03-28-2003, 04:30 PM
Rumsfeld is a classic. In some ways the penultimate politician.
Some what like his recent retort when asked about the length of the Iraq war; "We're still, needless to say, much closer to the beginning than the end," he told a Pentagon media briefing. "They're doing an outstanding job. The (Iraqi) resistance that's being encountered was expected."
I wish the administration could just say, "Hmmm, good question, I wish I knew the answer." Or, the press would remove their heads from you know where and think about the questions they ask.
Needless to say, it is obvious most reporters expected this "WAR" to be a weekend drive to Baghdad in a tank. Imagine if Patton were asked upon hitting the Normandy coast "When will you be in Berlin?", or "When will Germany capitulate?" War's have objectives, which are built into operations, which can sometimes be estimated in terms of duration. Most catastrophic failures in warfare either come from moving too fast, or too slow. If you move too fast you risk being flanked and having your army cut off from its supply line. A real risk for the current American operation. If you move too slowly, you allow your adversary to entrench their position, and better target yours. And if entrenched, as in Vietnam, at some point the public starts to wonder if the struggle, and objectives are worth it. That said, speed is often a great tactic, but sometimes a poor strategy.
This war as I see it has at least these four primary objectives; 1) unseat the Ba'ath regime, 2) prevent coalition casualties, 3) prevent Iraqi casualties and suffering (both military and civilian), 4) preserve Iraq's infrastructure
I think, for instance, the US could easily acheive #1 anytime now, if we were willing to toss out #2 thru #4. But, that would not win the war. So, the time table needs to be expanded enough to allow for all four objectives, without moving so slowly that it compromises #1.
Some what like his recent retort when asked about the length of the Iraq war; "We're still, needless to say, much closer to the beginning than the end," he told a Pentagon media briefing. "They're doing an outstanding job. The (Iraqi) resistance that's being encountered was expected."
I wish the administration could just say, "Hmmm, good question, I wish I knew the answer." Or, the press would remove their heads from you know where and think about the questions they ask.
Needless to say, it is obvious most reporters expected this "WAR" to be a weekend drive to Baghdad in a tank. Imagine if Patton were asked upon hitting the Normandy coast "When will you be in Berlin?", or "When will Germany capitulate?" War's have objectives, which are built into operations, which can sometimes be estimated in terms of duration. Most catastrophic failures in warfare either come from moving too fast, or too slow. If you move too fast you risk being flanked and having your army cut off from its supply line. A real risk for the current American operation. If you move too slowly, you allow your adversary to entrench their position, and better target yours. And if entrenched, as in Vietnam, at some point the public starts to wonder if the struggle, and objectives are worth it. That said, speed is often a great tactic, but sometimes a poor strategy.
This war as I see it has at least these four primary objectives; 1) unseat the Ba'ath regime, 2) prevent coalition casualties, 3) prevent Iraqi casualties and suffering (both military and civilian), 4) preserve Iraq's infrastructure
I think, for instance, the US could easily acheive #1 anytime now, if we were willing to toss out #2 thru #4. But, that would not win the war. So, the time table needs to be expanded enough to allow for all four objectives, without moving so slowly that it compromises #1.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)
