Spain Refused US To Go Offensive — Non Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Spain Refused US To Go Offensive

Airmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 368 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 598 times:

Leader of the Spanish contingent in Iraq said he refused US orders to use his troops to launch as offensive against and capture Muqtada Al Sadr in April, he said Spanish troops were not there to go on the offensive but to help in other ways, he also stated that "his forces were like speechless, observers confused as to why they are here and what this war was all about".

Seems like a last ditch effort to involve Spain fully in their dirty plans as they quit the coalition next month, Muqtada already orderd his people not to harm them.

[Edited 2004-05-14 15:30:15]

.....up there with the best!

6 replies: All unread, jump to last

L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 595 times:

OK.

More proof that the US needs to have enough military strength to conduct operations on it's own.

Cutting the Army down to 10 divisions was way too large of a cut in the 1990's.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

PU151 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 587 times:

L-188:

I read some time ago (can't remember where, but I think it was Time or Newsweek), that some pentagon planners felt that the need was not to add divisions, but rather to add Brigades, better deployable and more efficient. Could someone confirm that for me?

L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 583 times:

There is a push to convert divsions into smaller brigades.

Personally I think doing that is more of a shell game then anything else. Pretty much like when they decided to give each division and additional manuver brigade in their structure. To form the new brigades, they stole battalions out of the other already exisitng brigades, which caused a net increase of zero troops for the division.

But Rumsfeld is a big proponent of replacing manpower with technology. It is also one of the reasons why Clinton was able to get support to cut the army down to 10 divisions, when GH only was going to cut back to 14 after the cold war standard 19 divisions.

I think the past month in Iraq has shown that while technology is a useful tool, and a powerful force multiplier, it is simply no subsitute for manpower.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20853 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 563 times:

The manpower needed obviously depends on the kinds of operations you´re attempting. An illegal invasion will always require much larger contingents than a peacekeeping effort with local popular support.

Rumsfeld didn´t get the reason for the invasion right and on top of that he underestimated what it would take after that. Pathetic.

Vanessa From Iraq, joined Apr 2004, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 532 times:

"Chapeau Bas" Espagna.

Peace.

L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 498 times:

Actually Klaus, The invasion went quite well.

It is the post-war environment that has proven to be the manpower sink.

We can debate if this action was actually "illegal" in a different thread.

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: