Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 92
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Insertion .... I'm not sure about that. I agree that our military was excellent at execution of the initial phase - but I think that there were overly dependent on strategic planning and technology to carry them through the subsequent phases.

    I've been reading about JFCOM's 2002 Millenium Challenge (the biggest war game ever conducted by the US military) - and it seems that the pencil-necked "strategic planners" lost heavily against experienced and more tactical commanders. However the geeks then "reset" the war game and made sure that the subsequent games were heavily scripted, and sure enough they won.
    The irony of the whole exercise? It was a simulation of the invasion of Iraq in 2007. Presumably these same pencil-necks assured the White house that the invasion and subsequent occupation would be accomplished easily - since they had already successfully "simulated" these scenarios!

    Here's a couple of links:
    http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-1060102.php
    http://www.geocities.com/equipmentsh...mationlies.htm

    And none of the Neocons influenced the outcome of that simulation?
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    And none of the Neocons influenced the outcome of that simulation?
    I don't think so - it was a purely military operations.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  3. #23  
    You are clueless.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Oh, don't misunderstand me. The invasion was fine as far as I can tell. It was the occupation which was not thought out. The three major factions vying for power which was not thought out. Foreign fighters pouring over the borders which was not thought out.

    And now, we're losing the goal in Afghanistan (login: seagoth/seagoth) due to the resources we're hemorrhaging in Iraq.
  4.    #24  
    Da....I noticed that you still haven't given an answer to the ON Topic questions in Post 7 and Post 16 . You may agree with it and no need to answer. I think that our course we took was only ONE option and that even though I feel ultimately it is going to be good, there may have been a better more productive way than invading Iraq. But if not, I really am interesting in your point of view and why.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/30/2005 at 07:34 PM.
  5. #25  
    In '93, I participated in one of those operations (since de-classified) and it did involve the invasion of Iraq. Before anyone starts with the "See, that was the plan all along!!!"-stuff, you should remember who was in office at the time and know that we have these kind of plans for just about EVERYWHERE on Earth.

    In the simulation that I participated in, we had very similar results where the US forces just zipped through the bad guys right away. Air power is devastating. We, too, re-scripted the simulation at that point. The purpose was to give everyone a "work-out" so to speak in order to test different scenarios and ensure all systems were working properly.

    Having been one of those military planners, I can ensure you that "Neocon" manipulation:
    1. Wouldn't be necessary. We knew we could go in fairly easily.
    2. Wouldn't be tolerated as NOBODY liked politicians playing games with military planning (doesn't matter the party). Why would you (the guy who would have to actually do this) pretend it was easy when it wasn't?

    These simulations probably didn't include occupation just strategic and operational actions. The tactical stuff is assumed to work. Occupation planning DOES and DID take place (I know these guys). However, as pointed out by others, you can only put your trust in the people on the ground when you don't know precisely what is going to happen next. To say that there was no planning is just a lack of understanding on how these things work.

    By the way, these "pencil-necks" you're describing are typically retired officers and senior non-commissioned officers. Active duty professionals don't listen to people who haven't walked the talk.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    In '93, I participated in one of those operations (since de-classified) and it did involve the invasion of Iraq. Before anyone starts with the "See, that was the plan all along!!!"-stuff, you should remember who was in office at the time and know that we have these kind of plans for just about EVERYWHERE on Earth.

    In the simulation that I participated in, we had very similar results where the US forces just zipped through the bad guys right away. Air power is devastating. We, too, re-scripted the simulation at that point. The purpose was to give everyone a "work-out" so to speak in order to test different scenarios and ensure all systems were working properly.

    Having been one of those military planners, I can ensure you that "Neocon" manipulation:
    1. Wouldn't be necessary. We knew we could go in fairly easily.
    2. Wouldn't be tolerated as NOBODY liked politicians playing games with military planning (doesn't matter the party). Why would you (the guy who would have to actually do this) pretend it was easy when it wasn't?

    These simulations probably didn't include occupation just strategic and operational actions. The tactical stuff is assumed to work. Occupation planning DOES and DID take place (I know these guys). However, as pointed out by others, you can only put your trust in the people on the ground when you don't know precisely what is going to happen next. To say that there was no planning is just a lack of understanding on how these things work.

    By the way, these "pencil-necks" you're describing are typically retired officers and senior non-commissioned officers. Active duty professionals don't listen to people who haven't walked the talk.
    Did you read any of the links I'd attached? The whole point was that in these war games the military ignored the experiences of retired (and highly respected) officers like Van Riper but instead focused on their pet theories of operations, run by inexperienced officers. Yes they use a lot of fancy terminology like Common Relevant Operational Picture (CROP) or Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure and Information (PMESII) and so on - but Van Riper's point was that in the middle of a battle the soldiers were wasting time by trading data and having discussions back and forth with CENTCOM to decide the next steps - they needed to use their own judgement and act immediately.

    I have two very good friends in the Marines (currently serving their second tour in Iraq) who've said that those who have the best instincts have a far superior advantage to those who are heavily dependent on data during a critical situation.

    Perhaps things have changed since 1993
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    For the purpose of?
    Use that big brain of yours da, I shouldn't have to explain everything to you
  8. #28  
    Busted!!! I didn't read them before I posted. So... I just now got caught up.

    Funny enough, things haven't changed a whole lot! That whole scenario was just like what I experienced.

    I remember playing as one of the OPFOR units and hitting a US unit by surprise. They wouldn't do anything. You could just see them sending info back and waiting for instructions. It was easy for me to do stuff because I didn't have anyone to answer to; I could do what I wanted. I agree that playing the "text message game" under contact is counter-productive.

    I served under Buck Kernan. He is one hard Ranger. I trust his judgement on how and why he trained the way he did.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Busted!!! I didn't read them before I posted. So... I just now got caught up.

    Funny enough, things haven't changed a whole lot! That whole scenario was just like what I experienced.

    I remember playing as one of the OPFOR units and hitting a US unit by surprise. They wouldn't do anything. You could just see them sending info back and waiting for instructions. It was easy for me to do stuff because I didn't have anyone to answer to; I could do what I wanted. I agree that playing the "text message game" under contact is counter-productive.

    I served under Buck Kernan. He is one hard Ranger. I trust his judgement on how and why he trained the way he did.
    exactly!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    We invaded to uphold the multiple UN resolutions. We helped the UN stay legitimate.
    What We made the UN legitimate when we didnt even have its support to invade? How did you reach that conclusion?

    Not to rehash ancient history but...link
    • U.N. Security Council members France, Russia, China and Germany are among the nations that insist Iraq can be disarmed peacefully. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, speaking to Europe 1 radio, said: "One country can win a war, but it takes more than one country to win peace." (Full story) Russian President Vladimir Putin said a possible war in Iraq would be "a mistake fraught with the gravest consequences which may result in casualties and destabilize the international situation in general." Li Zhaoxing, the Chinese foreign minister, said, "We appeal for a political settlement to the Iraq question within the framework of the United Nations and urge all efforts to avoid war."

    • U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated his stance that, should military action occur in the region without the blessing of the world body, "its legitimacy would be questioned."
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    To leave now is simply impossible. We leave, the whole region turns gangrene.
    I totally agree here...we have a big job to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    daThomas, I think my God has President Bush in power to keep out a weaker man with a weaker plan.
    Although its kind of a cute little saying...I am not sure you could come up with a weaker plan once Saddam was removed...we didnt even start out with enough troops on the ground.

    link
    McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that it was "a serious mistake" not to have had enough troops in place "after the initial successes" and that the mistake had led to "very, very significant" difficulties.
    Hobbes: Im working on my plan. I didnt like any of the ones your article had...they were all HOBBESIAN choices (did you do that on purpose )
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. #31  
    Given the pacifist sentiments by some people in this country, I think America should give up all its claims and territories.

    Reparation should be given to Japan and Germany and all countries that the pacifist declares America "have attacked".

    I wonder how does the American public and its corporate entities feel about that.

    After all, America always tries to protect its interest locally and abroad.
  12. #32  
    Can we keep Canada?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Can we keep Canada?
    Why??..we have Vermont Maple Syrup
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Why??..we have Vermont Maple Syrup
    We can trade Vermont for Canada...wait, if we did that, who would speak for DA?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #35  
    First off, hindsight is 20/20 and I am ripping off ideas that have been presented in that hindsight.

    *Disclaimer: these ideas are in no way, shape or form intended to be all inclusive of all the options we have/had at our disposal.

    Obviously, I think there are two different options:

    1. Invade Iraq
    -Clear, concise reasons on why we are going in to include...Removing Saddam, establishing democracy, protecting our oil interests, finding suspected WMD's, reducing (not completely wiping out) the terrorist networks in Iraq so that when we leave, it will be MUCH harder for them to get established.
    -Work with the Senate Foreign Relations committee to come up with a plan for invading (at least get them and the Dems involved).
    -Establish a timeline that would be a total of 4 years (time starts when we are on the ground and time ends when we get back on the ship). Americans deserve to know what we are getting into. This would help our recruiting goals for options below.
    -Do it after we have completely taken care of Afghanistan (and AQ)-I know this is debatable but I am of the belief that we were much closer to snaring Bin Laden in Bora Bora prior to switching focus to Iraq. Saddam wasnt doing much of anything and could have waited (giving the weapon inspectors more time to get back in and finish searching...even if they didnt find anything.)
    -Do it with a UN security vote giving us more legitimacy with the world as well as back home (no arguments over violations of International Law). - I think this would have helped us garner more support from other countries and IMO it would have lessened the shock effect in the other ME countries when the US dropped down on Saddam like a tidal wave. We could use their money and troops as well.
    -Have as many troops that we can put on the ground.-go with what the military planners/generals recommended (arguably we didnt).
    -As we are fighting the insurgents...more emphasis should be placed on getting the Iraqi security forces up to speed.-Recruit and train in another country if need be (even do it in a more secure part of Iraq) It took us WAY to long and its clear now.
    -Quicker elections (even if it meant that some cities would not have been able to participate...hell they had a huge turnout anyway...were lucky to get 50% over in the US) Imagine if elections were held a year earlier and we already had an established government in place to take ownership?



    2. Do NOT invade Iraq
    -Consider assassinating Saddam (I know...but consider what it would have been like if, prior to killing him, that we began the process prior of some sort of coup with US backing) I know we could have ended up with someone worse...but Im willing to take that chance. If you don't like the idea of the US getting its hands dirty, make it look like a tomohawk attack or poison him
    -Continue pressuring the UN for more sanctions (even if you dont think they will work).
    -Continue putting pressure on Saddam to get the weapons inspectors back in (consider lightening up on the sanctions, since he was scamming us with the Oil for Food program).
    -Increase our military and civilian intelligence (on the ground and electronically) Arguably, we still have a ways to go now, both domestically and internationally. BTW-where are the terrorists getting their unlimited supply of bomb making materials?
    -Come up with a plan to contain Iraq...we did it with the USSR until it collapsed...we can do it until Saddam dies or we wax him.
    -Its arguable that AQ would be less of a threat because Iraq would not have been recruiting ground (and we would cut them off in Pakistan)
    -Continue the war on terror by cooperating with Afghanistan and hunting down Bin Laden.
    -Put troops on the Pakistan border and squeeze the mountains for all they are worth. (IMO-I would much rather fight in the open with the mountains than go house to house in Fallujah, especially with air support and arty "fire for effect".)
    -Put more of a pressence on our borders to close them down (or at least make it harder) This could be electronic or people.
    -Increase our intelligence budget and get it on the same page (which I think Pres Bush did today).

    BTW-after thinking about this...Im not convinced which option would be better. I am kind of leaning toward the first.

    So...that being said, as far as Johnny Storm says...FLAME ON!
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    You are clueless.
    Please do tell?
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    -Have as many troops that we can put on the ground.-go with what the military planners/generals recommended (arguably we didnt).
    If anybody took the time to read what Tommy Franks actually thought...Franks clearly is disappointed in the Iraqis, who, in his view, initially chose looting and insurgency over “pulling themselves together to reform their country.” And he faults the international community, which never committed “serious numbers of peacekeepers or funds” to help Iraq after Saddam. During the planning, Franks and his team expected that 150,000 international troops would join U.S. forces in the post-war phase. They never materialized.


    This is probably the reason we are behind schedule
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho

    2. Do NOT invade Iraq
    -Consider assassinating Saddam (I know...but consider what it would have been like if, prior to killing him, that we began the process prior of some sort of coup with US backing) I know we could have ended up with someone worse...but Im willing to take that chance. If you don't like the idea of the US getting its hands dirty, make it look like a tomohawk attack or poison him
    You would leave the country (most likely) in the hands of Uday and/or Qusay, who probably made Saddam look like jamespaulritter. Is that what you want??

    (and I have a sense of great pride knowing it was the 101st Abn Div that took out those thugs)
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    (and I have a sense of great pride knowing it was the 101st Abn Div that took out those thugs)
    ... and the 1st Bde, 3rd ID who pulled their daddy outta the rat hole.

    (former S-3, 1/12 Inf, 1-3ID)
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    BTW-after thinking about this...Im not convinced which option would be better. I am kind of leaning toward the first.
    After reading through your Not Invade list, I think I tend to agree. It sounds like to me a perfect scenario of the same thing over the previous 12 years, but now in a post 9/11 world with emboldended terror orgs. It looks like we would have given Saddam more time to accomplish the nuke program he testified he was working on to get back in place. It would have given the AQ that fled to Iraq a safe haven to continue to get stronger.

    2. Do NOT invade Iraq
    -Consider assassinating Saddam (I know...but consider what it would have been like if, prior to killing him, that we began the process prior of some sort of coup with US backing) I know we could have ended up with someone worse...but Im willing to take that chance. If you don't like the idea of the US getting its hands dirty, make it look like a tomohawk attack or poison him
    This was discussed, at least in a few media articles, and I want to say I read there were scenarios developed for this. Set asside all legalities of this optons. But due to political climate in Iraq's regime, we would have lost even more control of the situation. If he did have WMDs at his finger tips, it would be a scary situation with an unkown leader at the sitting at the button while feeling pretty scared after what we just did to Saddam.
    -Continue pressuring the UN for more sanctions (even if you dont think they will work).
    Ah....oil for food money made sanctions a weakened option. See her for details of how much money they were really able to get for themselves to help relieve the burden of the sanctions:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=257

    If it didn't work for 12 years, how many more would you project until it did?
    -Continue putting pressure on Saddam to get the weapons inspectors back in (consider lightening up on the sanctions, since he was scamming us with the Oil for Food program).
    Saddam testified that he already had plans to get his nuke program up and running. With sanctions lifted, he would be free and clear to move on with them.

    There is also late breaking news that is starting build a case that Saddam was involved in supporting known WMD attacks US and our allies.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=114

    As for inspectors....Saddam played them like clowns for 12 years! He lied he had no WMDs when he did. He lied that he didn't have them when he didn't and he wouldn't let anyone else in without being obstructed to veriy which lies were true...if any. How bad is it when we are required to anounce 24 hours ahead of time the exact location we are going conduct a "surprise" inspection?
    -Increase our military and civilian intelligence (on the ground and electronically) Arguably, we still have a ways to go now, both domestically and internationally. BTW-where are the terrorists getting their unlimited supply of bomb making materials?
    Usually always a valid option if resources permit.

    As for terror support...IRAN and Syria come up foremost in my mind. I posted several links in the Good/Bad thread about Iran links to supporting current Iraq terrorism.
    -Come up with a plan to contain Iraq...we did it with the USSR until it collapsed...we can do it until Saddam dies or we wax him.
    Big difference with the Cold War is USSR already had Nukes and Saddam didn't....yet..but was trying to get them as soon as possible....and the USSR did not have a history of using or supporting terrorist groups to attack it's enemies in a post 9/11 enviroment.
    -Its arguable that AQ would be less of a threat because Iraq would not have been recruiting ground (and we would cut them off in Pakistan)
    They already had training camps in N Iraq. They fled there after Afgan. They were there, using the country to get stronger again.
    -Continue the war on terror by cooperating with Afghanistan and hunting down Bin Laden.
    Agreed. Should always been happenning no matter what.
    -Put troops on the Pakistan border and squeeze the mountains for all they are worth. (IMO-I would much rather fight in the open with the mountains than go house to house in Fallujah, especially with air support and arty "fire for effect".)
    Those mountains humbled the two strongest nations (Russia and US) in the history of the world.
    -Put more of a pressence on our borders to close them down (or at least make it harder) This could be electronic or people.
    Again...the terrain make this very challenging, if not impossible. The Gov of the countries in the area need to crack down on terror groups in their country and not actively support them and give them aid, safe haven, and resources. Until that happens, we are just giving them more time to regroup and attack again.
    -Increase our intelligence budget and get it on the same page (which I think Pres Bush did today).
    Again, agreed. I think this should happen no matter what.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions