Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

'99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:21 pm

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.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Cadet57
Posts: 7174
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:02 am

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:25 pm

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.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:57 pm

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 
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:06 pm

"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?
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:21 pm

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"
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:30 pm

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.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:54 pm

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

Like so many in the administration - Doh !

 Smile
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:56 pm

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

More importantly L-188, who was president when we invaded Iraq???
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12389
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:26 pm

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.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:45 pm

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.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:10 am

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.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: '99 Simulation: Iraq Invason Needed 400.000 Troops

Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:22 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], pvjin and 18 guests