Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
'99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops  
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/index.html

And If anyone says Bush didn't know about this report, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.

Shows again the incompetence of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. No wonder the Military Times is saying Rummy needs to go.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1229 times:

Im sorry to take the thread off topic in reply one. But can someone explain to me how these war games work and how they can predict and have the results they do?


Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1202 times:

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 1):
Im sorry to take the thread off topic in reply one. But can someone explain to me how these war games work and how they can predict and have the results they do?

I'd also be interested. Something as fluid as warfare can be hard to predict ahead of time...so many variables.

In the end, this is no secret...it's been known that Bush didn't give our generals enough troops. Disbanding the Iraqi military though is the biggest mistake. They were vital to securing Iraq using Iraqi troops and thus allowing a US pullout.

Just a disclaimer, this is what you would call an "armchair general" talkin'. It's just my take. I don't have access to intelligence, war maps, and what not.

Nevertheless, Cadet's question is pretty interesting. And yes, I agree with hijacking this thread into something educational rather than a political attack. The partisans have plenty of other threads to play in. Sorry Falcon.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3825 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1198 times:

"RIC WAS RIGHT"

- caps were on display at the 40th annual reunion of the West Point Class of 1965.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineClipperHawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1192 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
And If anyone says Bush didn't know about this report, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.

Boy you don't give up do you? Obsessed is the word. Well Mr. Falcon, where were you in 2003 screaming about troop strength?

Those glasses you are wearing must be great for 20/20 hindsight.

2 more years of Bush. Enjoy the angst.

It’s getting old Falcon. Just get out and vote next week and stop with the old diatribe you and the left love to drag out.

I can show you models that invading and holding Iraq would be difficult or extremely easy.

Now, argue something that’s worth the calories being used to type your thread of “I hate Bush just incase you didn’t hear it the last 37,000 times I posted.”

YAWN



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29693 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

Who was president in 1999 again?

I am sure that the GW team went with their studies, not the ones done by their predecessors.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 2):
I don't have access to intelligence

Like so many in the administration - Doh !

 Smile


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1150 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 5):
Who was president in 1999 again?

More importantly L-188, who was president when we invaded Iraq???


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12878 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

The USA military continuously reviews possible contingency plans for various possible wars, attacks and so on, to be prepared if there comes the need, to make sure supplies are in place if have to move quickly. There was always the possibility after the Gulf War of another war involving Iraq, and President Clinton even considered doing it due to the failures of the food-for-oil program and of the UN supported containment/'no-fly zones' policy upon Iraq, as well as fears of existing and continuing development of WMD's in Iraq.

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1106 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):

I don't think this is really a big surprise . . . . since we needed well over 500K troops in 1991 to kick Iraq's ass the last time . . . because it was tactically and strategically sound . . . invading in three years ago with less than 150K troops was and remains simply gawddamn stupid.

Anyone ever trained in the Operational Art will know this right off . . . any layman will be able to recognize that we didn't have sufficient forces to do the job properly.

Irrespective of the WMD, No Fly Zones, Insurgency, etc, the idea to attack with less than 1/3rd the forces we learned from experience in Desert Storm would do the job was stupid and ill-advised.

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 3):

Well, hell yes, he was right. And that's why that dictator Rumsfeld summarily fired him. Didn't even attend the retirement ceremony for the CoS, Army. Sent his #2 deputy. What a slap in the face - and typical Rumsfeld style. "Lets do this on the cheap", remember.

Assaulting a whole country with - literally - ONE Combat Division is/was completely assinine. Goes against any training or doctrine ever developed by the US Military. Continues to prove Rumsfeld is a waste. . . . continues to prove PotUS has fucked the dog by keeping Rumsfeld in the DoD.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

Quoting ClipperHawaii (Reply 4):
Well Mr. Falcon, where were you in 2003 screaming about troop strength?

I was one of the FIRST ONES to question it, CH. I wondered quite a few times on here that it seemed strange that in the '91 Gulf War, we had half a million troops in theater, simply to throw Iraq out of Kuwait, with no occupation planned, and that we had 3 times fewer troops to occupy the same nation we beat in '91.

Sorry, CH, but you don't have to be in the military to figure out something wasn't right, from the beginning, with the number of troops we deployed, and it has been borne out in what is going on today.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 5):
Who was president in 1999 again?

Which means what? It was a war game conducted, and that are conducted alll the time, L-188. But again, it shows that Bush did screw up.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 5):
I am sure that the GW team went with their studies, not the ones done by their predecessors.

And that may be the most damning statement against the Bush Administration in this whole argument. I have no doubt Bush's team dismissed ANYTHING that came out of the Clinton incumbency out-of-hand, and, in their smug arrogance, figured they knew better. Well, they didn't.

Thanks for driving home that point.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29693 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1081 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 10):
Which means what?

It means that since it was a prior administration and therefore all their studies would be treated with a grain of salt. And it doesn't matter what administration we are talking about BTW.......Their people didn't due it, you don't really know who wrote it, doubly so if you have a change of parties at the break. I am sure that Reagan treated everything Carters people did with th same grain of salt as did Clinton with reports from Bush's people.

A new administration should use it as a baseline for their own study and test it's validity.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 10):
And that may be the most damning statement against the Bush Administration in this whole argument

This may come as a shock to you but if you go back to my posts in March of 2002 right before the start of the war you will see that I also complained about the timing to the start of the war and the forces that where in place.

The war needed to be fought, but I did complain that it felt, "Rushed"

Just like ANCFlyer, I have been a critic of over reliance on force multipliers in military operations. Force multipliers are simply those factors that allow a smaller army to fight more effectively with a big one. And that is what Rumsfeld "rendition" policy is built on.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Exxon 1st Quarter: $8,400,000,000.00 posted Thu Apr 27 2006 19:53:41 by Corey07850
Bush Approves US$400 000 000 000 Defence Budget posted Tue Nov 25 2003 01:30:23 by Singapore_Air
100,000 New Troops To Go In To Iraq posted Fri Mar 28 2003 00:56:54 by Marcus
US Troops Out Of Iraq By Early 2008? posted Wed Dec 6 2006 13:19:56 by NAV20
500 000+ Dead In Iraq posted Wed Oct 11 2006 23:06:39 by Greasespot
Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10 posted Wed Oct 11 2006 22:16:42 by Falcon84
More Troops For Iraq? Bush Ignores. posted Fri Sep 29 2006 22:00:38 by ArtieFufkin
Troops In Iraq Interfere With Religion! posted Sat Jun 24 2006 16:59:43 by Mrmeangenes
UK Troops Found Not Guilty Over Iraq Drowning posted Tue Jun 6 2006 22:47:41 by Gkirk
Iraq Advisor Says US Troops Will Be Gone Mid-08 posted Sat Apr 29 2006 00:23:33 by Bushpilot