Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1116 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.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12670 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 1031 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.
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.
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.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 1015 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.
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.
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.