--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I differ with this assessment. Rumsfeld started > talking about units > surrendering en mass on the first day of the ground > campaign. He supplied > the extraordinarily high standards that he is being > held to. I'm pretty > sure that I've seen him state, either at the start > of the war or just > before, that we were talking about weeks, not months > of war.
I'd like a quote on this. Rummy has actually been pretty cautious about saying stuff like that. In those cases where he has, it has seemed pretty clear that it was, in large part, psychological warfare. The best way to convince the Iraqis to surrender was to create the perception of an inevitable defeat. This was an extremely difficult task - we're trying to defeat Iraq without killing anyone except fanatical Ba'ath loyalists. > > Everything that I've seen indicates that he > overruled military rules about > the force to use, relying on Shock and Awe to > destroy the Iraq army with an > absolute minimal use of force. He appeared to be > convinced that we did not > need the additional forces that the Powell doctrine > suggested to win > quickly and decisively. I have no doubt that we can > win the war; the > question is whether we can do it without allowing > tens of thousands of > civilians to die from disease, hunger, etc. Even > though it will be the > result of the actions of Hussein's forces, the > deaths will be laid at the > US's doorstep. > > Most major media has a plethora of retired military > officers offering them > advice. My understanding of CNN, for example, is > that the general flavor > is strongly favorable to the military. The greatest > negative that I've > picked up from the overall coverage is the suspicion > lower level managers > have of micromanagement by top management. > > Dan M. The first mark of a successful Defense Secretary is a military establishment that is deeply unhappy with him. I think you're missing two things, Dan. The first is the internal dynamics of the Pentagon, the second is the proper relationship between a civilian Administration and a military establishment. For the second, I'd suggest reading Eliot Cohen's _Supreme Command_, the only book I've ever read where I said that I agreed with _everything_ in it, largely because I once wanted to _write_ it, but he beat me to it. Damn it. But, in brief, the job of the civilian establishment is to force the military to do things it does not want to do. See Lincoln in the Civil War, Roosevelt in WW2, and so on. The failure in Vietnam was not micromanagement, but a failure of civilian control. No one in the civilian establishment ever went to the Joint Chiefs and asked them how the hell they planned to win. Rumsfeld certainly forced the Army to do something it did not want to do. It wasn't _just_ Rumsfeld - it was Rumsfeld in cooperation with all of the "Jedi Knights" in the Pentagon - i.e. the entire Air Force, most of the Marines, and the entire Special Operations community. In an intramural debate within the Armed Forces, he picked a side. It happens to be the side I agree with (mostly) but there were plenty of professional military people who agreed with him and (more) don't talk to the press afterwards. What you're seeing in the press are leaks by the "Heavy Metal" crowd in the Army that isn't happy with what's going on. It's not terribly surprising. I think I could probably _name_ who some of the leakers are, actually, just from the press coverage. War is the continuation of politics by other means. Because of that, even the smallest details of war are subject to political supervision, because means and tactics have political affects. The military doesn't like that. It's not supposed to, as long as it obeys. As for the Shock and Awe thing - it's not a big deal. If it had worked, it would have been great. It wasn't a total success. It had some good effects, but it didn't go all the way. OK. But there wasn't any harm in trying. A war plan that tries something and fails is only wrong if it doesn't have any fallback plans. We have fallback plans - you're seeing them put into play now. With every passing moment Iraqi forces are further eroded, while American strength in the theater swells. Because of the early and decisive action, Iraq was unable to do many things that could have been disastrous for our efforts, while we are in a strategically highly advantageous position. Things are, on the whole, going well. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
