This just in. I think the original was published in armed forces times.

I agree with most of it - we've certainly been much too easy on the failings of the generals who lead us into this debacle (particularly the wildly incompetent Gen. Franks).
>>

Please -  in your infinite wisdom - explain how General Franks is "wildly incompetent", seeing as how the execution of the battleplan whose mission was to defeat the Iraqi army was nearly flawless, aside from the usual friction on the battlefield - and the failure of DIPLOMATIC, not military efforts - to allow passage of the 4th Division in  from Turkey. His mission was NOT to fight an insurgency, and NOT to manage the aftereffects of that mission. So please explain how his execution was wildly incompetent.

 

swhitebull - sitting back, and getting popcorn and soda for this load of hoglips.

 

 

Not even a mention of Franks in the article you sight, so where is the source of your wonderfully inCITEful analysis of Frank's incompetence?

 

 

Sure, no problem.  Less than zero problem, actually.

1- Content.
The 'execution of the battleplan' phooey.  We are talking about taking the world's largest, most advanced and deadliest military machine, and using it to strike down a third world regional power with no airforce or air defense to speak of, and 70's vintage soviet tanks.  Not only that, we also had staging areas right along the border, plenty of time to get prepared and the choice of attacking at a time of our own choosing. 

The apropriate comparison is ordering Mike Tyson to knock out a 12 year-old.

2- Responsibility
Gen. Franks was not just any soldier - he had overall responsibility for the operation, which *absolutely* includes the immediate post-war period. Which he bungled *massively*.  It also includes using his best judgement to use adequate troop levels and warn his civilian bosses about possible danger, including the danger that we'd win the war and lose the peace.

3- Style
Compounding his colossal failure at planning, foresight and using his best military judgement to advise his civilian superiors is the issue of style of command - particularly the broad ranging and vigorous repression of anyone within central command who pointed out that we would, you know, have to have some sort of a plan to deal with the immediate post war period.  In other words: not only did he catastrophically fail at his duties, he also went out of his way to insure anyone serving under him would also fail at theirs.

That's as far as Franks goes - and you are right, the article I "sight" doesnt explicitly mention Franks - indeed he is but one of a much larger failure amongst US generals.

Now, can you please get back to discussing what the article does say - have, indeed our generals failed us? If so, what should we do about it?.

Heart,

eu4ea

Now, can you please get back to discussing what the article does say - have, indeed our generals failed us? If so, what should we do about it?.

Heart,

eu4ea

Hang on, cause that's definitely one of the funnier instances I've seen where one tries to pass off some verbal diarrhea as an educated diatribe. I mean look at all the adjectives and adverbs - "massively", "catastrophically", "colossal". I'll give it a 7.0 cause it seems like you actually believe it.

I will laugh at this statement:
"The apropriate comparison is ordering Mike Tyson to knock out a 12 year-old."

Haha. And urge you to read a book called "Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad". Actually why don't you go one step further and seek out some members of the 3rd ID or 1 MEF who were there. Tell them your terrific clever comparison.

And then the rest of your post, like nearly all the others, I'll just ignore.

EU is Hyperbole and prejudice personified, indeed, Bob. His vapid rant offered nothing of military value or substance regarding specific or even general failureso, offers no evidence of failure other than his say-so, showed nothing regarding decision-making, etc. His comment regarding taking on a 3rd rate military is a feeble attempt to suggest that we only achieve victory against 1st rate armies -  deflection and disingenuous at best. The mission was to remove Saddam hussein's govt, regardless of the quality of his army. Was that achieved, EU?  yes or NO.

Were mistakes made in the aftermath?  Certainly.  But I imagine that EU and all the arm-chair naysayers would, of course, handled things much differently, given their immense foresight of conditions. This is ludicrous. EU, meet The Kerry, another font of military wisdom and experience, for all his 4 years in 'Nam, then bugging out on his made for chicken scratches. Makes him a military genius, just like EU.

 

I'm also sure that EU is privy to all of the private converations that Franks had with Bremer et al in the aftermath.

If one takes the time to read Franks notes and AAR's, one finds that there were at least 6 or 7 alternate plans and contingency plans made, each responding or intiating various actions and reactions to changing conditions on the ground. The first rule of combat is that your plans are wrong the minute you contact the enemy, and you need to plan for changing circumstances. Did Franks? Sure. Was everything anticipated? No. Is EU trying to score cheap points with meaningless rhetoric? Yes. Is HE succeeding?  ONLY in his mind.

 

 

swhitebull

And then the rest of your post, like nearly all the others, I'll just ignore.

Plutarch, you know damn well I've wasted well over 100,000+ words responding to your zany "In Defense of Saddam's Iraq" posts and threads. You're not curious about anything. You've never been curious. Your mind has been made up from the beginning.

I am curious as to why you think Saddam wanted revenge so bad he would lose his regime and life for it.

I could defend every single one of my positions and I could annihilate all those taken by you followers of that bogus religion. But your mind's made up. So what the hell is the point?

Please refute. Cite someone other than Stephen Hayes, or has linked to Stephen Hayes.  I’ve cited more than enough government reports, primary sources, academic studies, etc to show that Saddam didn’t have significant ties to Osama or al Qaeda.   Yet you conveniently ignore this evidence, or deny it is significant, or try to twist it into something that advocates your position. 

 

You cite a 300,000 dollar payment from Saddam’s regime to Ayman al-Zawhiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad as proof the two were in collaboration.  Who came up with this evidence, Stephen Hayes, and his anonymous source in the administration?   Since you and those you cite state this is irrefutable evidence of a link it should be easy to answer these questions with specifics: where did the money go, what did it pay for, who received it, who sent it, what bank was used, were there additional payments, who negotiated the payment, who else knew about the payment, how did the US government find out about it?    

 

I could defend every single one of my positions and I could annihilate all those taken by you followers of that bogus religion.

 

Back it up and I will leave SP forever, never to bother you again. 

But your mind's made up. So what the hell is the point?

I would rather eat my keyboard:


I may go see Georges Sada speak on Tuesday night. Maybe if I'm inspired or something I'll consider wasting millions of words arguing with you again.

How typically brave of you.  My mind isn't made up, but you have to convince me, compel me to believe what you say, since the evidence is against your view.  Instead you rely on right-wing blogs who link to the same boring Feith memo that even its authors have distanced themselves from.  Speaking  of seeing speakers, I saw Dr. Cambone a few weeks ago, surprisingly he didn't want to talk about Iraq, it seems he couldn't defend the pre-war position that Saddam and bin Laden were working together, and if he can't defend it, I seriously doubt you can.   

Hang on, cause that's definitely one of the funnier instances I've seen where one tries to pass off some verbal diarrhea as an educated diatribe. I mean look at all the adjectives and adverbs - "massively", "catastrophically", "colossal". I'll give it a 7.0 cause it seems like you actually believe it.

I will laugh at this statement:
"The apropriate comparison is ordering Mike Tyson to knock out a 12 year-old."

Haha. And urge you to read a book called "Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad". Actually why don't you go one step further and seek out some members of the 3rd ID or 1 MEF who were there. Tell them your terrific clever comparison.

And then the rest of your post, like nearly all the others, I'll just ignore.