Has it occured to you...

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 7:07 am

Have you ever thought about the fact that the lovers of freedom and the rights of every man fought Germany and Japan until they were utterly beaten with unconditional surrender. These countries since that time have never been a military threat to this day.

But then Korea and Iraq, countries we fought but did not totally defeat are back again, more threatening than ever.

Even with no great devotion to General MacArthur, his saying that "There is no substitute for victory" still rings true.

CCB · Post by **CCB** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 7:39 am

IIRC, Robert McNamara went before a Congressional Committee to state that he was against Desert Storm in 1990/1. How's that for irony?

Its going to be interesting to see what kind of nation Afghanistan becomes in the next twenty years or so.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:09 am

Bush senior is at fault for today's mess.

He didn't finish what he started. So what the Iraqis were getting trashed big time. They invaded Kuwait, wouldn't leave when told, and suffered a horrible pounding for it.

But they were getting mauled and Bush senior balked at going to Baghdad.

And now 12 years later look at the friggin mess.

If daddy had gone and taken Saddam out and off to an international court (regardless of whether anything was accomplished), we would not be dabating whether any of the current mess was right wrong needed or justified.

I am sure glad I am not Bush junior.

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:16 pm

Originally posted by Wild Bill
Have you ever thought about the fact that the lovers of freedom and the rights of every man fought Germany and Japan until they were utterly beaten with unconditional surrender. These countries since that time have never been a military threat to this day.

But then Korea and Iraq, countries we fought but did not totally defeat are back again, more threatening than ever.

Even with no great devotion to General MacArthur, his saying that "There is no substitute for victory" still rings true.

So true Wild Bill.

BTW, I am enjoying your articles on the East Front over at the wargamer.

Cheers!

Twotribes · Post by **Twotribes** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:50 pm

Bush senior was in a no win situation. He had agreed not to take out Bagdad when he formed the coalition.

So his choice was to go against that agreement and break the alliance to finsih Iraq or to honor his stated purpose and not invade Iraq once Kuwait was free.

AlBW · Post by **AlBW** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 6:23 pm

I am a proponent of the very un-PC doctrine of total war. To over-simplify a bit, either win completely or don't win at all.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 7:10 pm

I would have to agree with that.

If I was the General in charge of this current situation, and told I could not go to Baghdad, and take out Saddam, I would be inclined to inform my superior, I would be out of town at a golf tournament that week (with or without my commission).

Halfway measures are a waste of human lives.

The army isn't a police force.

Cap Mandrake · Post by **Cap Mandrake** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 7:18 pm

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Bush senior is at fault for today's mess.

He didn't finish what he started. So what the Iraqis were getting trashed big time. They invaded Kuwait, wouldn't leave when told, and suffered a horrible pounding for it.

<snip>

Les;

I think that is a bit of a simplification. I will allow they might have beat up a bit more on retreating Iraqi forces, but to go all the way to Baghdad was problematic for many reasons:

1) Arab "allies" in the '91 coalition (mostly the Saudis) would not have stood for the complete humilitiation of another Arab nation.

2) Domestic political opposition had predicted massive US casualties. They were proved wrong, but Bush's support might have evaporated had he ordered an attack on the city.

3) US forces were not prepared for massive civilian humanitarian assistance...which is the responsibility of the occupying power.

4) There was a French unit on the leftwing of the attack...US forces might have been slowed down when the French began to retreat

jnier · Post by **jnier** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:56 pm

I agree with Mandrake here. War always has been and always will be a political tool. The idea that poltical considerations could ever be completely divorced from the conduct of a war, including desert storm, is ludicrous.

chief · Post by **chief** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 9:09 pm

Mandrake are you saying we went in without a LEFT WING, talk about a "Wing and a Prayer". Good thing the Iraqi intelligence (oxymoron) didn't get wind of that.

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:16 pm

Thanks so much Von Rom for mentioning the EF articles. I've enjoyed doing them very much. It was a learning experience for me.

First Article: http://www.wargamer.com/articles/russo_ ... /page6.asp

Second Article: http://www.wargamer.com/articles/russo_ ... cal_part2/

There will be an article on each year of the fighting in addition to the general overview at the outset.

As for the topic here, I understand completely all of the ramifications and limitations put on nations today. WW2 was a major holocaust, both East and West.

Still, victory was complete and we did not have to go back and do it again.

For those who say some of the other nations balked back then, well, they are balking now but we still have to do what we have to do.

There are moments when you have to do what is right. Leaving Iraqi citizens at the mercy of this evil torturer and murderer was not the right thing to do.

Now we have to go back, expose our boys and girls to death, maybe even a worse death, to do the same thing all over again. Only this time, I think the evil dictator will be a little harder to get to than he was before.

Total victory was in the grasp of the Coalition. We dropped it. Now we'll have to grasp it again.

Finish the job or don't take on the task...Wild Bill

Cap Mandrake · Post by **Cap Mandrake** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 12:04 am

Wild Bill;

I completely agree with your sentiments about leaving the murdering bastard Hussein in power. Clearly, a greater moral good would have been served in '91 had he been sent to He**. Unfortunately, short of Hussein manning a T-62 at Easting and taking a round of DU between his eyes, or a lucky shot with a bunker-buster, there was no way in light of pre-9/11 domestic and international political realities, that US forces could remove him from power. I have some sympathy for Bush 41 and Powell and Schwarzkoff who had to make a tough decsision.

It is my fervent hope that coalition losses will be few and that other governments that give refuge to terrorists or seek to aquire WMD (eg., Iran, Syria..even N. Korea) will think twice about the wisdom of their actions.

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 3:16 am

my sentiments exactly Mandrake. We think a lot alike on this matter.

For what it is worth. In 1991, I was full of exuburence about the Coalition and what was being done.

And even though now I realize that if this threat is as serious as purported (and I'm quite sure there are danger elements to risky to mention at this point), instead of exuberance, I have a deep foreboding of how costly this might be.

I pray my feelings are wrong and that casualties on all sides are minimal.

Some poor Iraqis have two guns pointing at them...one from the front and another one behind them. God help those poor souls!

Wild Bill

MarkFroio · Post by **MarkFroio** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:14 am

Bill,

You might say that WW I never ended until 1945 or that WWII had to be fought because we didn't defeat Germany totally in 1918. When the WWI ended, the Allies had not even gotten to German soil.

But, it is easy for us to argue these theories and alternate histories. We're not the President asking our men and women to risk their lives. And as someone pointed out in an earlier post, our leader don't make decisions in a political vacum.

Just my 2 cents.

Ian Packham · Post by **Ian Packham** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 9:59 am

Originally posted by Cap Mandrake

I completely agree with your sentiments about leaving the murdering bastard Hussein in power. Clearly, a greater moral good would have been served in '91 had he been sent to He**. Unfortunately, short of Hussein manning a T-62 at Easting and taking a round of DU between his eyes, or a lucky shot with a bunker-buster, there was no way in light of pre-9/11 domestic and international political realities, that US forces could remove him from power. I have some sympathy for Bush 41 and Powell and Schwarzkoff who had to make a tough decsision.

I agree that the US troops could not have entered Bagdad and removed Saddam themselves because of the politics of the coalition. But Bush did make a major blunder in not supporting the Shiites and Kurdish uprisings. He promised them support and then he went back on his word. He could have given them arms to defend themselves and placed troops in towns to stop the massacre of civilians. He also told dissident sections in the Iraqi army to revolt as they would get US support. This never happened either.

The reason Saddam stayed in power was that he immediately crushed all opposition as soon as Iraq surrendered to the coalition. That is how he has always stayed in power.

If the opposition forces to Saddam had been supported then Saddam would very likely have been quickly removed from office by the Iraqis themselves.

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 9:37 pm

Thank you Gentlemen. Interesting point, Max. I had not considered that. Yes, WWI ended with a treaty, albeit a deadly one for Germany that created a lot of resentment and a desire for "payback."

I can't help wondering if the adminstration knows something that they are still not telling us for security or alarm reasons that has prompted this action.

One day we may know and then we may never know. There could still be bitter surprises ahead of us.

God bless the grieving families for lives lost in this war...WB

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:54 am

Originally posted by Cap Mandrake
Wild Bill;

I completely agree with your sentiments about leaving the murdering bastard Hussein in power. Clearly, a greater moral good would have been served in '91 had he been sent to He**. Unfortunately, short of Hussein manning a T-62 at Easting and taking a round of DU between his eyes, or a lucky shot with a bunker-buster, there was no way in light of pre-9/11 domestic and international political realities, that US forces could remove him from power. I have some sympathy for Bush 41 and Powell and Schwarzkoff who had to make a tough decsision.

It is my fervent hope that coalition losses will be few and that other governments that give refuge to terrorists or seek to aquire WMD (eg., Iran, Syria..even N. Korea) will think twice about the wisdom of their actions.

Actually it will encourage them to acquire nuclear weapons. They will believe that it will make them safe from attack. NOBODY attacks nations that have nukes and delivery systems. North Korea's sabre rattling is the rattling of a rattlesnake. It is saying, "Do not attack me. I CAN hurt you. I WILL hurt you." Iran's search for nuclear weapons has a similar origin. But it is also seeking to counterbalance Israel and become the Islamic superpower. There was no love between Iran and Saddam Hussein. They will be glad to see him gone. But look for them to spend enormously on weapons now. Syria hasn't the ability to do so. Iran can do so

And there is another nation in the Middle East that funds terrorism and is actively buying arms from anyone who will sell. That country is Saudi Arabia.

troopie

Cap Mandrake · Post by **Cap Mandrake** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 12:28 pm

Troopie;

The North Korean Nuclear program is centralized and its whereabouts are known....with the possible exception or one or two weapons-worth of reprocessed plutonium. The NK program could be taken out a la the Israeli attack on the Osarisk reactor in Iraq. The problem of course is Seoul is within conventional artillery range of the DMZ, and could be largely destroyed...one estimate puts their capability at 100,000 rounds deliverable on Seoul within hours!! Now if the US were to withdraw from South Korea (like many South Koreans seem to want) the North Koreans would likely feel more threatened as a possible attack on their facilities might seem more plausible. Several US Govmt officials have recently floated the idea of a reduction in US forces on the Korean Peninsula, perhaps with the purpose of rattling the NK's cage a bit.

If the NK goal were simply to say "dont attack me", why would they be making sutpid symbolic gestures like shooting of Silkworm missiles in the Sea of Japan? What they want in my opinion, is an international economic bailout and a promise not to attack from the US. Given the substanial leverage they have, they are likely to get the first and maybe the second.

Iran might be chastened by the attack on Iraq, but they are advanced in their ability to enrich Uranium with HUNDREDS of high-tech centrifuges ready to go and only discovered by the IAEA weeks ago! Either nation (NK or Iran) with nuclear weapons is a scary thought. Can you imagine if Iran gave a nuke to Hezbollah or Al Quaeda

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:10 pm

There is a lot of validity to what is being said in recent posts.

But one point is being missed. What would happen to any nation using a fledgling nuclear device on a world that is run by people like the US and Europe who possess super science surveillence and weapons of global reaching total annilhation proportions.

If for instance, Iran was to use a nucear weapon on another nation, even if with devestating effect, such as eliminating Tel Aviv in a stroke, the response would be the immediate removal of Iran through the most horrific response possible.

In an instant, the US would likely stike and remove the offending country in a heart beat.

This would not inflamme jihad like many would likely argue. The Iranians would have committed the most horrific act and would have no defense against a swift elimination.

If the US can go into Iraq on what some see as inadequate justification, try to imagine the response to nuking a friendly nations major cities.

NK, Iran, Saudia Arabia might have the means to make nuclear weapons, but they are more than 50 years out of the game.
They would never survive the usage of such weapons.

The cold war taught us a valuable lesson, there is no practical way to employ these weapons. Having them does not mean you can use them.

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 2:24 am

1: The NK missile tests are an attempt to show they can deliver the nuclear weapons. But I agree the artillery on the SK border is more of a threat.

2: Iran is unlikely to give WMD to al-Qaeda. They are on the al-Qaeda hit list. Hezbollah is another matter. They are pro-Iranian.

3: Saudi Arabia's role is financial. The money for terrorism comes from there. Most of the 11 Sept. hijackers were Saudis. The radical Islam money comes from Saudi. They're not fighters, they're bankers.

troopie

Has it occured to you...

Has it occured to you...

Re: Has it occured to you...