I'm quite dissapionted in this war effort. I was so happy when Bush finally decided to swing the hammer, but we're hitting Iraq with about 80% of our Navy, and much less than half of our Army, Marines, and Air Force. This is quite disturbing, as we have 1 Infantry Division (God bless the 3rd- keep it up) pushing towards Iraq, and 1 more entire division (the 4th) waiting in ships offshore, waiting for Turkey to let them unload there.

In a seperate thought, I have absolutely NO business knowing anything about the strategy of this war, but it's TV, so I'm going to watch it. I would be much happier watching the full story behind the scenes one day in a documentary on the History Channel, but apparently the Pentagon is okay with letting CNN reporters give up-to-the-second updates on the 1st Marines in their battle for Southern Iraq. Like I said, I have no business watching this, but since I can, I will. I honestly think that it is the only way Saddam and his war council can get reliable battlefield info, because I think his own troops would lie to him about their progress.

Now, back to the point. Tommy Franks knew that Turkey was not going to permit our troops access to their border, they have their own war they want to fight there, and we would eliminate the possibility of them getting to kill some Kurds. Knowing this, they should have delayed this campaign a few days to permit the 4th ID to unload, and fight alongside the 3rd, who is insanely short of manpower. The only reason why the Fayeed guerillas are a problem is because there is not sufficient manpower to "comb" the desert, and disarm the people they liberate. Although I believe that our troops will still prevail, it is not fair to them to ask them to fight like this, when we could easily double our fighting force. The Republican Guard knows how outnumbered our troops are, and instead of laying down their weapons and going home, they now feel like they have a chance.

Also, the Air Force is not being allowed to showcase their talents. I realize that in a desperate effort to spare civilians, they are only targeting proof-positive military installations, but why spend $10 million in cruise missiles to destroy the same targets that a B-52 "Buff" could take out with internal ordinance for about 10% of the costs, and have a much more terrifying psychological effect? I don't think CentCom realizes that they (Iraqis) have no chance of shooting down a bomber flying at 20,000 feet. For this reason, only B-2 and F-117 Stealth aircraft are flying combat missions over Baghdad. All you Vietnam Veterans will remember how the 1 aircraft that struck fear in the souls of our enemies was the B-52, because they knew that it didn't even have to hit close, 90,000 lbs. of ordinance will devastate like no other. That is the real "shock and awe". Instead, CentCom is sending the mighty Buffs to do nothing more than fire ALCMs (air launch cruise missiles) at targets, and then fly right back to England. Nothing made me more proud to be an American today than driving in my F100 and seeing on the twilight horizon a trio of B-1b "Lancers" in Line Astern formation, streaking eastward. Why not let the USAF do what they do best, and terrorize those cowards like we did in '91? I call them cowards, because I have not seen 1 single Iraqi act with any dignity or pride, they hide behind civilians and use our own value of human life as a weapon against us. Bush said that "this will not be a campaign of half measures", which he's right, they're doing 52% measures.

It's very frustrating to sit at home and watch this war (which again, I have no business doing) knowing that we are holding back, understaffed, and too afraid to strike key targets for fear that some collateral damage may occur. I feel an infinite sympathy for the God-fearing or at least peace-loving people of Iraq, but they and the rest of the Arab world must understand that we will destroy our enemy to acheive our mission, and most unfortunately, innocent people will die. Of course I would never approve of intentionally targeting civilian structures or people, but Saddam is using our respect of life as a weapon against us.

So, how do we get them to come out from behind their wives and children and fight like honorable men? I guess they won't, because they are not honorable, nor is their cause. But I know that this insane press coverage has worked against our war effort. Americans now get uneasy at every single injury they hear of or see on TV. As Colon Powell said today, "although every loss of life is tragic, the casualities in this conflict have been light". If the press was not allowed such access to this war, would our psychological edge be any sharper? would Saddam even bother to hide behind innocent people if he knew that we were going to come for him nomatter what, if the cameras were not rolling?

What do you guys think? Is this press coverage undermining our efforts, and should our leaders quit holding back our big guns? TK


"forgive those who still protest this war, for they have always been free, and don't understand what's it like elsewhere." - me

 

TK, I can only guess that our military knows the press is going to be underfoot whether they approve of it or not. By keeping the press close to the vest, it gives the military a better handle on what the press reveals.

The 101'st Airborne's location is unacounted for, AFIK. I believe they will appear at an oppourtunity of their own making.

If you want a different view of the news from what our networks are delivering, have a look at the live feed from the BBC at bbc.com.

Scott

 

When it comes to military strategy, I have no opinion. I don't know enough to form an opinion about the strategy our generals are taking with this war. I can only hope president Bush has selected the right military minds put the right people in charge of planing and executing this war. It's easy to second guess and say what should have been done. But we have no knowlege of all the military intellegence the war planners have been gathering over the past few months. I have to believe the decission to go when they did must have been based on intellegence we're not aware of yet. However, I can form an opinion based on what I read and see happening with the war effort so far. And so far, I'm not disappointed.

I think it is wise for the president to let the military types conduct the war. That's their job. Rather than sit in and micro manage everything, he gives the orders and lets those who know about war and how to win manage things. I'm sure the president will say one way or the other whether or not he's pleased with the results and will let his generals and military planners know. Of course ultimatly, the president is responsible for everything that happens. And since he gives the orders, he has to trust his people to make the right decission and do the right things at the right time. I believe this says a lot about the president and who he chooses to suround himself with. Years from now history will write about the war, the generals, the military planners, the troops, the stragety, the cost and the outcome, but success or failure and responsibility will fall upon the Comander in Chief.

As far as the media coverage goes, I have some mixed feelings on this one. Mostly negitive. It can be a moral boost to see how our troops are equiped with the latest in weapons technology. Interviews with soldiers. How our planes can guide a bomb and pinpoint it's target. But allowing jounalists to be embedded into fighting units may not be such a good thing. One question comes to my mind is "why". Do they do it for glory and ratings or are they really trying to report the war effort in an unbiased way. What is their motivation? I'm not sure. But if a reporter on the front lines in the heat of battle or even a mop up operation, is looking into the camera giving a live report, and in the background a soldier takes a hit, everybody watching will see and know a man may have just been killed on live t.v. Who was it? Did we see his face? Will the camera zoom in on the blood spatered body? Every mother and father in america watching will be wondering if that was their son they just seen get shot and perhaps die before their eyes. How cruel to put someone, a perent, grandparent, sister or brother through such and ordeal just for a ratings boost or "I was there" braggin' rights. So the question that comes to my mind is, is the american public ready for an up and close personal look into the realities of war? Imagine a camera rolling when that convoy that took a wrong turn and got ambushed. Soldiers were captured and some killed. Why does the news media want to potentialy show us these things? Or a camera capturing the fake surrender of Iraqi soldiers, only to open fire on our troops. Will it turn our stomachs or strengthen our resolve? Will the american public say we don't want to see such things, or will we be glued to the t.v. watching for the next casuality of war? What will the news media think of their live coverage when their live on the air reporter takes one in the head? What will we think? If most of the t.v. news won't air the footage of that Arab t.v. Al-Jazier, or what ever, of the soldiers killed and layed out for all to see, why show us in real time the same thing as it happens? To many questions. In this age of modern satelite communication and real time reporting, I think it's to much considering whats at stake. Those fighting this war are trained to kill and survive. And how to deal with the loss of life and limb, death, distruction and how to put it behind them for the moment and move on to the next target. The american puplic is not.

The Iraqi Republician Guard forces are taking to terrorists tactics. Hiding among civilians, neighborhoods, schools and the like. And the american fighting machine won't use our big guns on these slimeballs because of the potential loss of inocent lives. If the Iraqi forces bait us into inflicting heavy loss of life among the civilian population, they will achieve their goal of killing inocent civilians and makeing us look bad among those who oppose this war. Turn attention away from them and focus it on us in a bad light. Forget they are the ones hidding behind the white flag of surrender, only to show their cowerdness. Dressing in cilivian clothes and hiding behind women and children, forcing them to be shields. They don't care about them, we do. Like you said, Saddom is using this against us. But is it a weakness or a virtue? I think the latter and that is what seperates us from Saddom and his followers. I think that's why we are not just going in there with our full force. And we do have the power and the might to do it if we want to. I don't think the U.S. is using half measures at all, but perhaps some needed restraint and control. I think the full measure of the mission is to remove Saddom, take his weapons and free the Iraqi people. Anything short of that would be a half measure. The full measure and use of military might to achieve those goals is another matter IMHO. Part of the objective of this war is to free the Iraqi people and not to cause undue injury or death to them in the process. And that may be hard to do. And the press will be there to cover every bit of it.

 

DailyDriver reminded me of how bold and insensitive the reporter's are with their war reporting.

I saw a video clip of an MSNBC reporter with an Iraqi POW. The prisoner was disoriented and afraid, covering his head with a blanket. The reporter lifted up his blanket and took his MRE out of his hand to show the camera how 'well taken care of' he was.

Now here you have a guy that never faced this adversary while he was holding a rifle, yet he felt emboldened enough to take a defeated soldier's dinner away from him.

I thought it was dehumanizing and it repulsed me. I think everyone involved in the war is going to get hit over the head with the Geneva Convention when it's all over.

 

I think it would be stupid to put more than 50% of the Navy, Army, and Air Force into one region. What happens if they get wiped out? Why lose your whole force. The battle of Midway is a classic example of losing all the eggs in the basket.

You can not afford to lose what you can not replace.

What happens if we have more than one war front?

What happens if another country sees all our troops in one place and decides to blanket the whole area, including the sea, with atomic weapons?

 

quote:
What happens if another country sees all our troops in one place and decides to blanket the whole area, including the sea, with atomic weapons?

I agree with this statement here....I think it hit the nail on the head, or at least not that far off.

 

but we don't even have half of our Army in the regeion. 80% of our Navy fleet is there, but they are so spread out that it would be impossible to blanket them with nukes, and less than 10% of our Air Force operates within even 100 miles of Iraq. All I'm asking for is to step up the manpower, because "an army of one" can only acheive so much. According to a former US Army Division Commander on MSNBC, our troops can fight in the presence of chemical weapons and nerve agents, it just slows us down. I do like what Scott said, we really don't know what the 101st is up to, and that's the way it should be. Half the 82nd is in Afghanistan, but the Screamin' Eagles are somewhere in Iraq making all this possible. I just don't see why we don't deploy the 4th ID to make this go much smoother. We also need to turn the B-52s and B-1bs loose on 'em. No more hi-tech weapons, leave that to F-117s and the F-111s, I'm talking let 'em have 90,000 lbs of unguided, unleaded goodness delvered with care from 20,000 feet. After a few of those bombing runs I'll bet they'd think real hard about what they're really fighting for. TK

 

I do agree in the fact that we should unleash all **** over there. but I believe this whole thing is about to get even worse, with enemy's on more than just this one front and we need to be prepared. I do not think this war is aobut oil...but I do not think that it is completely about what we all think...I believe that there could be and underlying threat as to what we can do, so as people like China and N. Korea can see.

 

I am confident our troops will kick some ****! we have had very low casualties for the amount of ground or distance traveled. The Iraqi's got some punishment today, and are due to get somemore. If you haven't got the faith, keep it to yourself. I think we should all keep the good thoughts coming and say alot of prayers for our troops and leaders. God Bless the President and his Brave soldiers!!!!!

 

O h do not worry I show my support every day, I am in the Air Force at Little Rock Air Force Base, I have good friends over ther, my roomate is going over, and I will be going eventually

 

TorqueKing: Be patient. The war is only a few days old. What they are doing makes sense if you pull away from all the news and reflect upon history. The real fighting has yet to occur.

I'm not looking forward to it. But only one outcome is clear, and it ain't SH.

 

One unintended consequence of pushing so far so fast is that it is easy to outrun your supply lines. It happened to Patton on his way through Europe. He advanced so far so fast his tanks ran out of gas. I was listening to the radio and the guy was saying that this delay was positive in that it allows supplies to catch up, and soldiers to get some much needed rest. He said the (3rd?) Marine infantry division alone uses 790,000 gallons of gasoline PER DAY!
When we go into Baghdad we'll go on OUR schedule.
Saddam is hoping not to defeat us militarily (because he knows he can't) but to outwait us. One of the lasting effects of the Dark Years of Clintonism is that our enemies have become convinced that if they inflict a few American casualties we'll turn tail and run, because that's EXACTLY what happened in Somalia. That is what Saddam is hoping for.
And sad to say the press seems to be helping foster that outcome with the ridiculous questions they ask at the daily briefings.

 

they know what they are doing...
Let the experts take care of the war

 

Jim, point well taken. But I'll tell you what, all this press coverage sure leads me to think that I know almost everything that's going on. Tommy Franks really did a superb job in Afghanistan, and there's no reason to think that he won't do the same in Iraq, but I still want to see B-52s unleash hell's fire on Saddam's brainwashed followers. I really think that a more overwhelming show of power would do wonders for making these guerilla fighters want to lay their weapons down and go home, instead of facing sure death, but I'm not wearing 4 stars, I'm just another monday morning quarterback. It'll all make sense when we watch the documentary one day on the History Channel, and we find out about how everything really went down. TK

 

As far as the new media being so close, theres lots of common sense reasons for that.
#1 - The American taxpayer at least wants to know what all the $$$ they're laying out is going towards. It makes people feel better to be able to see it on TV.
#2 - Ratings - I think many people would skip the Super Bowl to watch this stuff.
#3 - Psychology - It's a nice way of sending a message to the rest of the world -"Look what we have, look what we can do. Still want to mess with us?"
#4 - It's a distraction. Showing you the war on TV every night does tend to take your mind off some of the problems that you might have been thinking about, say, a month ago...

Oh, and, #5 - They had to do something to get some of this reality TV crap off the air, at least this is REAL!


And as far as why they don't send in more people.. Most of this has been covered already..
We have a lot of other millitary commitments in the world, we have to tend to them, also.
It's always a good idea to keep a good reserve at home, just in case.. Remember, the concept of us being attacked right here in the US is not out of the question, if not unlikely and really STUPID (ever been to a gun show in this country? Yeah, I wanna try and invade this place.....)

What would happen if, say Wacko Hussein decided to unleash some WMD that he claims not to have, and God forbid, out entire standing millitary was wiped out? Don't forget, this nut job's not above killing every last person there, including his own people... He's killed plenty of em already..

Besides, won't it be nice bragging rights for Bush to be able to say, after this is over, that "It only took half of what we have to destroy this guy, so don't push your luck."


Anyway, just my thoughts. They've got their reasons. I frankly don't worry about what they are, they're doing just fine so far.