Ex-general: War planners did not expect insurgency

[jamotto]

Link

[jamotto]

Link

[street228]

I find it AMUSING: EXPERTS continue to fail, in acknowledgement, of the most OBVIOUS results, of the actions this Administration has taken.

[street228]

I find it AMUSING: EXPERTS continue to fail, in acknowledgement, of the most OBVIOUS results, of the actions this Administration has taken.

[Steve Schacher]

I think the early expectation was to crush the Iraqi military in a prolonged battle at Baghdad. What actually happened was that the Republican Guard melted into the population instead of standing and fighting, which is why we had such an easy time of taking Baghdad. Then, the Iraqi Guard reformed as a guerrilla opposition. At that point, Al Qaeda, Syrian, and Iranian terrorist groups joined them in the force that we see today.

As they say, all plans go out the window as soon as the enemy is engaged. I think that the real mistake was in letting Fallujah stand unopposed. That gave the insurgency a home base from which to operate. We probably left it alone for PC reasons, which shouldn't be a factor in warfare, but we wanted to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi by using the "shock and awe" tactic of simultaneous pinpoint bombing of military installations while leaving the civilian infrastructure intact. The net effect of that was to not leave the Iraqis with the impression that they were defeated, the way that carpet-bombing of cities like Dresden in WWII made the Germans absolutely aware that they were beaten.

If we had bombed Baghdad and disrupted the power, water, electricity, etc., then the people would have been more focused on restoring their infrastructure than looting from each other, and we would have been able to use the rebuilding of their power grid and water supply as a make-work project to get the people involved in their reconstruction earlier than we did. As it was, the Iraqi people sat back and let the Americans and British do all the heavy lifting, staying disengaged for far too long for their own good. Their power grid was already a mess because Hussein was using it as a weapon against his enemies and a reward for his friends. The same with water, where he dried up the marshes to eliminate his southern foes. We probably should have just destroyed it all in the beginning and then spent the entire time rebuilding it from the ground up.

[Steve Schacher]

I think the early expectation was to crush the Iraqi military in a prolonged battle at Baghdad. What actually happened was that the Republican Guard melted into the population instead of standing and fighting, which is why we had such an easy time of taking Baghdad. Then, the Iraqi Guard reformed as a guerrilla opposition. At that point, Al Qaeda, Syrian, and Iranian terrorist groups joined them in the force that we see today.

As they say, all plans go out the window as soon as the enemy is engaged. I think that the real mistake was in letting Fallujah stand unopposed. That gave the insurgency a home base from which to operate. We probably left it alone for PC reasons, which shouldn't be a factor in warfare, but we wanted to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi by using the "shock and awe" tactic of simultaneous pinpoint bombing of military installations while leaving the civilian infrastructure intact. The net effect of that was to not leave the Iraqis with the impression that they were defeated, the way that carpet-bombing of cities like Dresden in WWII made the Germans absolutely aware that they were beaten.

If we had bombed Baghdad and disrupted the power, water, electricity, etc., then the people would have been more focused on restoring their infrastructure than looting from each other, and we would have been able to use the rebuilding of their power grid and water supply as a make-work project to get the people involved in their reconstruction earlier than we did. As it was, the Iraqi people sat back and let the Americans and British do all the heavy lifting, staying disengaged for far too long for their own good. Their power grid was already a mess because Hussein was using it as a weapon against his enemies and a reward for his friends. The same with water, where he dried up the marshes to eliminate his southern foes. We probably should have just destroyed it all in the beginning and then spent the entire time rebuilding it from the ground up.

[street228]

steve , you KEEP forgetting this ONE small point.

There is a VERY POLAR division, amongst the TOTAL population with-in IRAQ, and THIS has been the case since BEFORE the war.

41% compared to approx 46%. The minority were happy beneath the BATHAST party government. ALL we did was give the 46% control over the 41%, as opposed to where it stood prior to the war. This indeed was no more than standing for the popular majority, in the form of a liberation.

These are, but a fraction, of the factual situations, where discussion was sacrificed, in this administration's haste, to go to war.

If we had done as you suggest, then they would ALL have been aware of their subserviant position, as well as an even stronger base( approx 78% of the population ) compassionate toward the insurgants.

Then, one must assess, the actual benefit, of areal bonbardment, and it's overall affect toward deminishing a DISPERSED troop's access to weapons, along with the backing of a severely accousted population.....NOT a GOOD scenerio, for ground assult, with limited supply lines.

[ 07-16-2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: street ]

[street228]

steve , you KEEP forgetting this ONE small point.

There is a VERY POLAR division, amongst the TOTAL population with-in IRAQ, and THIS has been the case since BEFORE the war.

41% compared to approx 46%. The minority were happy beneath the BATHAST party government. ALL we did was give the 46% control over the 41%, as opposed to where it stood prior to the war. This indeed was no more than standing for the popular majority, in the form of a liberation.

These are, but a fraction, of the factual situations, where discussion was sacrificed, in this administration's haste, to go to war.

If we had done as you suggest, then they would ALL have been aware of their subserviant position, as well as an even stronger base( approx 78% of the population ) compassionate toward the insurgants.

Then, one must assess, the actual benefit, of areal bonbardment, and it's overall affect toward deminishing a DISPERSED troop's access to weapons, along with the backing of a severely accousted population.....NOT a GOOD scenerio, for ground assult, with limited supply lines.

[ 07-16-2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: street ]

[Steve Schacher]

I'm not forgetting. It isn't as polar as you suggest.

There are the Baathist loyalists in the Sunni Triangle, but there are also the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North. The Kurds have been protected by the No-Fly Zone, so they've been allowed to establish themselves, much to the chagrin of Turkey, who would probably sweep into Iraq and take out the Kurds if they were allowed to do so. The Shiites were also protected, but had a harder time of it with the drying of the marshes (with yet another indigenous group), although they had the port city Basra in their control.

The current Iraq was the result of borders determined by the British many years ago. It would probably have developed into three separate countries if allowed to go on its own: a Kurdistan (?), a Sunnistan (?), and a Shiastan (?). Then, they would all have started wars amongst themselves, with an occasional stray missile hitting Iranistan.

[Steve Schacher]

I'm not forgetting. It isn't as polar as you suggest.

There are the Baathist loyalists in the Sunni Triangle, but there are also the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North. The Kurds have been protected by the No-Fly Zone, so they've been allowed to establish themselves, much to the chagrin of Turkey, who would probably sweep into Iraq and take out the Kurds if they were allowed to do so. The Shiites were also protected, but had a harder time of it with the drying of the marshes (with yet another indigenous group), although they had the port city Basra in their control.

The current Iraq was the result of borders determined by the British many years ago. It would probably have developed into three separate countries if allowed to go on its own: a Kurdistan (?), a Sunnistan (?), and a Shiastan (?). Then, they would all have started wars amongst themselves, with an occasional stray missile hitting Iranistan.

[street228]

at least, you recognize, some of the archetecture, of the country, in geopolitical terms.

[street228]

at least, you recognize, some of the archetecture, of the country, in geopolitical terms.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by street:

at least, you recognize, some of the archetecture, of the country, in geopolitical terms.

---

Oh puhlease..... DUH, too bad that you can't get a clue about the rest of it.

Bush Lied?.... Hmm,..... not according to the Senate.......

I think EVERY person who called President Bush a Liar, owes him an apology....

Such as yourself Street.

Too bad that the intelligence was ACTUALLY correct, and the Senate is in CYA mode, and ignoring the fact that those WMD's etc are now in the hands of people that can and WILL hand them out to terrorists....

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by street:

at least, you recognize, some of the archetecture, of the country, in geopolitical terms.

---

Oh puhlease..... DUH, too bad that you can't get a clue about the rest of it.

Bush Lied?.... Hmm,..... not according to the Senate.......

I think EVERY person who called President Bush a Liar, owes him an apology....

Such as yourself Street.

Too bad that the intelligence was ACTUALLY correct, and the Senate is in CYA mode, and ignoring the fact that those WMD's etc are now in the hands of people that can and WILL hand them out to terrorists....

[Steve Schacher]

Plus the fact that the "Bush lied" hysteria began with Joe Wilson's claim that the "16 words" in the State of the Union address were a lie (the part about the British claiming that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, aka the Niger Yellowcake affair), which is now being debunked. Wilson is in hiding, and the Senate Democrats are in CYA mode, because they now know the truth that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

[Steve Schacher]

Plus the fact that the "Bush lied" hysteria began with Joe Wilson's claim that the "16 words" in the State of the Union address were a lie (the part about the British claiming that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, aka the Niger Yellowcake affair), which is now being debunked. Wilson is in hiding, and the Senate Democrats are in CYA mode, because they now know the truth that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Plus the fact that the "Bush lied" hysteria began with Joe Wilson's claim that the "16 words" in the State of the Union address were a lie (the part about the British claiming that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, aka the Niger Yellowcake affair), which is now being debunked. Wilson is in hiding, and the Senate Democrats are in CYA mode, because they now know the truth that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

---

But get just ONE Democrat to admit it, just one....

The bunch of lying bastages, bunch of socialist Pigs as far as I am concerned.

Democrats= LIARS, and Propagandists.... and when caught red handed, stand there and act stupid...

Yeah, like that's anything new....

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Plus the fact that the "Bush lied" hysteria began with Joe Wilson's claim that the "16 words" in the State of the Union address were a lie (the part about the British claiming that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, aka the Niger Yellowcake affair), which is now being debunked. Wilson is in hiding, and the Senate Democrats are in CYA mode, because they now know the truth that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

---

But get just ONE Democrat to admit it, just one....

The bunch of lying bastages, bunch of socialist Pigs as far as I am concerned.

Democrats= LIARS, and Propagandists.... and when caught red handed, stand there and act stupid...

Yeah, like that's anything new....

[Kalshion]

Actually Jaguar

When there caught in a lie they try to make something up to change the subject. Or they just try to say something else in an attempt to make you think you're wrong

Democrat's will never admit how wrong they are acting right now

[Kalshion]

Actually Jaguar

When there caught in a lie they try to make something up to change the subject. Or they just try to say something else in an attempt to make you think you're wrong

Democrat's will never admit how wrong they are acting right now

[El Che]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

As they say, all plans go out the window as soon as the enemy is engaged. I think that the real mistake was in letting Fallujah stand unopposed. That gave the insurgency a home base from which to operate. We probably left it alone for PC reasons, which shouldn't be a factor in warfare, but we wanted to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi by using the "shock and awe" tactic of simultaneous pinpoint bombing of military installations while leaving the civilian infrastructure intact. The net effect of that was to not leave the Iraqis with the impression that they were defeated, the way that carpet-bombing of cities like Dresden in WWII made the Germans absolutely aware that they were beaten.

---

I feel mech better now knowing that NO innocent Iraqi civilians were killed thanks in part to our "pinpoint" bombing. Thank God for "pinpoint" bombing. Infidels REJOICE!!

[El Che]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

As they say, all plans go out the window as soon as the enemy is engaged. I think that the real mistake was in letting Fallujah stand unopposed. That gave the insurgency a home base from which to operate. We probably left it alone for PC reasons, which shouldn't be a factor in warfare, but we wanted to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi by using the "shock and awe" tactic of simultaneous pinpoint bombing of military installations while leaving the civilian infrastructure intact. The net effect of that was to not leave the Iraqis with the impression that they were defeated, the way that carpet-bombing of cities like Dresden in WWII made the Germans absolutely aware that they were beaten.

---

I feel mech better now knowing that NO innocent Iraqi civilians were killed thanks in part to our "pinpoint" bombing. Thank God for "pinpoint" bombing. Infidels REJOICE!!

[El Che]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The bunch of lying bastages, bunch of socialist Pigs as far as I am concerned. [/QB]

---

With the exception of myself, not all Socialists are pigs. Some of them are quite nice, in fact. And I'm not implying that Jaguar said that ALL Socialists are pigs. I'm sure he has met Socialists who are NOT pigs, but maybe he didn't know that they were Socialists. (You can usually tell us by the jaunty hats that we wear.) We also LOVE cheese. Some of us are proficient Karaoke singers.

[El Che]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The bunch of lying bastages, bunch of socialist Pigs as far as I am concerned. [/QB]

---

With the exception of myself, not all Socialists are pigs. Some of them are quite nice, in fact. And I'm not implying that Jaguar said that ALL Socialists are pigs. I'm sure he has met Socialists who are NOT pigs, but maybe he didn't know that they were Socialists. (You can usually tell us by the jaunty hats that we wear.) We also LOVE cheese. Some of us are proficient Karaoke singers.

[Steve Schacher]

What's your point?

Where did I say anything about innocents not being killed? I said infrastructure, as in power, water, etc.

If your point is that no war is justified if one innocent is killed, then I say "grow up" and start living in the real world. I'm not condoning the killing of innocents, but when war becomes inevitable (and I think this one was inevitable), then innocents will be killed. As far as I'm concerned (like it or hate it), I'd rather have the fighting over there than over here.