McCaffrey Rips Rumsfeld

[JPhillips]

Saw this from Reuters and thought it was very interesting. I knew there was a break between the civilians and the military in the Pentagon, but I didn't expect to see it spill out during the war.

"Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said the U.S.-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" as it pushes north toward the Iraqi capital.

"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday.

"In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war.

***

McCaffrey said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had misjudged the nature of the conflict. Asked if Rumsfeld made a mistake by not sending more troops to start the offensive, McCaffrey replied: "Yes, sure. I think everybody told him that."

"I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added."

[ice4277]

Seeing civilians with little or no military experience overrule the advice of four- and five-star generals makes me very worried. Not saying that they should blindly follow the military's advice, but, in large matters such as this, I would tend to believe what the guy with lifelong military experience says over a political appointee.

[JPhillips]

Some more info on the same subject from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Five days into the war, the optimistic assumptions of the Pentagon's civilian war planners have yet to be realized, the risks of the campaign are becoming increasingly apparent and some current and retired military officials are warning that there may be a mismatch between Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's strategy and the force he's sent to carry it out.

The outcome of the war isn't in doubt: Iraq's forces are no match for America and its allies. But, so far, defeating them is proving to be harder, and it could prove to be longer and costlier in American and Iraqi lives than the architects of the American war plan expected.

And if weather, Iraqi resistance, chemical weapons or anything else turned things suddenly and unexpectedly sour, the backup force, the Army's 4th Infantry Division, is still in Texas with its equipment sailing around the Arabian peninsula.

Despite the aerial pounding they've taken, it's not clear that Saddam Hussein, his lieutenants or their praetorian guard are either shocked or awed. Instead of capitulating, some regular Iraqi army units are harassing American supply lines. Contrary to American hopes - and some officials' expectations - no top commander of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard has capitulated. Even some ordinary Iraqis are greeting advancing American and British forces as invaders, not as liberators.

"This is the ground war that was not going to happen in (Rumsfeld's) plan," said a Pentagon official. Because the Pentagon didn't commit overwhelming force, "now we have three divisions strung out over 300-plus miles and the follow-on division, our reserve, is probably three weeks away from landing."

Asked Monday about concerns that the coalition force isn't big enough, Defense Department spokesperson Victoria Clarke replied: "... most people with real information are saying we have the right mix of forces. We also have a plan that allows it to adapt and to scale up and down as needed."

Knowledgeable defense and administration officials say Rumsfeld and his civilian aides at first wanted to commit no more than 60,000 American troops to the war on the assumption that the Iraqis would capitulate in two days.

Intelligence officials say Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and other Pentagon civilians ignored much of the advice of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency in favor of reports from the Iraqi opposition and from Israeli sources that predicted an immediate uprising against Saddam once the Americans attacked.

The officials said Rumsfeld also made his disdain for the Army's heavy divisions very clear when he argued about the war plan with Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the allied commander. Franks wanted more and more heavily armed forces, said one senior administration official; Rumsfeld kept pressing for smaller, lighter and more agile ones, with much bigger roles for air power and special forces.

"Our force package is very light," said a retired senior general. "If things don't happen exactly as you assumed, you get into a tangle, a mismatch of your strategy and your force. Things like the pockets (of Iraqi resistance) in Basra, Umm Qasr and Nasariyah need to be dealt with forcefully, but we don't have the forces to do it."

"The Secretary of Defense cut off the flow of Army units, saying this thing would be over in two days," said a retired senior general who has followed the evolution of the war plan. "He shut down movement of the 1st Cavalry Division and the1st Armored Division. Now we don't even have a nominal ground force."

He added ruefully: "As in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, we are using concepts and methods that are entirely unproved. If your strategy and assumptions are flawed, there is nothing in the well to draw from."

In addition, said senior administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, Rumsfeld and his civilian aides rewrote parts of the military services' plans for shipping U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf, which they said resulted in a number of mistakes and delays, and also changed plans for calling up some reserve and National Guard units.

"There was nothing too small for them to meddle with," said one senior official. "It's caused no end of problems, but I think we've managed to overcome them all."

Robin Dorff, the director of national security strategy at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., said three things have gone wrong in the campaign:

_A "mismatch between expectations and reality."

_The threat posed by irregular troops, especially the 60,000 strong Saddam Fedayeen, who are harassing the 300-mile-long supply lines crucial to fueling and resupplying the armor units barreling toward Baghdad.

_The Turks threatening to move more troops into northern Iraq, which could trigger fighting between Turks and Kurds over Iraq's rich northern oilfields.

Dorff and others said that the nightmare scenario is that allied forces might punch through to the Iraqi capital and then get bogged down in house-to-house fighting in a crowded city.

"If these guys fight and fight hard for Baghdad, with embedded Baathists stiffening their resistance at the point of a gun, then we are up the creek," said one retired general.

Dr. John Collins, a retired Army colonel and former chief researcher for the Library of Congress, said the worst scenario would be sending American troops to fight for Baghdad. He said every military commander since Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist, has hated urban warfare.

"Military casualties normally soar on both sides; innocent civilians lose lives and suffer severe privation; reconstruction costs skyrocket," Collins said, adding that fighting for the capital would cancel out the allied advantages in air and armor and reduce it to an Infantry battle house to house, street by street.

Another retired senior officer said the Apache Longbow helicopter gunships that were shot up badly Sunday had been sent on a deep strike against Republican Guard divisions guarding the approaches to Baghdad. He and others said the Apaches shouldn't have been used that way.

"They should have been preceded by suppression of enemy air defenses," the general said. "There should be a barrage of long-range artillery and MLRS (Multiple-Launch Rocket System) rockets before you send the Apaches in."

Reports from the field said virtually every one of the estimated 30 to 40 Apache Longbows came back shot full of holes, as the Iraqis fired everything they had at them. One did not come back, and its two-man crew apparently was taken prisoner.

"Every division should have two brigades of MLRS launches for a campaign like this," the general said. "They do not, and the question in the end will be why they don't."

He said the Air Force was bombing day and night, but its strikes have so far failed to produce the anticipated capitulation and uprising by the Iraqi people.

One senior administration official put it this way: "'Shock and Awe' is Air Force bull---!"

Dorff said: "Expectations were raised for something that might be quick and relatively painless. What we're seeing in the first few days probably ought to dispel that. Part of the problem is that expectations were raised that we would march in and everybody would surrender - sort of the four-day scenario of 1991."

Instead of streams of surrendering Iraqi soldiers, the American and British forces report that they are holding around 2,000 enemy prisoners.

[sachmo71]

Hmmmm, interesting. I agree with McCaffrey. If the Republican Guard does fight, in a city as big as Baghdad it's going to be a buzzsaw. Tanks are pratically useless. Artillery is useless. Airpower is almost nullified. It's going to be grunt against grunt. On the other hand, our guys do have excellent training, even in urban warfare. Hopefully that training will minimize casualties. Or maybe we can get them to surrender/flee before a house to house war is necessary.

[Bee]

I would take the retired general's word with a grain of salt. He doesn't have all the information and is making some assumptions that might be incorrect. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I wouldn't take his estimate as fact either.

[KWhit]

Actually, Gen Tommy franks had said the same things before the war started. There was quite a rift between him and Rummy because of this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

McCaffrey is overlooking another key point -- there's too much emphasis on the p.r. campaign and not enough emphasis on protecting Coalition forces.

For example, the Saddam Fedayeen won't be very effective if they're buried under tons of rubble.

[KWhit]

Then why don't we just nuke the whole country, Jon?

:rolleyes:

[Bee]

Originally posted by KWhit
Then why don't we just nuke the whole country, Jon?

:rolleyes:

Would a nuke contaminate the oil? ;)

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Bee
Would a nuke contaminate the oil? ;)

The US could then sell its stolen nucular-contaminated oil to France, who imports most of its oil from Iraq anyway. There you go, two birds killed with one stone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by KWhit
Then why don't we just nuke the whole country, Jon?

Minus any of the p.r. aspect, I've long advocated a black glass policy for a number of terroist nations.

And if the choice comes down to 10k-20k Coalition troops or leveling the entire country ... dang, I don't have a mushroom cloud icon.

[Bee]

Originally posted by KWhit
Actually, Gen Tommy franks had said the same things before the war started. There was quite a rift between him and Rummy because of this.

I don't think that's confirmed. Everything I've read has indicated he refused to voice his opinion publicly because of the unreliability of such forecasts. Here's a quote from an article that discusses this exact thing:


While Franks conceded he "may have an opinion'' about the war's likely duration and casualties, he refused to voice it. Instead, the general and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reminded reporters that such forecasts are notoriously unreliable. A Pentagon estimate that 18,000 troops would die was widely circulated before the 1991 Persian Gulf War; in fact, Iraqi forces were driven from Kuwait with a loss of just 148 Americans.

[clintl]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Minus any of the p.r. aspect, I've long advocated a black glass policy for a number of terroist nations.

And if the choice comes down to 10k-20k Coalition troops or leveling the entire country ... dang, I don't have a mushroom cloud icon.

Nice to know you're such an enthusiastic advocate of genocide.

[Tekneek]

It is not unusual for civilians to overrule the career military guys. After all, it is the civilians that run the place. Ultimately, the military guys do what the civilians say. It is unfortunate that more of the civilians do not trust the judgment of those Generals, but even George Bush back in 1990/1991 did not go along with Colin Powell's pleas to give economic sanctions 6 more months to work. So Colin Powell had to organize the war, because he was told to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I never made any secret of my support for the current action being based upon concerns about U.S. national security. Coddling terrorist nations certainly hadn't solved the problems in the region, you'll see me shedding no tears if those threats are eliminated. Permanently.

[ACStrider]

Now now Clintl, let's not go overboard here. I'd personally be in favor of using tactical nukes if it came down to that and losing the lives of thousands upon thousands of our troops. That's not exactly genocide.

As far as Rumsfeld goes, if these reports are true (which I've actually seen reports confirming it) it confirms my fears to some extent. I've always been a big opponent of limited warfare. Let's review the Army's tried and true principles of warfare, shall we?

Objective - got it
Offensive - got it
Economy of Force - got it
Maneuver - got it
Unity of Command - got it
Security - got it
Surprise - got it
Simplicity - got it
Mass - uh

When it comes to fighting a war I'll take "overwhelming force" to "enough to get the job done" any day.

Let's keep our heads up, though, everyone. The losses to this point have been minimal (including civilian casulties) and progress has been swift. Our military is in good hands and they know how to get the job done.

[clintl]

I don't think tactical nuclear weapons are what Jon was referring to as his "Black Glass" policy, nor does his answer indicate that. If it was, he needs to learn better communications skills.

[Fritz]

I am absolutely certain the United States does not have the will to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with Iraq.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"I am absolutely certain the United States does not have the will to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with Iraq"

Sad to say, but I agree with you.

[JPhillips]

Tekneek: There is a big difference between starting a military action six months before a general wants and overruling the OOB requirements.

[ACStrider]

Well, the important thing to realize to this point is that our casulties have been very minimal. I'm for taking every measure necessary to protect our troops, even at the expense of some (to a certain point) civilian casulties. As of now, we have had no need to use anything to the scale of anything greater then a 2,000 lb. bomb (if I understand our muntions correctly). And something that we have to keep in mind is that rebuilding costs will fall to a great extent on us. A nuke requires cleanup and rebuilding. A precision strike on military institutions requires little to no rebuilding cost.

[Radii]

JonInMiddleGA, I am reading your statements to read that if we could totally wipe out the country of iraq, that would be an acceptable end to this conflict.

The population of Baghdad is 5 million people. The population of Iraq is 22 million people.

If I'm wrong, in my reading of your statements, Iwill gladly stand corrected if you care to explain further.

If I'm not wrong, how would you justify it as acceptable that we kill 5-22 million people(depending on exactly how literal your "black glass" idea may be)?

[NoMyths]

Actually, this is almost a museum piece -- by reading JonInMiddleGA's posts you can see how the Germans allowed the Holocaust to happen. Fascinating watching it happen in our time.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Actually, this is almost a museum piece -- by reading JonInMiddleGA's posts you can see how the Germans allowed the Holocaust to happen. Fascinating watching it happen in our time.

elaborate please

----
also: *kicks in groin* (just for old times)

[NoMyths]

*points to sign above desk, which reads: Never Elaborate*

Ack!

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
*points to sign above desk, which reads: Never Elaborate*

Ack!

There is nothing worse than a dyslexic poet (other than a mime with tourette's syndrome).

The sign reads "ORAL BEAVER TEEN."

You poets must sure have a hard time making ends meet.

[sterlingice]

As an aside, I've been wondering: is this the same Barry McCaffrey that was the failed drug tsar for us in the mid-late 90s?

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Radii
If I'm wrong, in my reading of your statements, Iwill gladly stand corrected if you care to explain further.

After getting a good laugh at the "never elaborate" comment in the thread, I'm going to honor your request because, well, you asked so darned nicely :)

Brevity isn't my strong suit, so I often speak in a sort of shorthand, especially here where a soundbite is generally more than anyone wanted to know anyway.
But if you want clarification, I'll have to not worry about the length of the post & just see what I can do with this.

Let's start from a practical standpoint, which is the one that would probably matter most.

First & foremost, I don't believe you ever, ever take an option off the table in front of your enemy. Doing so not only weakens your hand but it also eliminates one of their concerns. I want the bastards to not sleep at all, not remove one of their worries for them.

Secondly, as has already been indicated here, there are numerous types of nuclear devices & I believe that there are several scenarios that would make at least tactical nuclear weapons (maybe call them "low-yield") a very viable option. The larger ones are better known but others do exist.

Now, let's slide towards the less practical part of the equation a bit.

There's all sorts of commentary about the "humanitarian" aspect of the current mission. Honestly, that 's not a factor in my support of the campaign. That lies in the national security aspect of eliminating a threat, no more and no less.

Given that focus the number of non-Coaltion casualties isn't a major concern of mine. Please don't misinterpret that honesty though.

I don't want unneccessary civilian casualties. But I'm extremely wary of creating unneccessary Coalition casualties in trying to avoid those beyond good military judgement. Honestly, that's my greatest (and growing) fear about the entire conflict, that we're so concerned about p.r. that good military judgement is falling by the wayside.

We could wargame any number of scenarios in Iraq, there's all sorts of possible combination of events.

But, under some worst case scenarios, and the choice was suffer major Coalition casualties or obliterate an Iraqi city, leaving no two stones stacked together, then the world would be minus one Iraqi city in very short order.

I don't know if that's the clarification you were looking for or not but I believe it at least expands what I'm thinking and hopefully draws a distinction between an unprovoked full-scale nuclear attack and a realistic military response to a military threat.

[Fritz]

well put Jon

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by sterlingice
As an aside, I've been wondering: is this the same Barry McCaffrey that was the failed drug tsar for us in the mid-late 90s?

SI

I won't even try to address the success/failure of U.S. drug policy here but I will confirm that he is the same guy.

[Airhog]

I believe nothing this man says. As former drug czar, he got pretty damn good at polishing lies.

[sterlingice]

I won't even try to address the success/failure of U.S. drug policy here but I will confirm that he is the same guy.
Yeah, sorry, that was a loaded question. I just remember him by reputation only and just wanted to verify it was the same guy.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Well there was one problem with amassing enough troops. We didn't have nearly the size of the coalition that we had in 1991. Back then we could amass troops in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. This time, we are squeezed into Kuwait, and there are only so many troops you can send into such a constrained space.

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA

Secondly, as has already been indicated here, there are numerous types of nuclear devices & I believe that there are several scenarios that would make at least tactical nuclear weapons (maybe call them "low-yield") a very viable option. The larger ones are better known but others do exist.

So you would use Weapons of Mass Destruction to obliterate an enemy that you are attacking because they might have Weapons of Mass Destruction and if they do they might someday use them?

To quote Mugatu: "They're the same face! Doesn't anyone notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!"

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Fidatelo

To quote Mugatu: "They're the same face! Doesn't anyone notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!"

That Saddam, he's so hot right now.

[clintl]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
But, under some worst case scenarios, and the choice was suffer major Coalition casualties or obliterate an Iraqi city, leaving no two stones stacked together, then the world would be minus one Iraqi city in very short order.



So you're saying that it would be justified to murder up to several million innocent civilian noncombatants if our army, with its superior training and equipment, got stuck in a tough spot?

[Radii]

Thanks for the clarification JonInMiddleGA, we havent seen eye to eye on a single war thread here but at least I understand a bit better now ;)

I've had a couple of rather heated debates with my girlfriend of this nature(well not the nuke one specifically, but I'm rather liberal and she's rather conservative), and it seems the major difference in my opinion from hers is that to me, it truly does matter how the rest of the world views us. I don't view Bush as a failure because we're at war with Iraq, I view Bush as a failure because of what I view as a foreign policy where he tells the world they can fuck off if they dont' agree with us, and only AFTER making that statement does he tell the rest of the world what our almighty correct opinion is, because the polarization that has occured and the US against the world attitude appears to be almost intentional. (I can refer to the thread w/ the great newsweek article detailing this if necessary,don't have it up ATM)

If we cannot decisively win this war and take minimal casualties without using our own WMD I will consider that a massive, massive military failiure on the part of the United States. This isn't the confederacy we're attacking. We're not going up against a bunch of civilians who love their homeland here(though I'm sure there are some) and who are all willing to take up arms to defeat the American attackers, we're going up against a country whose people fear their leader as much as they fear the people bombing their cities every night. I believe there was a number mentioned in a newsweek article that stated we spend more money on our defense budget/military than the rest of the world combined.

I am on the side of "bombing hiroshima was probably a good idea because of all of the lives it saved", but this is not world war 3, not yet at least. If it comes down to that or even anything close to that then we have failed miserably IMHO.

[STK]

Once coalition troops get gassed crossing the "invisible red line", it is within the realm of reality that a nuke could be sent to Baghdad.

Bush Sr. would have done it.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Bee
I would take the retired general's word with a grain of salt. He doesn't have all the information and is making some assumptions that might be incorrect. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I wouldn't take his estimate as fact either.

I've been posting links like this before the war began. MOST of the leadership in the first Persian Gulf War only had bad things to say about Rumsfeld. This war is in big danger of becoming another Vietnam because Rumsfeld and the rest of the civilian warhawks think they're five star generals.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Quit pickin on McNamara Jr.

[JPhillips]

Its also interesting that Shwartzkopz said some very very damning things about Cheney in his book. I don't have the quotes at hand, but Cheney apparently wanted to use a small amount of airborne troops to take over major Iraqi cities. Luckily his plan wasn't implemented.

[Bee]

Originally posted by AgPete
I've been posting links like this before the war began. MOST of the leadership in the first Persian Gulf War only had bad things to say about Rumsfeld. This war is in big danger of becoming another Vietnam because Rumsfeld and the rest of the civilian warhawks think they're five star generals.

These would be the same leadership that estimated 18,000 US casualties in the first Gulf war?

I'm not trying to defend Rumsfield, but I'm just saying that no one knows how many casualties there will be.

[Arles]

I think we need some perspective here. We've had somewhere less than 20 US casualties, control 2/3 of Iraq, are 50 miles from Baghdad, secured most of the oil fields, and even begun some of the humanitarian aid to southern Iraq. All this in 6 days.

So, I don't know how anyone with a sane mind can compare this to Vietnam at this stage. It's going to get tougher when we start the attack on Baghdad, but I don't see any situation where US casualties even get in the same stratosphere as the 50,000 US deaths that occured in Vietnam. I would say the cap would be 2,000-3,000, with 600-1000 being a more realistic number.

Arlie

[AgPete]

You know, one thing that surprised me was the lack of a month long bombing campaign to make sure we wiped out as many targets as possible and more importantly, destroyed morale. It worked pretty damn good in the first war. I know Hussein wasn't stupid enought to lay his military out in the open desert this time but I couldn't believe ground troops were crossing the border almost the day after our first bombings. And we also decided to conduct a preliminary bombing against a supposed meeting place of Saddam Hussein. Who is in charge? We did a good job in the first Persian Gulf War. Schwarzkopf and others were criticized for being too conservative but I'd much rather have those guys in control right now. I'd also rather have the elder Bush who even though he made a mistake by leaving Hussein in power, you could tell he cared about the troops and knew the consequences of war as well. I'll never forget the interview with Bush after his Presidency when he cried on national television when being asked about U.S. casualties under his command. He's a good man and I got the same impression from Baker, Powell and some of the dominant figure heads in those days. LOL, like HornedFrog said, I can't help but picture McNamara Jr. with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and some of the others that have Dubya's ears right now.

[Fritz]

AgPete,

Some feel a military man should be president, brcause only they can appriciate what they ask of soldiers. I don't buy that.

[Bee]

The lack of an air attack before the ground forces moved in surprised me too. I didn't expect one that would last as long as the first war, but I did expect a week or two of bombing before we moved in. Just a guess but I get the feeling the US thought they would see a lot of soldiers giving up and didn't want to "bomb" them unnecessarily. The more we destroy, the more we have to rebuild and the more resentment we'd see. Of course, that's just my gut feeling based on reading between the lines.