longer because some here are encouraging them.

Dee

eg8r
03-31-2003, 02:50 PM
I find it interesting to see you standing behind someone elses work and calling names to people who will not debate with you. LOL, you are sort of like the little boy that stands behind his big bro and calls names out to the other kids on the block. Chump you are.

[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, lets switch user names. 9BallChump is a better suited name for you than it is for me.... <hr /></blockquote>
I believe this post by you proves your name suits you just fine. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Actually after reading your post, I believe you and Fast Larry might be the same person.

[ QUOTE ]
How can you defend a Prez, and his gunho Generals who don't know squat of what there doing, and who goes on TV to tell us all that the war will take longer than expected because he was too dumb to figure out that the Iraqi people would not bend over and surrender. <hr /></blockquote> Go back through Ari Fleischer's notes from last Friday. In there you will find many statements by the President stating he would not put a timeline on the war because there is a chance it would not be very easy. These quotes all came in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of last year. The US had not even begun to fight and he stated this. Only the newspeople are saying it is taking longer than expected. Well you are also, but chumps don't count.

eg8r

eg8r
03-31-2003, 02:54 PM
Once a chump always a chump. I am surprised you were able to successfully navigate through an english/spanish dictionary. Maybe you could quote that also, it is not like you have brought any of your own intelligence to the board.

eg8r