Anyone read this

[Chris Losinger]

haven't read that particular one (entirely, yet). but similar accounts are everywhere these days. the Talking Points Memo, among others, has been going on about this for a week or so now. even the right-wing National Review is complaining about it (complaining, but at the same time, trying very hard not to offend anyone in the Rumsfeld fanclub). personally, even tho things look a little bad at the moment, i'm willing to give the military more time before i start calling it a total failure. let's hope they can get the job done quickly - any other outcome may be far worse than not doing it at all. (a "1" ??? someone out there have a grudge?? ) -c

---

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

[Lost User]

I am not worried about the failure part of it; but it should be worrying when planning is overriden by amatuers; that too when lives of military personnel are at stake. I understand that war is dangerous; but there was a report of 4 UK soldiers deciding to face court-martial than fight the war the way the war is fought now. Also looks like so many military men are pissed off and really contemptous of Rumsfeld. This will have a negative influence if the war prologs. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

[Doug Goulden]

Thomas George wrote: I understand that war is dangerous; but there was a report of 4 UK soldiers deciding to face court-martial than fight the war the way the war is fought now. Not to speak poorly of the Brits, but I remember in '91 there was a US Marine who faced court martial rather than go to fight. His excuse was that he had joined the military for an education, not to fight. Unfortunately there are some people who when they give their oath to their country, they don't really listen to what the words they are saying mean. Sounds lik this might be a case of that. Thomas George wrote: Also looks like so many military men are pissed off and really contemptous of Rumsfeld I don't know that I would believe that based on one newspaper article. i believe you had posted the link earlier, a lot of the stuff you hear like that ends up being political. Yeah believe it or not, the military has its own whole set of politics. I would suspect based on time I spent in the service and the people I know who are still in, that morale isn't going to be a problem based on some newspaper report. Since 9/11 people in the service have largely come to see their service as a greater calling. I think that the war would have to really drag on for quite some time with extremely heavy losses to impact that. At this point militarily losses have been relatively light, and the actions of the Iraqi Fedayeen Saddam have probably only really served to p*ss off the guys in the field. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

[Lost User]

but, like Chris said above, it is not just the NewYorker. Also, that is why I was searching whether the author is a liberal anti-war guy. But, he seems to be a respected investigative journalist. As I said before, I know nothing of this guy. Fidayeen Saddam and suicide bombers are the facts of war. They are using humans as the ultimate guidance system. It is unclear what role they might play in the future days. I would not discount their impact on the coalition troops and the way they approach this war, as easily as you did. It does leave a figment of uncertainity in the soldiers' minds. The kinds of aircrafts (delivery systems) that the Iraqi military has, will also decide how effective their suicide campaign will be. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

[Doug Goulden]

Thomas George wrote: I would not discount their impact on the coalition troops and the way they approach this war, as easily as you did I didn't mean to discount them, so much as to point out that they are just as likely to anger the troops there. The real difference that I see between this conflict and the Vietnam War a lot off people are already trying to compare it to, is that the US government seems to be intent on doing whatever is necessary to win. In Vietnam, a lot of the troops saw that Washington placed a lot of targets and objective out of bounds due to political concerns. It doesn't seem to be that way here. As far as Rumsfeld, I don't know if what was written is true, but if things go badly he may well be in trouble. At this point though its kind of amazing to me how people have jumped on the "The sky is falling" bandwagon. I thought that there was a good chance that the Iraqi military would roll over fairly easily, but I can't say that I'm stunned they didn't. And surely the guys in charge of this whole thing are a lot smarter than I am with a lot better intelligence. It seems like some of the press (the Peter Arnett faction ;)) is in a hurry to report the negative. And with a fairly limited number of civilian casualties to report so far they seem to dwell on the negative. Just an opinion...:~ Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

[Chris Losinger]

Doug Goulden wrote: At this point though its kind of amazing to me how people have jumped on the "The sky is falling" bandwagon. i think it's more amazing to see how many of those people were former passengers on the "this will be a cakewalk" bandwagon. the old story was exciting, patriotic and optimistic. people loved it. the new story is scandalous and potentially bloody. even without a war, nothing beats either of those for selling newspapers. -c

---

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

[Doug Goulden]

Chris Losinger wrote: i think it's more amazing to see how many of those people were former passengers on the "this will be a cakewalk" bandwagon Ouch Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

[Richard Stringer]

Chris Losinger wrote: i'm willing to give the military more time before i start calling it a total failure. A total failure ? Just what military history have you perused to base this observation on ? It is , by any measure except expectations of certain reporters , a smashing success so far. Baghdad will fall probably in the next two weeks or so. If the war was persecuted without regard to civilan casualities it would already be over. Richard In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. Orson Welles

[Joe Woodbury]

Like many investigative journalists Seymour Hersh has done some good work, though he mainly capitilizes off a single story he broke; the Mai Lae Massacre. Unfortunately like many reporters he has a penchent for hearsay, especially when it supports his viewpoint. I found the article mostly rehashed nonsense unsupported by any real facts. He characterizes the responses of large groups of people based on unnamed sources, sources that are very likely extremely bitter that their worldview wasn't accepted by anyone else. (And note that when he does actually name people, such as Franks, he dismisses most of them as patsies.) I have found the people who have seen the plan, Rumsfeld, Myers, Franks, Brooks, etc., far more credible than pencil pushers who haven't. To compare Rumsfeld with McNamara displays a fantastical degree of ignorance. McNamara and Johnson were selecting individual targets! They were planning missions to the smallest detail! There is zero, none, nada, evidence Rumsfeld is "micromanaging" this war. But it doesn't matter; the evidence is in the execution and in that the war is going beyond well. ALL the evidence is that this will be one of the most successful, brilliant military operations in history. Furthermore, many, if not most, of the criticisms written over the weekend have already been disproved. "Journalists" such as Hersh are being made fools of. For example, the supply lines are, in fact, vulnerable. But this is true of all supply lines. Any military strategist knows that a) to harm the enemy the most, cut off their supplies and b) it's impossible to guarantee your own supply line. Yet, what damage have the Iraqis done to the coalition supply line? None. No casualties, no destroyed vehicles, nothing. The Iraqis have prevented no supplies from reaching their intended destination. Hersh also ignores that there are strong political reasons for the current battle plan. To pretend otherwise is being intentionally, or rather, conveniently, ignorant. (And those that advocate a larger force are being hypocrites since a larger force requires an associated larger supply system. Given the geographic contraints, the supply line would be much more critical and vulnerable and would actually become a logistical impossibility at a point.)

[Lost User]

I agree with you completely. Of course, anyone calling this a military failure is an idiot. But, if indeed the rift between political and military leadership exists (I am not too sure about this; looks like they want to sell more sensational news), it may be something that needs to be addressed, and may become critical with a mightier enemy. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers