Are you ready for a draft? Stunning Washington Post article - military severely....

[AgPete]

....underestimated Iraq's resistance


War Could Last Months, Some Military Officers Say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33955-2003Mar26.html)

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 26, 2003; 8:42 PM

Despite the rapid advance of Army and Marine forces across Iraq over the past week, some senior U.S. military officers are now convinced that the war is likely to last months and will require considerably more combat power than is now on hand there and in Kuwait, senior defense officials said today.

The combination of wretched weather, long and insecure supply lines, and an enemy that has refused to be supine in the face of American combat power has led to a broad reassessment by some top generals of U.S. military expectations and timelines. Some of them see even the potential threat of a drawn-out fight that sucks in more and more U.S. forces. Both on the battlefield in Iraq and in Pentagon conference rooms, military commanders were talking today about a longer, harder war than had been expected just a week ago, the officials said.

"Tell me how this ends," one senior officer said today.

While some top planners favor continuing to press north, most Army commanders believe that the pause in Army ground operations that began today is critical. A relatively small force is stretched thin over 300 miles, and much of the Army's killing power, in more than 100 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, has been grounded by persistently foul weather or by battle damage from an unsuccessful pre-dawn raid on Monday. To the east, the Marine Corps advance on the city of Kut was also hampered by skirmishing along its supply line and fuel shortages at the front.

More forces are coming, including the Army's 4th Infantry Division, which has begun pushing equipment from 35 ships into Kuwait after Turkey refused to allow a second front into northern Iraq. But it will probably take the better part of a month for that tank-heavy division to get into position and provide combat power. Other forces heading to this region, including the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, at Fort Carson, Colo., and the 1st Cavalry Division, at Fort Hood, Tex., will require months to move their tanks and other armor from their bases into combat, the defense officials said.

Pentagon spokesmen rejected that pessimistic assessment today and insisted that the war is still going according to plan. "The plan has moved almost exactly with expectations," Army Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said at the briefing. "Fast where we expected it to be fast, gathering strength where we expected to do that. So the answer is, it's right on the mark."

But Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who maintains close ties to some senior Army generals, seemed to break with part of that assessment, saying in an interview with National Public Radio broadcast today that it is becoming evident that the war "may take a little bit longer, don't know how long." He added that, "The point is we have had a good battle plan, and it's a battle plan that will succeed."

In the short term, the Army plans to secure its strained supply lines with a portion of the 82nd Airborne Division, now positioned near Kuwait City, and troops from the 101st Airborne Division, which is gathering at a forward operating base deep inside Iraq, Army sources said.

The degree to which the supply lines have been stretched can be seen in the fact that the Third Division this week was alarmingly low on water and was also in danger of running short of food, the sources said. Heroic efforts have been made by truck companies and other logisticians, but a certain amount of chaos has developed, exacerbated by sniping and immense traffic backlogs from the Kuwaiti border. That traffic jam also has undermined Bush administration plans to quickly follow the U.S. military advance with tons of food and other humanitarian relief to win support among Iraqis. "There's tremendous fog out there," an officer said, referring to the confusion of wartime operations, with logistical commanders struggling to figure out where various supply items are in a system that at times resembles "just a bunch of guys out there driving around."

Commanders would like to have a 10-day supply of food, water, ammunition, fuel and other basic supplies before launching a concerted offensive, but equally critical are items such as batteries and vehicle parts.

Also, Army commanders have differing views about how vigorously the war must be prosecuted in Iraqi cities and towns. "How bad do you want to do it? We have the capability to surround a city, cut off the water, cut off the electricity. We don't want to do that," said one general. "It's all about having military success, not about attacking the civilian population. But you have to break his will, to make him understand that he will not win."

But another officer noted that rooting out militiamen and other irregulars fighting in southern Iraqi cities would enormously complicate the U.S. military effort, requiring more troops and far more supplies. "Let's say you throttle An Najaf," he said. "Then you've got 600,000 people in the city and surrounding region you're responsible for providing food, water and medical care." Each additional combat unit sent to Iraq also will add to the logistical strain, he said.

Overhanging all developments in the war this week is the unsettling realization that thousands of Iraqis are willing to fight vigorously. During planning for the invasion of Iraq, worst-case scenarios sometimes predicated stiff resistance, but "no one took that very seriously," an officer said.

"The whole linchpin of this operation was the reaction of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi ground force," said retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a specialist in war planning. "If they don't turn, and so far they haven't, we have a very different strategic problem facing us than when we went in."

When Army combat operations resume, major adjustments are likely in strategic goals and targets. The sources said that some of the major assumptions underpinning the U.S. approach to Iraq are being discarded. The planned blitzkrieg to Baghdad has stalled. Airpower has delivered less than expected, and Saddam Hussein and those around him still appear to have a firm grip on the Iraqi military and people. In an extremely unusual battlefield action, two Army M1 Abrams tanks were badly damaged in combat Tuesday.

An Army general and others said that rather than slice through Republican Guard defenders and drive straight for Baghdad, the Army and Marines both are likely to be forced to focus on wiping out most of the Guard divisions facing them south of Baghdad.

"I think you need to defeat them in detail," said the general, using the military term for utterly destroying a unit. U.S. military intelligence analysts believe that, in contrast to the heavily armored and well-equipped Medina, the Baghdad division has only 58 aging Soviet-era T-62 tanks. "I think you should 'Pac Man' the ring around Baghdad," he said, referring to the 1980s computer game in which a big dot gobbled up smaller ones.

Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said the Army and Marine forces converging on the Republican Guard south of Baghdad really will have no choice but to continue to attack those Iraqi defenders. "We've got no option, we're committed," he said. But, he added, "I wouldn't go into Baghdad before I had another armored division come up into my rear."

The question is whether the Third Infantry Division will be able to continue to fight the Republican Guard without reinforcements. "I think the Third ID is going to run out of steam pretty soon, both people and machines," said Killebrew, the retired Army planner.

But McCaffrey, who during the 1991 Persian Gulf War commanded what is now called the Third Infantry Division, said he thought the unit capable of taking on all three Iraqi Republican guard divisions in the so-called "red zone" that marks the capital's defensive perimeter.

Another key variable is how effective U.S. warplanes will be in aiding the Army and Marines by hitting Iraqi military forces moving in the heavily populated, well vegetated Euphrates River valley. That is a far different proposition from striking Iraqi armor in the flat open desert, which was the major task of U.S. airpower in the 1991 Gulf War. Over the past two days U.S. airstrikes have been curtailed by the huge sandstorms that have howled through central Iraq.

Military intelligence indicated that elements of the Medina Division of the Republican Guard -- somewhere between a battalion and a brigade, which is as much as a third of the division -- were taking advantage of the cover provided by the tail end of the storms to move toward the "Karbala Gap," a narrow strait between a large lake, Lake Razzaza, and the Euphrates, a military official said today.

Some Pentagon officials were practically gleeful at the development, with one saying the column would be "like shooting fish in a barrel" or like "a turkey shoot."

But others were less sanguine. The column is moving from fighting position to fighting position, from revetment to revetment, always taking protective cover. "This is their turf," one official said. "They've probably done exercises there their whole life. The defense of Baghdad is all they've trained for."

Finally, the resilience of the Medina division will be a major indicator of whether the Third Infantry Division can do the job by itself or will have to dig in and wait for help sometime in April from the Fourth Infantry Division.

Unless Saddam Hussein's government collapses after part of the Republican Guard is destroyed, an attack on the capital is likely to be postponed until that division arrives, some defense officials and other experts predicted.

"We're not going to rush headlong into the city, absolutely fruitless to do so and suicidal at best," one Pentagon official said. "The goal is to encircle the city and take it on our terms."

Retired Army Col. Benjamin W. Covington, an expert in tank warfare, agreed, saying that, "Everything on the ground depends on the arrival of the Fourth Infantry Division. I expect the final battle for Baghdad will occur when they are in the fray."

Some Pentagon insiders and defense experts vigorously contested these pessimistic assessments.

"This is not a crisis," said former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.) who is a friend of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and of Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the U.S. commander in the war. "The plan is going surprisingly well so far."

Gingrich, who also is a member of the Defense Policy Board, a top Pentagon advisory group, said that the key fact to keep in mind is that U.S. forces drove to within 50 miles of the capital in just six days without being engaged by regular Iraqi forces. "If they come out and fight us, they will be annihilated," he said.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Andrew Krepinevich agreed with Gingrich's view, saying that "despite the best efforts of the Iraqi military, they have not been able to stop a fantastic rate of advance, one of the greatest advances in military history, and they have not been able to do more than ding the coalition juggernaut."

One senior general at the Pentagon listening to both sides of the argument said he thinks that in short term the pessimists will look right, but will be disproven by mid-April. "There are some tough days ahead," he said. "I think this whole thing is at the culminating point. Within the next week to 10 days, we will find out about the mettle of the Republican Guard." But, he concluded, "Once we smash the Medina and Baghdad divisions, it's game over, and I think Baghdad will fall."

Correspondent Rick Atkinson in central Iraq and staff reporters Jonathan Weisman and Vernon Loeb in Washington contributed to this report.

[McSweeny]

yikes

[Balldog]

We still have quite a few troops still in the US that haven't went over.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Balldog
We still have quite a few troops still in the US that haven't went over.

I agree with you but I'm also worried about Afghanistan. Remember their worries that we would become so involved with Iraq that we would leave them stranded and the Taliban would come back to power? We can't win a war against terror with preemptive strikes and continuous invasions. It requires too much manpower. What are we going to do when we're fixing Afghanistan AND Iraq AND decide to fight Iran, Syria or North Korea? The U.S. needs mandatory military service for all young men in this country if it believes this is a worthwhile strategy.

[Ksyrup]

I missed the part about the draft. Oh, that's because it wasn't in there.

I guess I have a different definition of "stunning."

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I missed the part about the draft. Oh, that's because it wasn't in there.

I guess I have a different definition of "stunning."

I'll give you that a draft is taking it too far but this is a stunning article unless you're looking at the war through rose-colored glasses. My prediction right now, Bush will not win re-election. This war is going to take down his Presidency.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by AgPete
I'll give you that a draft is taking it too far but this is a stunning article unless you're looking at the war through rose-colored glasses. My prediction right now, Bush will not win re-election. This war is going to take down his Presidency.

I think you may be very much right.

[Coffee Warlord]

Why serious war is a political killer these days.

The average American has no attention span. In less than a freakin' week, people are already getting edgy, now that they realize invading a country is going to take longer than the 30 minute sitcom they envisioned.

[Ksyrup]

My point is that you've apparently been watching too much TV. You know, the people who make it seem like war will last just as long as it takes Gil Grissom to solve the murder by 10pm.

The rest of us know better and already understand the "stunning" points being mde in that article.

If the media keeps up the portrayal of this war, you'll probably be right about Bush, though. Unrealistic expectations + death of Americans = Not good PR.

[Aylmar]

Originally posted by AgPete
My prediction right now, Bush will not win re-election. This war is going to take down his Presidency.

It's very early. Let's talk about it in six months. By then we should have a better idea of how the 2004 campaign will be shaping up. As I said in another thread, the Dems are in serious need of a solid candidate.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Coffee Warlord
Why serious war is a political killer these days.

The average American has no attention span. In less than a freakin' week, people are already getting edgy, now that they realize invading a country is going to take longer than the 30 minute sitcom they envisioned.

I don't know about the protestors that gain so much attention nowadays but this was always one of my major concerns. I felt our country was underestimating a large nation being invaded with nothing to lose. Bush never clarified how long this war would take until after it was launched unlike his father who laid out a clear plan for the American people. Even now, Bush is still taking an optimistic attitude that could lead people to believe this will take as long as something like the first Persian Gulf War or Panama. The quotes from military officials still don't take into account Hussein's possible use of WMD against our troops.

[MylesKnight]

Here's a thought (and I may be way off base here, let me know)..

Could this be a repeat of the end of WWII in Japan? Could we see Atomic and/or Nuclear Weapons in the near future?

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by Coffee Warlord
The average American has no attention span. In less than a freakin' week, people are already getting edgy, now that they realize invading a country is going to take longer than the 30 minute sitcom they envisioned.

The sad thing is that this statement has an element of truth in it.
Too many well educated, intelligent people I work with over here are having trouble understanding why there is still opposition to the attack, and why the US hasn't already won - as though war is like a Hollywood movie.

I don't know about the political fallout, but the PR situation could be a nightmare.

Oh well, long or short, for better or worse The US, Brits, Aussies and others are in this for the long haul, because now committed they can't afford to lose or be seen to lose.

Bet the frickin' French are gloating already, Fargin Iceholes

[AgPete]

All I ask is for someone to show me a quote from the Bush administration announcing that this war would probably have more than 1,000 casualties and control of Iraq could take more than a year (not counting the decades we station troops to rebuild the government, just taking control of the country and having relative safety). Because right now, that's what we're looking at minimum. This war has surprised everyone in Bush's cabinet and the military.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Here's a thought (and I may be way off base here, let me know)..

Could this be a repeat of the end of WWII in Japan? Could we see Atomic and/or Nuclear Weapons in the near future?

Apparently Bush has stated that all options are on the table in case of a chemical attack. I would certainly hope that it will not happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Here's a thought (and I may be way off base here, let me know)..

Could this be a repeat of the end of WWII in Japan? Could we see Atomic and/or Nuclear Weapons in the near future?

I don't think you're at all "way off base". I've seen several sources indicate that it was the belief that the U.S. would reply with nuclear weapons that kept the Iraqi regime from using chemical weapons broadly during the Gulf War.

If we see biological weapons used this time, I believe it's an option that is very much in play this time around as well.

[lynchjm24]

Bush will be reelected or not depending on the direction of the economy in 2004. It's pretty much that simple.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by AgPete
All I ask is for someone to show me a quote from the Bush administration announcing that this war would probably have more than 1,000 casualties and control of Iraq could take more than a year (not counting the decades we station troops to rebuild the government, just taking control of the country and having relative safety). Because right now, that's what we're looking at minimum. This war has surprised everyone in Bush's cabinet and the military.

You know, there's a big difference between 1,000 casualities and taking a year for this war to end. I think 1,000 casualities is a fairly low estimate. I think one year for the war to end is a fairly big estimate.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You know, there's a big difference between 1,000 casualities and taking a year for this war to end. I think 1,000 casualities is a fairly low estimate. I think one year for the war to end is a fairly big estimate.

Okay, if you believe that's too high of an estimate then show me where Bush talked about casualties. If 1,000 is a low estimate than show me the more realistic number that "everybody" knew about all along....say....3,000 casualties? 5,000 casualties? I call bullshit. War supporters say, "Oh yeah, we knew this all along." But show me where Bush told anyone he thought this was what the war might amount to.

I think America is so used to skirmishes against small countries and inferior militiaries that it has forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. I became concerned as the more people I talked to, the more I realized people had no idea how bloody an urban battle to take over a country as large as Iraq could be. Now, I don't think this war (or rather, I hope) will be as bloody as Vietnam but I think it shares a lot of similar traits on perhaps a lesser scale.

Nothing wrong with fighting terrorism, hell, authorities just spotted one of the most wanted terrorists and a co-conspirator in a dirty bomb plot in my backyard which has me worried my location may be a possible target. (Tampa, Florida) Sometimes, I look at this war on terrorism like I do the war on drugs. We kill/arrest drug dealers, we don't stop the drugs. We kill/arrest terrorists, we don't stop the terrorism. Muslims around the world watch Al-Jazeera footage and gain even more hatred towards us.

How may countries will we invade? How will we pay for it? How will we be the world's international policeman as we invade one country after the next and overthrow governments? I don't think war is the total answer, however, I do think it is effective when we have CLEAR targets like Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Playing the preemtive strike game only causes more problems than it solves. If this war gets bad, are we truly saving more American lives? Are we killing more Americans than would be at risk from a terrorist attack? The easiest way to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans would be with a nuclear attack but Hussein is no threat in that department. If casualties reach 10,000 we might actually be killing more Americans than Hussein could reach in the limited years he has left on this Earth. Why don't we address our support of Israel? The poverty in these countries? Our reliance on oil that makes the Middle East such a strategic location? The lack of education, women's equality and other socioeconomic conditions that make religious extremist so appealing? I don't think our leaders are thinking out of the box.

I don't know...call me a commie, a stinking liberal, unamerican, call me whatever the new term is people use this month against dissent, but I think the invasion of Iraq is a bad idea.

[Buddy Grant]

Whether or not Bush gets re-elected has become pretty unimportant these days. The seeds of hate & distrust this attack has sown across the world will not be overcome by a US President during a single term in office, whether that President was Bush Jr. on a 2nd term or a monkey that can light it's own farts.

[wade moore]

Ag,

Ummm.. show us where Bush said there would be zero casualties... Show us where Bush said the war would be over before your tv dinner finishes cooking.... keep looking, you won't find it.. no president is stupid enough to put hard numbers on something so unknown... it would just be asinine the press and americans' own stupidity is what has put this 1 week, no casualty concept out there.. educated people should know that war has casualties.. this is a serious war, and people will die... ~20 combat deaths after a week and almost 3/4 of the country taken over?! to me, THAT Is a stunning number that I expected to be higher... there were ~150 dead after 3 days in the first Gulf War.. and that was repelling an army from a foreign land, not their home country...

People need to get a grip... if they didnt' understand that American soldiers will die in a war, it is their own fault.. not the president's.. he has said (no, i don't have quotes) that it could be long, drawn out war.... but he hasn't, and wouldn't, give numbers and dates...

[Tekneek]

Regardless of why you think someone here should join the military, do you think mandatory conscription is somewhat contrary to the ideals of this nation? I'm not arguing against the military. My dad served in Vietnam, and all of the armed forces called on me repeatedly (though ultimately I did not enlist). However, I am a firm believer in a voluntary force. If the cause is just, people will voluntarily enlist.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Here are some quotes:

Rumsfeld, Feb 7, 2003.

"Any war with Iraq would be swift and not require a full US mobilisation."

"It is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Article from Washington Times (9-18-02)


Senior Bush administration officials have concluded that the United States will quickly win a war against Iraq, based on superior American technology and a sharp deterioration of Saddam Hussein's armed forces since the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict.


Officials also believe a significant number of Saddam's army commanders and units will either refuse to fight or will assist allied troops in toppling the Baghdad regime.

Senior Pentagon policy-makers have come to that conclusion in recent weeks, and some officials are beginning to state it publicly.

"I don't think it would be that tough a fight," Vice President Richard B. Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That is, I don't think there's any question that we would prevail and we would achieve our objective."

Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War combat pilot and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, agrees.

"I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult," Mr, McCain, Arizona Republican, said last week. "It may entail the risk of American lives and treasure, but Saddam Hussein is vastly weaker than he was in 1991."

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson, who designed the successful air war against Iraq in 1991, says victory can be achieved in weeks, not months, if the Pentagon exploits precision-guided munitions, special-operations troops and disloyalty within Iraq's military.

"If these basic steps are not violated and our war-fighting asymmetrical advantage is maximized, Saddam will not last 30 days," Gen. Glosson said in an interview.

Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, often reflects the thinking of other hard-liners in the department's policy shop. "I don't believe we have to defeat Saddam's army," he said in the winter. "I think Saddam's army will defeat Saddam."

A senior U.S. official, who asked not to be named, said one of the key arguments for action from hard-liners in the administration is that Iraq, while not a pushover, will be an easier foe this time than in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. The argument rests on three main points:

Combat readiness. Iraq's armed forces are less than half of their 1991 size, down from a million-member active force in 1991 to 424,000 today.

The Desert Storm allies destroyed scores of tanks, armored vehicles and combat aircraft. In the ensuing decade, Baghdad was forced to consolidate its army, as U.N. sanctions dried up oil revenue to buy and build new weapons. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies says about 50 percent of all weapons lack spare parts to keep them operational.

Saddam also has bled his conventional army in order to build a huge homeland security force of more than 100,000 to protect him, spy on citizens and eliminate dissidents.

"Iraq's inability to recapitalize and modernize its forces means that much of its large order of battle is obsolescent or obsolete, has uncertain combat readiness and will be difficult to sustain in combat," said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"It has not demonstrated that it can use surface-to-air missiles in a well-organized way as a maneuvering force to cover its deployed land forces," he said.

In 10 years of enforcing northern and southern no-fly zones, the allies have yet to lose one manned aircraft to Iraq's integrated air-defense network.

"Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the early '90s," said Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

•Dissension. U.S. planners believe the CIA and other government agencies will be able to identify Iraqi commanders and persuade them not to resist an allied invasion, or to turn against Saddam.

"He does not have the support of his people," Mr. McCain said. "And I'd ask one question: What member of the Iraqi army is willing to die for Saddam Hussein when they know he's going to be taken out? So I don't think it's going to be nearly as difficult as some assume."

During the 1990s, news reports said there were three to five coup attempts in Baghdad as members of the Iraqi armed forces tried to assassinate the dictator. Saddam's security force thwarted each try.

•Technology. In 1991, roughly 10 percent of munitions dropped on Iraq was precision-guided. Since then, the Pentagon has made great strides in adding to its "smart" munitions lists. The Navy, whose fighters lacked laser-guided bombs in 1991, now uses that system, as well as satellite-directed munitions. The Air Force drops both types of munitions, even making a "smart" bomber out of the venerable B-52 bomber.

What's more, the B-2 stealth bomber was not used in Desert Storm, but would play a major role this time, hitting key air-defense and command targets.

Perhaps 80 percent of all munitions will be precision-guided in this war, should President Bush choose that option.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those are examples of the type of impressions I remember getting from the administration, Rumsfeld in particular, before the conflict began. I think they were careful not to give an exact number as far as casaulties and time, but implied it would be clean and relatively quick. Something more akin to 1991. We drop some bombs. We send some folks in. They all surrender. End of story.

If you look at what's been going on, this idea of a "quick" could be much more than spin doctoring. I think they (Rumsfeld, et al.) could have actually believed it. Every General that's been interviewed as noted that we don't have enough ground troops for this kind of invasion. Perhaps the administration micalculated the number of troops needed b/c they thought it would be easier. Then you have all of that "Shockanawe" nonsense. Again presenting the idea that we would just roll in there with our "wave of steel" and the Iraqi's would just drop their guns, raise the white flag, and that would be it. I think it's actually worse if it's the case of over-confidence. Spin doctoring is one thing, plain incompotence, especially when the lives of our (UK's as well) military men and women are concerned.

It wasn't until the conflict actually began that we started to hear about how this wasn't going to be easy, would take a long time, be drawn out, etc. That is the first time I recall seeing quotes about how this could be a difficult operation.

As for using nukes/hydrogen bomb. Nope. No. Never. Cannot do that. Isn't a large part of our operation (note the name: "Iraqi Freedom") design to liberate the Iraqi people from the evil, tyranical despot? You don't drop nukes on a country you are trying to liberate. Far too many civilian casaulties and it would be an environmental disaster. It's simply not an option.

[TroyF]

I think we are jumping to major conclusions here. From the draft, to the conclusion of the war, to the amount of casualties. . . who the hell knows?

For one, there isn't a single person on this board (or in newspaper land) who knows what the plan is. We only know what the US is telling us.

For another, this war has been quick and clean to this point. The fact it COULD get dirty is one that has always been there. We have nearly 3/4 of the country in control and we've lost 20-30 people. (many of them through friendly fire or crashes) We have over 3500 POW's who have either been captured or surrendered. This has all happened in less than a week. Those numbers are staggering compared to other wars.

In Vietnam, we averaged over 25 deaths per day for FIVE years. Why don't we get this thing in proper perspective?

The Washington Post can report that they think this will take over a year and cost 1,000 servicemen their lives. It doesn't mean they are right. I'm not going to guess that we'll have this thing finished by the time my frozen waffles pop up in a few minutes, but I do not think the major portion of this war will take 6 months either.

If it does, it does. Saddam needs to be ousted IMO. I'm saddened by the loss of life that will be required to do it, but I strongly feel this man should be brought down. I've felt this way for OVER 12 years (I read my first book on Saddam and his regime in 1988)

TroyF

[andy m]

Originally posted by Buddy Grant
The seeds of hate & distrust this attack has sown across the world will not be overcome by a US President during a single term in office, whether that President was Bush Jr. on a 2nd term or a monkey that can light it's own farts.

Bush Jr and a monkey that can light it's own farts = one and the same.

[Bee]

Haven't we only been fighting for like 6 or 7 days? The sky is already falling and we are now looking at a minimum of 1 year and thousands of casualties? I have no idea how long it will take to "win the war", but I think it's a little early to declare this another Vietnam. We don't even have a full understanding of the battle plan, yet some people on this board not only think they know how it's going to play out, but that they understand better than the Pentagon? Making guesses and having opinions is fine, but presenting them as if they are givens is kind of ridiculous IMO.

[Arles]

This story is a joke. Ricks has been anti-war, anti-administration and anti-Rumsfeld since day 1. Essentially, this is an opinion piece "masked" as a legitimite news story.

He doesn't have one quote in the entire story giving credence to the idea that the war will last months. Instead, he writes a couple unnamed "senior officials" said it could last longer than expected. His top quote of the story (and should be the most supportive quote, according to journalistic style) is:

"Tell me how this ends," one senior officer said today.

There are over 20,000 US miliary "officials" that Ricks could have talked with. And, undoubtably, some of these officials are fairly pesimistic on the war, for whatever reason.

With the exception of the blatently Anti-War McCaffrey, there is no quote by any listed official that even hints at this war taking months. Most regard certain tactical issues that most conceded weeks ago, and are just a part of any war situation.

This story is a disgrace. Essentially, the Post grabbed a few ambiguous quotes from "unknown officials", quoted a very vocal anti-war retired general and shaped generic pentagon quotes into the story they wanted.

Remember, the post is also the paper that projected a long, drawn out "quagmire" war in Afghanistan and 15,000 US casualties in the first gulf war. There were also guised as "news stories" with no direct coraboration. I would take this story with about a pound of salt.

Also, to the length of the war. I don't know of anyone that gave an physical length in the administration. Some people said things like "easy" and "it shouldn't be that long". Now, the first Gulf War is viewed as one of the easiest and shortest wars in history. In that conflict, it took 43 days and had 300 US casualties.

So, if that's your reference point for "easiest", then I would say an "easy or short" war would be 1-2 months with 500-800 casualties. And, the current conflict should fall pretty close to those numbers.

It's almost like when someone says "short and easy", the press thinks this means a week with no casualties. And that is completely unrealistic.

Arlie

[AgPete]

Honolulu Blue - Thanks for the quotes. I knew I wasn't imagining things. :D Bush's administration and many Washington insiders never pictured this war to be much more than the first Persian Gulf War.

TroyF - We have nearly 3/4 of the country in control? Does desert count? ;) Haven't we bypassed the second largest city in Iraq to avoid troop casualties in an urban war? (Basra) Aren't we still waiting on the outskirts of cities such as Nasiriya, Najaf and other major urban areas on the road to Baghdad? I'm worried about all the problems we've had in smaller cities. We HAVE to invade Baghdad, we can't skip that one and it has more shelter, more resources and manpower, and better troops. If the smaller cities are giving us problems, Baghdad could be one hell of a bloody affair. To top it off, as the article states, we've stretched our supply lines near these cities we don't control yet in the hopes that a quick rush and invasion of Baghdad will cause Hussseins' regime to collapse. It looks to me that this resistance has taken the military by surprise. I wonder if they thought they would be invading Baghdad right now?

Arles - Using your 800 casualty numbers then (which I personally think is too low a number after we're finished with Baghdad), is this war truly worth the billions in costs and the renewed hatred it spawns against America? Except for the World Trade Center attacks, have we ever suffered mass casualties from terrorism. I guess the next largest attack would have been from someone in our own country? (McVeigh) People have accused me of crying the sky is falling in this thread but I think the same could be said about Hussein and WMD. Hussein has no nuclear program. Chemical weapons are only a threat in small areas. Biological weapons are hard as hell to use effectively. In Japan, when the Cult of the Sun was busted for trying to bomb the Tokyo subways with WMD years ago, an investigation discovered that they had tried numerous times to release biological weapons on Japanese government officials and civilians but had failed miserably because of the difficulty in finding the right weather, sun cover, wind, dispersion device, etc. The bigger threat is still conventional weapons and we've increased airport security, Americans are aware of the threat and our intelligence is conducting a clandestine war on terrorism. Again, I'll bring up my first question, how is the U.S. going to afford this policy of preemptive strikes? The more Iraqs we take over, the more people in other countries will be prepared to fight to the death and offer stiff resistance. Are we going to station troops throughout the world? Are we going to simulate modern-day Beiruts in Muslim countries throughout the world?

[panerd]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I don't think you're at all "way off base". I've seen several sources indicate that it was the belief that the U.S. would reply with nuclear weapons that kept the Iraqi regime from using chemical weapons broadly during the Gulf War.

If we see biological weapons used this time, I believe it's an option that is very much in play this time around as well.

Let me see if I can get this striaght... If Sadaam Hussian gets backed into a corner he will show his ruthlessness and use a WMD. However if the United States gets backed into a corner they will show their compassion for their people by using a WMD. So sometimes these weapons of mass destruction are good? :(

I am saddened that some people can take a stance as being in favor of this war because of the possible existance of weapons of mass destruction, but then can turn the other cheek and say "Hell yeah! Mushroom clouds over Bagdad!"

For the record: I am pro-war, but no way in hell do I support using nuclear weapons at all in this conflict. If that happens, they are no more terrorists than we are.

[ACStrider]

I'll have to agree on this point Panerd. I think that our government is too reluctant to use nuclear weapons, thus showing their hand, but in the case of Iraq there are just too many negatives to using them. I don't think that it would make us terrorists to use nukes, but it would certainly be counter-productive for the rebuilding effort. Another thing that I can't say enough is "Look at the casulty count people!" There's all this "sky is falling", the "war is not going as quickly as planned" talk out there. Give me a day where we suffer 50 casulties or more in a non-urban battle, then I might consider what these fear-mongers are saying. Give me an urban battle with casulties over 100 and it might give them credence.

[Arles]

Originally posted by AgPete

Arles - Using your 800 casualty numbers then (which I personally think is too low a number after we're finished with Baghdad), is this war truly worth the billions in costs and the renewed hatred it spawns against America?

If we oust Sadaam and liberate the Iraqi people, I would think that hatred would subside a great deal, wouldn't you?


Except for the World Trade Center attacks, have we ever suffered mass casualties from terrorism.

We've had the USS cole, Marine Barracks attack, a few embassy bombings and other attempts at mass casualties. We were just fortunate enough to be able to curtail most of the serious attempts prior to 9-11. But, do you want to keep playing this game of "defense"? As thousands and thousands of Al Quada members continue to plot and ploy in the US, with monetary and political backing from organizations like the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein? I certainly don't want to live like that.

Terrorism a new method of warfare for the 21th century. And to brush it off as a meaningless concern because we have only had one mass casualty occurance is very foolish. We have two options:
1) Wait for attacks to occur, hope we can cut them off and then prosecute each person involved individually.
2) Go after the regimes that support and harbor terrorists in hopes that we can cripple their network and make their attacks less possible/effective.

I chose option 2.


I guess the next largest attack would have been from someone in our own country? (McVeigh)

In the above case, you say how we shouldn't be worried about casualties by terrorists because it only happened (seriously) once. Yet, in the next line, you use one isolated crazy-man example to say how a US civilian should be our main concern for attacks. This doesn't jive. We've had over 20 documented attempted terroristic attacks in the last 12-13 years, with 4-5 actually succeeding. Compare that with the one domestic event. I think any sane person would view a terroristic attack from a group like Al Quada as a much more significant threat than another Tim McVeigh.


People have accused me of crying the sky is falling in this thread but I think the same could be said about Hussein and WMD. Hussein has no nuclear program. Chemical weapons are only a threat in small areas. Biological weapons are hard as hell to use effectively.

So, your advice is to wait until he has the WMD capability of, say, a North Korea before dealing with him? That doesn't sound all that appealing to me.


Again, I'll bring up my first question, how is the U.S. going to afford this policy of preemptive strikes? The more Iraqs we take over, the more people in other countries will be prepared to fight to the death and offer stiff resistance. Are we going to station troops throughout the world? Are we going to simulate modern-day Beiruts in Muslim countries throughout the world?

If the UN passes four resolutions against another regime, with that regime refusing to adhere to any of them and continuing to slaughter their own people, then I think an international coalition would be well within their rights to disarm (and even remove - if deemed necessary) that regime.

Fortuantely, there is no other country/regime that has a history like Iraq's of thumbing their nose at UN resolutions and concerns of the international community. But, if it does happen in the future, I think it has to be dealt with.

I don't see what the alternative is of the anti-war group on this area of Iraq. The only options I see are continuing inspections with our 300,000 troops as sitting ducks outside of Iraq (the moment we remove troops, Sadaam would go back to his mid-90s form on inspections) or just waiting until Sadaam becomes a bigger threat (and much more difficult to deal with). I don't see how either of these are more beneficial than removing him, especially given the UN passage of resolutions like 1441.

Arlie

[Mountain]

What's the solution then? As I said in my thread, do we just say "oh wel,l we just made a mistake, call the whole thing off."

We can't do that. Now that we've decided to undetake this war we have to win it. And we don't have to assault Baghdad (sp.) we can starve it out. If you're going to wage war, you have to steel your will and win it and quit pandering to public opinion.

Also part of this is fuleed by the mistaken belief that we are there to free the Iraqi people. Bullshit. It sound nice politically and makes the war more palatable, but we are there because our leaders perceived the Iraqi government as a direct threat to our people. I defy someone to name a war that the United States has initiated to free the citizens from an oppressve regime. The only one I could possibly think of is Kosovo and that is debatable.

WWII we didn't even enter unitl after two years had elasped and we only entered after we were attacked and Germnay declraed war against us. The Civil War perhaps but in making that argument you would have to discount the theory that the war was fought over state's rights and that the Confederacy was its own nation.

There are many oppressed peoples in the world that need freedom as bad as the Iraqis do yet we don't attack them. Why? Because they don't threaten American interests.

Once you get over that we are fighting to save the Iraqis mindset then you can develop the will to take the necessary measures to win this war and WE HAVE TO WIN IT now that we have undertaken it. I do not condone the use of WMD to win it however. I'm referring to letting cities starve to save our lives and force the Iraqis to fight us in the open.

[panerd]

You whole post sounds like a pretty convincing arguement for going to war in Afganistan last year, not Iraq this year. I think Syria, Egpyt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebannon have been proven to foster more terroist organizations than Iraq. (Of course none of those countries tried to kill Bush's dad)

Originally posted by Arles


If we oust Sadaam and liberate the Iraqi people, I would think that hatred would subside a great deal, wouldn't you?

[/B]

We've had the USS cole, Marine Barracks attack, a few embassy bombings and other attempts at mass casualties. We were just fortunate enough to be able to curtail most of the serious attempts prior to 9-11. But, do you want to keep playing this game of "defense"? As thousands and thousands of Al Quada members continue to plot and ploy in the US, with monetary and political backing from organizations like the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein? I certainly don't want to live like that.

Terrorism a new method of warfare for the 21th century. And to brush it off as a meaningless concern because we have only had one mass casualty occurance is very foolish. We have two options:
1) Wait for attacks to occur, hope we can cut them off and then prosecute each person involved individually.
2) Go after the regimes that support and harbor terrorists in hopes that we can cripple their network and make their attacks less possible/effective.

I chose option 2.

[/B]

In the above case, you say how we shouldn't be worried about casualties by terrorists because it only happened (seriously) once. Yet, in the next line, you use one isolated crazy-man example to say how a US civilian should be our main concern for attacks. This doesn't jive. We've had over 20 documented attempted terroristic attacks in the last 12-13 years, with 4-5 actually succeeding. Compare that with the one domestic event. I think any sane person would view a terroristic attack from a group like Al Quada as a much more significant threat than another Tim McVeigh.

[/B]

So, your advice is to wait until he has the WMD capability of, say, a North Korea before dealing with him? That doesn't sound all that appealing to me.



If the UN passes four resolutions against another regime, with that regime refusing to adhere to any of them and continuing to slaughter their own people, then I think an international coalition would be well within their rights to disarm (and even remove - if deemed necessary) that regime.

Fortuantely, there is no other country/regime that has a history like Iraq's of thumbing their nose at UN resolutions and concerns of the international community. But, if it does happen in the future, I think it has to be dealt with.

I don't see what the alternative is of the anti-war group on this area of Iraq. The only options I see are continuing inspections with our 300,000 troops as sitting ducks outside of Iraq (the moment we remove troops, Sadaam would go back to his mid-90s form on inspections) or just waiting until Sadaam becomes a bigger threat (and much more difficult to deal with). I don't see how either of these are more beneficial than removing him, especially given the UN passage of resolutions like 1441.

Arlie [/B]

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Arles

If we oust Sadaam and liberate the Iraqi people, I would think that hatred would subside a great deal, wouldn't you?


I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from? If we win the war, anti-American factions suddenly stop hating us? The damage is already done. Al-Jazeera has shown hours of footage of dead Iraqi civilians, the U.S. has taken over a country and installed their own government, and we are hated even more.

Originally posted by Arles

As thousands and thousands of Al Quada members continue to plot and ploy in the US, with monetary and political backing from organizations like the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein? I certainly don't want to live like that.

Overthrowing Afghanistan's Taliban was a legitimate action in the eyes of the world. Conquering countries because we think they have the potential to become another Afghanistan is going to cause more problems than it solves. Terrorists will find new countries and new friends. So when are we going to invade Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Syria? We need to solve some of the root causes of terrorism. The Israel/Palestine conflict, poverty, lack of education or women's rights that give religious extremists power, etc. This will end up like the war on drugs if we approach it with the same simplistic philosophy. We don't have enough manpower to take over every country that harbors terrorism.

Originally posted by Arles

Terrorism a new method of warfare for the 21th century. And to brush it off as a meaningless concern because we have only had one mass casualty occurance is very foolish. We have two options:
1) Wait for attacks to occur, hope we can cut them off and then prosecute each person involved individually.
2) Go after the regimes that support and harbor terrorists in hopes that we can cripple their network and make their attacks less possible/effective.

I chose option 2.

In the above case, you say how we shouldn't be worried about casualties by terrorists because it only happened (seriously) once. Yet, in the next line, you use one isolated crazy-man example to say how a US civilian should be our main concern for attacks. This doesn't jive. We've had over 20 documented attempted terroristic attacks in the last 12-13 years, with 4-5 actually succeeding. Compare that with the one domestic event. I think any sane person would view a terroristic attack from a group like Al Quada as a much more significant threat than another Tim McVeigh.

So, your advice is to wait until he has the WMD capability of, say, a North Korea before dealing with him? That doesn't sound all that appealing to me.


I never brushed it off as a meaningless concern but let's be realistic. Bush's administration has taken up a doctrine that believes in preemptive strikes on any country it fears could provide WMD to terrorists. How many Americans have died from terrorist attacks? How many Americans will die after invasions of Iraq, Iran and North Korea? Are we really lowering the casualties? We may end up losing more Americans in Iraq than we did to terrorism in the last fifty years, including the World Trade Towers. We're playing a game of simple math. We believe the casualties we incur from invasions will be less than the casualties we suffer from terrorism if we allow these governments to continue operating. If that's the case, than we really need to take a serious look at WMD and the history of these regimes. No matter how many countries we invade, one day, someone WILL get the bomb. If we conquer countries, we never stop terrorism and we allow it to grow by building resentment against us. It seems to me the best way to solve this problem is to address some of the social issues I mentioned.

And if we stop at Iraq, than this was a meaningless bullshit war. We attack Iraq because we believe their government allows terrorist training camps, supplies arms and other actions that are national security matters. If we believe war is the only effective action, than we better take out the rest of them. Hello Iran! Hello Syria! We can't pick and choose who we conquer. We already invaded Iraq and garnered the hatred of the world against us, we'd better see it out if this is our policy because we just upped enlistment in terrorist cells around the world!

[Aylmar]

Wait until the 4th Infantry turns up. Then we'll see how much fight these Iraqis really have in them. It's just a matter of shifting the strategy. Okay, so shocking the Iraqis into surrender hasn't worked to this point. Get more armor on the ground and pound them into submission, then. The Iraqi military is vastly inferior to ours. It's only a matter of time before the administration gives up on the PsyOps portion of the war and really turns on the gas. If there's a lesson I think we learned from Vietnam, it's that PR is a good thing...but when it starts to get in the way of actual military objectives and hinders your ability to win, toss it out the window and get the job done.

Of course, I have no access to the battle plan, so everything I'm spouting is simply my opinion of how things will go.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Mountain
What's the solution then?

2/3rds?

[Arles]

Originally posted by AgPete
And if we stop at Iraq, than this was a meaningless bullshit war. We attack Iraq because we believe their government allows terrorist training camps, supplies arms and other actions that are national security matters. If we believe war is the only effective action, than we better take out the rest of them. Hello Iran! Hello Syria! We can't pick and choose who we conquer. We already invaded Iraq and garnered the hatred of the world against us, we'd better see it out if this is our policy because we just upped enlistment in terrorist cells around the world!

Military action is not the only form of diplomatic action. once we deal with Iraq, there will be a template of what can happen if you disregard UN resolutions and harbor and fund terrorists. But, I don't see it being necessary 90+% of the time. I think that there are ways diplomatically that we can deal with countries like Syria and Iran, neither of which have tried to establish or build their own weapons of mass destructions. Neither country wants the US to come in and do to them what we will do to Iraq. In fact, Syria and Iran have already voluntarily destroyed numerous terroristic camps, turned in former Taliban and Al Quada to Saudi Arabia and other Allied groups, and been much more careful with supporting terroristic factions. Sadaam did none of this.

Once we oust Sadaam, I see no other situation where this type of action will be required. The example sent to the middle east will speak volumes in the only language they understand: violence. As I said before, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and numerous other middle-eastern countries have already made steps to show that they will not support terrorists like they did in the mid-90s. That will only continue after Sadaam is gone.

To North Korea, they are simply trying to get some clout so that they can get some aid and help to their disasterous economy. They have no desire to use nuclear weapons, nor have the recent history of aggression towards their people and neighbors that Sadaam had.

It is simply apples and oranges when you compare the acts of someone like Sadaam (gased and starved his people, tried to take over Kuwait, built up serious nuclear and biological weapons programs) to leaders of Syria, Iran and North Korea. None of these countries have done anything in recent years that would make a regime change necessary. In fact, Syria and Iran have even gone so far as to provide the US intelligence and logistics info for both wars against the Taliban and Iraq.

So, once again, if Syria, Iran or North Korea show a pattern of violation of UN resolutions for 12-13 years or attempt to capture neighboring countries and show signs of aggression, then military action may be needed. But, I don't see any of that happening.

Arlie

[GrantDawg]

Good points, Arlie. Now, GET BACK TO PROGRAMING!! I want my football game.

[ISiddiqui]

Military underestimated what? I don't think it was any secret that the war might take months. And, I have to agree with those that point out ITS ONLY BEEN A WEEK! Jeez.. now if we were 20 miles out of Kuwait, then I could see the concern.

[lynchjm24]

Yeah, so I woman I work with - her husband was killed in Iraq yesterday. I don't know her personally, but it's a lot different when it starts hitting closer to home.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Military underestimated what? I don't think it was any secret that the war might take months. And, I have to agree with those that point out ITS ONLY BEEN A WEEK! Jeez.. now if we were 20 miles out of Kuwait, then I could see the concern.

Isiddiqui, read Honolulu's post above with quotes by the Bush administration and then read my thread with articles by Joe Galloway in which sources tell him Rumsfeld only expected the war to last two days. Of course the Bush administration was smart enough not to give the American people a date with something as unpredictable as war but anyone who says they weren't sending signals that they felt it would be a quick war much like the first Persian Gulf War is lying through their teeth.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by panerd
So sometimes these weapons of mass destruction are good? :(

I doubt very seriously, can be virtually certain in fact, that you won't find me claiming otherwise.

Minus the development of WMD's, I shudder to think what would have become of the U.S. at various points in the past 50 years.

Then again, I shudder at the notion of what parts of it have become anyway :(

[tucker342]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Here's a thought (and I may be way off base here, let me know)..

Could this be a repeat of the end of WWII in Japan? Could we see Atomic and/or Nuclear Weapons in the near future?

I really, really hope not. Wow that's a scary thought :( :( :(