Pentagon Briefing...
 

anyone else watching this?? i don't know what question was asked to get the gen. so worked up, but MAN is he pissed! i came in a little bit into it, but looks like some reporter attacked the US' plan of attack on iraq as not being enough or something, and whooooooa, buddy. his face stayed calm, but his voice and words were right on!!!! rumsy just sat back and watched...i love it when reporters ask crazy questions and then get blasted by someone so high up in the military!

These reporters are seriously banging their heads against a wall. Do they think they'll get a different answer if they just rephrase the question? Hell naw. No one in military command would confirm if the plan had or had not changed. Even if it has -- would they say it? No way in hell.

They should spend their time asking more important questions. It just gets to be so hard since the embedded reporters are sending all the facts back so quickly. Press conferences start to lose their luster a little bit.

Secretary Rumsfeld and General Ryan must have the patience of Job having to deal with the press day in and day out as the war progresses... it's a miracle they haven't sent out an airstrike on some reporter's home because he or she p*ssed 'em off during the briefing. :D

Well, remember that the reporters are probably pretty unhappy with the sort of "pat" answers they're getting.

I honestly PRAY that you all are right and I'm wrong about this, but I have felt more and more uneasy over the past several days, and now many of the former senior military officers (and a few present ones who may not care much about their careers) are beginning to re-enforce my concerns.

This whole situation is beginning to remind me so much of the way the Vietnam War was handled that it really scares me.

Let me explain.

It is my sincere belief that if the professional military officers had been able to execute the Vietnam War, we would have won hands down. Unfortunately, the politicians ran it. Particularly Presidents Nixon and Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara.

I feel so many parallels between McNamara and Rumsfeld. I don't claim to be a military genious, but it appears to me that General Franks was pushed to begin the land campaign before he was ready. A political desire overriding sound military judgement.

From my ROTC days, I can remember that when you are on the attack, you need clear numerical superiority. Anywhere from 2 1/2 to 10 times the defending force, depending on who you listen to and the tactical situation. We've sent 2-3 divisions against 5 plus. In Vietnam, we started out with a few "advisors" and ended up with a half-a-million people there. Suddenly, we're rushing another 100,000 troops to Iraq. They say this was planned, but I'm sorry I'm a sceptic.

I think that, given the choice, the theatre commanders would have wanted a much bigger force before kicking off. That's what most of the retired officers and some present ones are saying pubically now. The quote I heard today from a presently serving flag officer was something like, "In the end, Tommy Franks took what he could get."

I'm afraid Rumsfeld has bought into all of the whiz-bang gadgets -- smart bombs, cruise missles, etc. It's great stuff, but, at the end of the day can't replace the line-grunt walking into the line of fire.

I'm also afraid that he and the President have put way to much confidence in airpower. Our Air Force is the best the world has ever seen -- but airpower has never taken or held a square foot of real estate. An Aegis Cruiser or aircraft carrier has never occupied a village. It takes infantry -- men and women with rifles to do that.

In S.E. Asia, we expected "Vietnamization" to work. In other words, the Vietnamese people would understand that we were the good guys fighting the Communist dictators -- and they would rally to our side. Does this sound familiar? In the end, the Vietnamese peasant only wanted to be left alone to farm his fields. And he was terrorized by the VC and NVA. There is some doubt that most even understood what defined democracy.

And, the very first thing that worried me was our "ignoring" allegedly surrending troops and bypassing certain strategic areas and stretching out our supply lines too far to adequately defend them. That's one of the biggest "no-no's" in combat. And it appears to have come back to bite us in the proverbial backside. We've had to take troops offline to guard the supply corridors. I believe that's the reason for this "lull" in the fighting. It takes an awful lot of beans and bullets (to say nothing of gas) to fight an amored engagement. You have to protect your logistics.

Finally, we need to understand that civilians will be killed in the war, and modify our rules of engagement to protect our soldiers. It does appear that is happening to some extent.

Having said all of that, our (and the Brits, of course) military has been remarkable. Our casualities have been minor so far and, if the news conferences aren't "spinning" the story too much, they have made impressive strides.

I simply hope that we aren't bitting off more than we can chew in way to big of a hurry.

I really want to be proven wrong -- but I'm still worried.

Thank God that our MIA/POW, the young woman from West Virginia was rescued today. That's great news.

I have no desire to defend Peter Arnett -- I think he's a jerk. I just hope that what he said on Iraqi TV doesn't turn out to have a certain amount of truth to it.

In closing, let me just say that I don't claim anything I've said to be fact -- simply a real uneasyness dredged up from really unhappy past experiences. In other words, it's experience, not expertise speaking here. If I'm wrong, that will be wonderful.

If I'm right, we're all in for a lot of heartache.

Damn.