The WAY the war was fought reveals.......

[wadestock]

The Way the War was Fought Reveals the True Ideals and Danger of this Administration


The current political debate has overlooked a very important aspect of the war in Iraq.

THE SPECIFIC WAY A WAR WAS CALLED FOR AND HOW IT WAS FOUGHT is truly revealing.

You can argue a 100 different ways back and forth whether or not there was a WMD threat or the advantage of having Saddam captured, but the sheer fact of the matter is that WAR was a specific tool USED by the bush administration. The record breaking blitzkrieg that completely annihilated Iraq's entire warfighting capability down to ever last piece of equipment was not necessary.

Once the oil fields were secured in the early stages of the war, the rest was academic. Be careful to appreciate the obvious reasons why this is true:

1. They had no airforce or anything legitimate to stop our airforce, therefore we had any amount of time to surgically take out targets.

2. The amount of total arsenal left was no threat in terms of military capability against our forces. Even if you argue we didn’t necessarily know that going in, it would have been apparent very quickly. It would have been very clear early on that no WMD would be used against us. Even the most obvious intelligence would confirm they had low quantities of inferior weapons and ammo and that they couldn’t sustain any real war effort.

Therefore, the “rate of military action” was completely under our control.

There was therefore no reason to kill 10,000 Iraqis plus soon to be over 600 American soldiers (and counting).

The simple logic behind the blitzkrieg was as follows:

1. An all out WAR was specifically formulated in order to achieve an IRREVERSIBLE DIRECTION of attack and to specifically use this machine to take out Saddam. It was, for all intents and purposes, a very deadly and expensive head hunting expedition.

2. Declaration of WAR allowed the administration to specifically “play the war card” which includes loyality to the troops, etc, and less risk that the American people might become involved in trying to bring the war to an end.

These simple facts raise to a real and undeniable level the abuse of the bush administration war machine.

THESE FACTS AND ISSUES TRANSCEND THE ISSUES OF WMD, THE APPARENT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR, AND THE ISSUES OF WHETHER OR NOT THE WORLD IS BETTER WITHOUT SADDAM.

The simple fact is, the bush administration MADE IT A WAR, so as to have it achieve SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF ITS OWN.

There are 101 possible ways a military action could have been successful under the “slower military action” scenario. Consider the following:

1. #1 advantage would have been an entirely different view of the US and increased respect worldwide. Making the military effort less than WAR vs. a blitzkrieg war machine is a night and day difference in the perception of our intentions. If you just think about it, it will be eternally impossible to fully rationalize and justify why the war has been fought with such an all out vengeance and with such destructive force against an opponent which really didn’t retaliate.

2. Our strategy would have been perceived as much more commensurate with the original objections of eliminating WMD. Slower military action combined with incremental calls for surrender would be perceived as truly pressing for the regime to cooperate and/or surrender and expose any WMD.

3. Incurring extremely low losses and having a better overall game plan, the rest of the world would have had a much higher incentive to join in.

4. The bottom line is....a slow military action would NOT preclude solving the WMD problem or even potential regime change OVER TIME. (Please note the bush administration putting an all out emphasis on regime change at the last minute was necessary only as part of the all out war effort).

Considering the inherent quagmire we find ourselves in following the all out blitzkrieg war, one can see the element of time was completely on our side to consider fighting slower and considering other options to unfold and work to our advantage.

I strongly recommend that the democratic base embellish this argument and that you write to as many key people you know. The prospective candidates must take it to Bush on this issue. The logic is impenetrable in terms of revealing the true self-centered ideals and true danger of this administration.

[BOHICA06]

1. The argument holds only ...

if we knew that the Iraqis had no tactical chemical warheads for mortars, artillery, rockets or missiles.

If we didn't know for sure - your other scenarios fail.

[wadestock]

2. Your comment isn't logical

Your getting confused. The argument is iron clad.

Are you trying to justify an illogical all out war so that we wouldn't somehow be attacked with bio weapons? That logic wouldn't hold up under any scrutiny.

Simple fact is....they didn't have the capability and we probably knew that going in....and even if you don't believe that...we would have been able to take out prime targets very strategically and without loss of life....pressing on.....seeing a constant errosion of capability....and with much greater potential for outside help.

After months of strategic targets were taken out....would we still be wondering whether we were going to be iced by bio weapons? I don't think so.

Everything would have fallen much more neatly into place.

The loss of life is on the hands of the bush administration for their playing the "war card".

[sangh0]

3. Not just not logical. It's irrational also

If your opponent might have "tactical chemical warheads for mortars, artillery, rockets or missiles", then the last thing you want to do is to accumulate a large number of your troops in one or more places. If you're concerned about tactical WMD's, wadestock's proposal (targeted strikes, etc) are exactly the way to go, and this is well-established military doctrine. If I were home, I could give you a couple of cites from military strategists who agree with wadestock

[wadestock]

5. The military tactics.....

were very good up to the point of taking the oil fields....
after that they are a dismal failure.

But the real point is...don't get hung up on the military tactics thing....
We're not making clear strides on the "big 3" issues in the debates...

1. War - They will argue we are more secure. We must argue Bush is dangerous and he compromised our military.
2. Economy - Can only hope enough people will speak out regarding loss of jobs and see bush is the worst of both worlds....Reaganomics revisited PLUS an incompetent financial fool. Government has grown, military is up beyond necessity, and debt is a true eternal hardship (soon 18 cents on every tax dollar, tune in)
3. Health Care - could be a wash.

So it's going to be tough...and the worst part of it is not losing the election but having the DANGER of this man for another 4 years. I've listened to the war arguments lately with Dr. Kay and it gets me completely burned that people don't see through what the bush administration really did. There is blood on their hands.

[sangh0]

6. I'm not getting hung up on tactics

it's just that, like you say in the subject line "The way the war was fought reveals...."

[wadestock]

7. check that.....

I was intending to be generic...
I think 10 years from now when the history channel finally gets the info...we'll see how bad the tactics really were.....

But it's right now that we're caught up in the election we need to talk to people, write to people, and make sure this dangerous administration is brought to an end.

Knowing why they are actually dangerous and articulating that reason I believe is extremely important. I personally have not heard any of the candidates articulate why Bush is dangerous, except to say that we are not safer since the war.

[BOHICA06]

8. You don't take and hold an area ....

and wait for others to come and play, if you think that Joe Schmoe from the oposition could lob indirect chemicals on top of you. Ever been in MOPP 2 for days on end - hell MOPP 4 for 8 hours is enough to drive someone nuts.

You move forward and remove the threat - take and hold and wait is so 1960s - certainly not part of any air/land doctrine today.

[wadestock]

9. That's very interesting.....

A good argument for the bush war machine....
It fits in neatly with the whole rationale for taking out the WMD.

Except...hmmm....wait a minute....you forgot....they DIDN'T HAVE WMD to use.

The Dr. Kay stuff was pretty clear in showing that our intelligence knew they didn't have the on the ground mechanisms to cause us grief on the battlefield.

In the old days, they could have flown helicopters with bio weapons....but I think we could have taken care of that, don't you?

So the argument goes that we would have been potentially susceptible to other forms of bio weapon dispensing? Yes I'll give you this was a potential unknown.

But without LARGE scale dispensing methods (scuds, etc) that would have taken the WMD to us.....which would have revealed a true capability and then actually justify an escalated response (and for you war fanatics completely justify the war BTW)....exactly what would we have been particularly vunerable to.....with the thought that this means on the order of 600 or more of our troops taken out?

No my friend we would have adjusted our tactics to take into consideration the real threat imposed by moving in. Our military is not so stupid that it can't fight in anything but an all out mode.

[BOHICA06]

10. If Bufford Blount didn't ...

know whether VX or GB would be used or not, then he had only one course of action. Annihilate the force in front of him to the last artillery piece. Extended MOPP degrages the fighting force - end it quickly and live. Wait for it to land on you and die in droves - the kick'n chicken way.

[Columbia]

15. Actually

They did fire missiles including SCUDS and used artillery and mortars capable of dispensing biochemical weapons.

[Columbia]

13. I did it for 3 weeks and it was not fun

[DenverDem]

4. The Bushler strategy increased the likelihood of WMD usage.

Moving the blitzkreig in put all our troops in harm's way of bio attack. If Iraq had actually had any WMD, our strategy would have forced them to use them.

Was this the actual intent of the cabal?

[moderate_hero]

11. It is a good argument

if you don't understand the military tactic of maneuver warfare or read what has been written about the plan. Moving so fast that Iraqis had no possibility of making a decision they could implement was the plan. Also, as a former active duty Marine, I can tell you that being in a MOPP suit is not fun for any amount of time. The troops went across the line of departure in MOPP suits precisely because it was expected to trigger a chemical/biological response. I personally think it is better if the troops had taken an ammunition point intact rather than bombing it from afar, at least from an environmental standpoint.

[Silverhair]

12. There is only one way to fight a war and that is ALL OUT!!!

First you try to avoid the war.

But once you are in a war, even if for the wrong reason, YOU FIGHT ALL OUT!!! You don't tie one hand behind your back to show how nice you are. That only causes the fighting to go on longer and end up with a greater total of casualties on both sides.

[Columbia]

14. You have no idea what you're talking about

Tell us, how much military experience do you have?

[wadestock]

16. Are you talking about me?

31 years DOD R&D experience, subject matter expert in smart weapons, command/control demolitions and munitions and plenty of things relating the ability to kill tanks without wasting lives on the ground. That is exactly the aim of most of the technologies that I work on. But credentials are not necessary to see the obvious point of how lopsided our forces were in comparison to theirs. Obviously we could have controlled the tempo of the engagement. Obviously there was no significant threat that would have materialized over time.

The argument so far put forth is that we had to go all out to minimize losses....perhaps because of a threat that bio-weapons might be used against us.

But this supposes a ground war in which we were hell bent to mix it up....and that in some oddball ill-constructed ground war in which we didn’t really know what we were doing, we would have incurred MORE losses than we already have had?!!

Of course many effective battle plans other than an all out blitzkrieg could have been effective in containing the problem while providing breathing room to entertain other options. I pointed out that after the oil fields were secured, there was no threat of losing much of anyone else on the ground while we conducted surgical air strikes. Any attacks on our ground forces would have been cleanly blow away using our airforce and ground defensive operations. Time would also have allowed smoothing out other countries and obtaining the use of other air fields to assist in air operations, but even this wasn’t necessary given time.

The difference between what I have proposed as a logical “first phase” of taking a military “action” (rather than war) against Iraq would have been to set the scene for a potentially larger military action. Having ground forces in a “holding pattern” while airforce pummeled and eliminated targets, there would be increased evidence over time and rising confidence that bio-weapons were not the threat. There wouldn’t have been anything approaching the uneasiness of Desert Storm (scuds going to Israel) by virtue of the fact these threats had actually been dealt with effectively during the years of inspections and weapons DESTRUCTION. This fact would have become more and more evident over time.

The point is this....we NEEDED that time to prove to ourselves that there really wasn’t any threat. Doesn’t that make sense? That is one of the most significant points that has to be appreciated. This would have been, in effect, somewhat of an acid test that bio-weapons didn't exist.

Side point - another basic advantage of taking things slow is the elimination of loses due to friendly fire. The truth of Desert Storm didn’t come out right away (hundreds lost due to friendly fire)....and we’ll have to possibly wait to get the real story on this war. I know we’ve worked since to greatly reduce that, but in any fast paced encounter, the statistics of these problems goes way up.

[Columbia]

17. Yup

"31 years DOD R&D experience, subject matter expert in smart weapons, command/control demolitions and munitions and plenty of things relating the ability to kill tanks without wasting lives on the ground."

AKA no experience in the military or battle tactics whatsoever with a vested interest in air superiority campaigns.

I won't go in depth since other posters have already so eloquently and concisely debunked your treatise, but I will say a couple of things. This war was carried out to be both a ground war and air war at the same time. The expectation was as you put it, a slow buildup and a lengthy air war campaign. This would have allowed the enemy time to release biochem weapons (if any existed, the military assumed they did), destroy or set fire to oil wells (which would cost billions of dollars and years to fix), and prepare for the coming invasion. The operation of the war as a concurrent air and ground war eliminated these threats and subsequently became one of the most successful military campaigns ever with fewer casualties (during the initial invasion) fighting a more difficult and lengthier campaign than the first Gulf war.

[wadestock]

18. It was a slaughter....

nothing to be proud of and demonstrating no military expertise.
Up against a 20 year old technology and soviet supplied rounds that were inferior and literally bounced off our tanks.

You'll be hearing the real stories emerge in about a year, when the soldiers come forward after the typical time delay of about a year. No doubt by the sounds of your comments that you will then have a field day with how we turned the resistance into a high tech slaughter field.

Like I said...once the oil fields were secure the "war" was over.
Everything else was academic. The respect of the world could have been gained, and this travesty avoided.

That's pretty funny, you're also back on the argument that they had bio-weapons that had to be taken out or else we'd get shellacked. Have another beer....the capability had been taken away.

[Columbia]

19. It was a war

Of course we won and won quite handily. Does that diminish how well it was fought or why it should have been fought differently? No, it strengthens exactly why it should have been fought the way it did.

"You'll be hearing the real stories emerge in about a year, when the soldiers come forward after the typical time delay of about a year. No doubt by the sounds of your comments that you will then have a field day with how we turned the resistance into a high tech slaughter field."

You want the real story now? How bout asking me? I was there.

"Like I said...once the oil fields were secure the "war" was over."

Sorry, I don't agree. Securing the oil fields was not the primary objective of the war, destroying the enemy was.

"That's pretty funny, you're also back on the argument that they had bio-weapons that had to be taken out or else we'd get shellacked. Have another beer....the capability had been taken away."

We had no idea what their capability was. We did know that biochem weapons can be dispersed using rockets, artillery and mortars, all of which were used during the war. Necessary precautions were taken to ensure that this threat was eliminated as quickly as possible.

You can be the armchair commander all you want, but the fact remains the war was fought to be won and the best way that could be done is with a decisive ground campaign coupled with air support.

[BOHICA06]

20. If you're in an M1A1 ....

that's the way you like it. War ain't about being fair to the other side.

When you get a little mud on your boots - come back with another tactical view. Your theory sounds so much like McNamara with his best & the brightest - now that led to a real slaughter - 56,000 on our side & a few millon on theirs.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.