Grrrrrrrrrrr

[Ben E Lou]

From Nealz Nuze this morning...

Remember when President Bush said that “you’re either for us, or you’re against us”? French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has now been put to that test, and he has failed.

Our friend de Villepin was making a speech in London. He said that he wanted a “swift conclusion with the minimum possible number of causalities.” A Telegraph reporter asked this weasel if he hoped that American and British forces would win the campaign to remove Saddam. He refused to answer.

What can you say about a man, the chief foreign diplomat for France, who cannot chose between Saddam and the coalition in this war?

“Jerk” works. So does “enemy.”

[Ben E Lou]

LOL....More from Boortz today...

CHARLES RANGEL, PATRIOT

Perhaps you caught New York Democrat Charles Rangel on Hannity and Colmes last night. Rangel, you will recall, is one of only 11 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted “no” on a resolution to support our troops in Iraq. Last night Rangel said that the American military was over there to “bomb women and children.” Remember – if the Democrats had control of the House right now this buffoon would be the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the chief tax writing and policy arm of the congress.

I GUESS OUR TROOPS NEED MORE TRAINING

The great American patriot Charles Rangle’s statement reminded me … we’re getting two different pieces of information from Iraqi officials late this week:

• American and coalition forces are targeting innocent civilians in Iraq.
• Since the beginning of the war 350 Iraqi civilians have been hilled by coalition firepower.

Only 350? That’s all? We’ve launched over 4000 bombs and cruise missiles, many aimed at civilians, and all we have to show for it is a paltry 350?

Looks like we need more practice. At least Rangel is showing his constituents that he understands and will follow his marching orders from his Iraqi controllers.

[Vegas Vic]

Before we are so quick to criticize the comments of Congressman Rangle, I would offer the following information. He is a decorated Korean War veteran. I, for one, take his input very seriously. He has firsthand knowledge of the merits and horrors of war.

On the other hand, the current administration (with the exception of Colin Powell) is composed of “Chickenhawks”. These are men who are all too willing to send troops in harms way, when they themselves avoided military service.

President George Bush - a cushy slot near home engineered by Dad in the Texas Air National Guard; was AWOL for an entire year; service records never revealed.

Vice President Dick Cheney - got four deferments to avoid service in Vietnam.

Defense Secretary. Don Rumsfeld - no military service.

Chief Pentagon hawks Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz - no military service.

Attorney General John Ashcroft - no military service.

[tucker342]

wait the top guys at the Pentagon didn't even have military service? That's a pretty scary thought.

[ACStrider]

All right, I have to say something here... (something's gotten under my skin a little)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to deminish the quality of military service and what that brings to handling of the military. I know that our country has a long tradition of leaders in the service in one form or another. What bothers me is people's analysis of the situation. Somehow, if you're never been on the front lines or if you're never been in the service at all, that excludes you from any military credibility.

I'd hate to think that my opinion regarding use of force doesn't count because I have a bad knee and can't join the military even if I wanted to. I guess that excludes all disabled people while we're at it. I guess that discludes everyone in the coast guard, or in the reserves. You get my point.

[JPhillips]

Vegas: While Rumsfeld never saw combat, he was in the Air Force during the late 50s.

ACStrider: My problem with the chickenhawk brigade is that they consistantly overrule the military brass. I am very worried that the current plan has left our troops without the tools to get the job done. I'm afraid that troops are being kiled now because our force is too small and stretched too thin.

[The Afoci]

Don Rumsfeld didn't come up with the plan, it was completely handled by the general whose name i can't remember (I think Tommy Franks). He has so much control, he actually started 2 days ahead of schedule with out talk to president bush or Don Rumsfeld. (saw that on either ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX)

[JPhillips]

Afoci: I don't believe for a second that Gen. Franks started a war without getting the go ahead from Bush. If he did, he should be relieved immediately.

As to the plan, it is well known that folks like Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld fought the military brass over the composition of the force needed in Iraq. I can give you a bunch of citations if you want, but I would assume that even the most conservative folks on this board wouldn't argue that point. After Afghanistan the neocons in the Pentagon were convinced that the military didn't understand the new requirements of modern war. They resisted efforts to put more troops on the ground. They were convinced that Saddam's army would fold. Perle even said that the Iraqi army would give up at the first whiff of gunpowder.

What is controversial is whether the troops we have on the ground are strong enough to take Baghdad. From what I have read, I am afraid they aren't. They certainly aren't strong enough to overwhelm the Iraqis and cause a quick capitulation. Now there is word that we are going to wait for four to six days. Every day we sit four or five soldiers are going to be killed by snipers or bombers.

I'm livid that we didn't bring the tools necessary to get the job done. The lesson from all modern military history is to bring overwhelming force to bear at the critical point. We can't do that, not because we don't have the capability, but because we didn't make any contingency plans for a stiff resistance from Saddam. The civilians at the Pentagon traded the Powell doctrine for a new plan that relies on the enemy giving up. Personally that's not a plan that I am comfortable with.

[ACStrider]

JPhil...good points, and that's a legitimate argument that I can go along with. When it comes to international policy, it should be the decision of the people in executive office, but when force is called upon, the execs should do nothing more then ask the "military brass" as you call it what they need and provide it for them. I'd agree that the expectation of capitulation is a poor and dangerous strategy to base military operations around. You don't plan for the best and hope for even better, you plan for the worst and hope for the best.

[Dutch]

From what I have read, I am afraid they aren't. They certainly aren't strong enough to overwhelm the Iraqis and cause a quick capitulation. Now there is word that we are going to wait for four to six days. Every day we sit four or five soldiers are going to be killed by snipers or bombers.

I'm livid that we didn't bring the tools necessary to get the job done.

Well, what you are reading is the media.

Could you imagine if we had assaulted Iraq before the air campaign began, pushed 2 or 3 divisions day and night all the way to the gates of Baghdad with only 25 or 30 casualties in a matter of a week. Gained air superiority over 95% of the country, not allowed a single Iraqi plane to even take to the skies, control the entire northern, wester, and southern parts of the country to the point where the Iraqi's couldn't muster a single counter attack of military significance?

Boy, there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

Our troops are doing a hell of a job, they just outran their supply lines and will hold up for a moment.

Iraq is doing nothing other than the terror actions they would most assuredly rather being doing to innocent civilians...

[ACStrider]

Thanks for the reminder, Dutch.

It really bothers me how the media is spinning the coverage to give the impression that we have lost control of the field. I'm proud of our boys, and the dominance and the professionalism that they have shown is increadible. Any way you look at it, this campaign has been successful. My only contention with the policy that we have placed so far is (A) the expectation of defection and (B) the fact that not all of the services we intended to commit are in the theatre right now. 100,000 more troops in Iraq as opposed to on the way would do wonders for both securing the supply lines which have encountered pesky skirmishes and would greatly assist with the seiging of Basra and Baghdad.

All that having been said, I'm sure that there is some reason that will come out later as to the reason behind the actions taken. As the saying goes, hindsight is...

[Aylmar]

Originally posted by JPhillips
I'm livid that we didn't bring the tools necessary to get the job done. The lesson from all modern military history is to bring overwhelming force to bear at the critical point. We can't do that, not because we don't have the capability, but because we didn't make any contingency plans for a stiff resistance from Saddam. The civilians at the Pentagon traded the Powell doctrine for a new plan that relies on the enemy giving up. Personally that's not a plan that I am comfortable with.

Okay, I can see where you'd be upset, but let's remember the logistical concerns surrounding the opening of this war. The Pentagon had hoped to put the 4th Infantry into Turkey and use them as the force that would open the northern front. Of course, as we all know, there was significant resistence from the Turks. Enough so that the 35 ships carrying the 4th's armor had to leave the area and disembark in Kuwait. Because they weren't sure where they would ultimately be deployed (or possibly another reason, but this one makes the most sense to me), the Pentagon chose to leave the actual troops that comprise the 4th in Texas (not such a big deal...a half a day to get there...a few days to get acclimated...and then into the field).

Now that they've seen that the Iraqis aren't going to just fold, the 4th Infantry is being deployed. This is one of our most modernized and heavily mechanized divsions (according to the various talking heads that I've heard in the last week). Why wouldn't we wait until we can bring the 4th to bear against the Iraqis? What's the rush? I completely agree that every death in the theatre is tragic. But if waiting for the hammer ultimately saves more lives than it costs, why not wait?

Well, those are my thoughts on the subject, anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Dutch
Our troops are doing a hell of a job, they just outran their supply lines and will hold up for a moment.

And anybody with any understanding of military ops I ever known is familiar with that type of situation (first-hand or otherwise) and knows that, unless all that's left is the most token of oppositions, you have to invest some time over the course of the campaign to consolidate your gains, check & adjust your logisitics, and so forth.

[JPhillips]

Sorry I was gone yesterday, but I did get to see a great performance of my brother's high school choir students.

I'm not at all complaining about the performance of our troops. They've done a great job so far, and most likely will continue to display exceptional skill and professionalism. Our troops are the best at what they do, plain and simple.

I'm mad at the guys running this war. They have left our troops exposed and unable to finish the job quickly. I know we are close to Baghdad and have air control and blah blah blah, but as one retired general put it yesterday, we only have control over ground where a marine is standing. We may have moved to within fifty miles of Saddam, but no one is saying we have control of all of southern Iraq. As to air superiority, while the guys have done a great job, air superiority in Iraq isn't a great victory.

As to the Turkish issue, it doesn't matter to me why we don't have the troops needed. If we needed more time to get them in place, then we should have agreed to a thirty day warning. That would have possibly given us stronger international support, but more importantly provided us with the troops needed to take Iraq by force.

I don't think this will turn into another Vietnam, but there are some parallels that worry me. Just like the Johnson admin, the Bush folks seem to rely more on how they would like things to be than how they really are, and are spending vast amounts of time and energy trying to control the way events are being spun. All of this worries me greatly.

We should not have committed ourselves to military action until we were certain we could defeat the Iraqis quickly. As Gen. Clark said, if we are still fighting in four to six weeks Arabs may decide we really are vulnerable and start streaming into Iraq to resist the "infidels". The only way to stop the Fedayeen and possibly bring peace to Iraq is to crush the Iraqi army in Baghdad and wherever else they may hide and get Saddam. Every day we can't do that because of insufficient resources will cost our armed forces a few more lives.