Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/24/2002 4:05:26 AM EDT
I don't buy this story, but thought you folks would like to see it: [url=http://216.26.163.62/2002/ss_military_09_23.html][b]Bush opted for UN speech after exercises showed U.S. not ready [/b][/url]
President George Bush decided to turn to the United Nations after being advised that the U.S. military was unprepared for a war with Iraq. Related factors included a simulated defeat of U.S. naval forces by Iraq in the Millennium Challenge military exercises last month and an intelligence dispute between the CIA and the DIA. Western diplomatic sources said Bush's surprise call for the return of UN weapons inspectors stemmed from a recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the United States required up to six more months to prepare for any war against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The sources said U.S. Central Command was preoccupied with the the war in Afghanistan and possessed insufficient assets, logistics, and supplies in countries that neighbor Iraq. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How to Work From Home and Be Your Own Boss: Special offer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The shortcomings in the U.S. military were pointed out in the Millennium Challenge exercise launched last month, Middle East Newsline reported. The exercise sought to simulate a U.S. attack against a Middle East enemy that resembled Iraq. Officials said in the simulation U.S. naval forces were decimated by an Iraqi missile and weapons of mass destruction strike. The Iraqi side in the exercise used cruise missiles to overwhelm the U.S. Navy's GS radar and sink the entire simulated Blue Armada fleet of 16 ships. The military's recommendation to delay any conflict came amid disputes within the U.S. intelligence community over Iraq's nonconventional capability and the willingness and ability of Iraqi opposition forces to help bring down the Saddam regime. The sources said the intelligence dispute pitted the CIA against the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. The Joint Chiefs also maintained that the military did not have enough troops for the massive air attack promoted by the Pentagon. The sources said the military chiefs said the Special Operations Command, with an estimated 30,000 troops, would have to be bolstered from other commands. Officials said nearly 100,000 people have been activated for any war with Iraq. But they said additional troops, including special operations forces, would be needed. The special operations forces are said to have been overstretched by such missions as the war in Afghanistan as well as counterinsurgency missions in the Philippines and Yemen. Concerns about the Millennium Challenge exercise came up in congressional hearings last week. "[T]echniques used by the [Iraqi] Red Force under the command of Lt. Gen. Van Ryper, a former Marine, might represent similar tactics used by Iraq on the war against our forces," Sen. Pat Roberts, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said. "Despite a stark disparity in the technological sophistication between the two sides, the U.S. forces proved susceptible to the Somali's basic war-fighting tools, which included the use of smoke pots to disorient the American troops and the communication via word of mouth and drum beating. And that sort of hearkens back to Somalia." Roberts said in a hearing last week that the Joint Forces Command has so far not analyzed the success of the simulated Iraqi side. He warned Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the war against Iraq would be neither an experiment nor an exercise. The dispute within the intelligence community over Iraq prevented the drafting of the National Intelligence Estimate for Bush. The estimate is an analysis drafted mostly by the CIA, but which represents a consensus of opinion by the intelligence community. Secretary of State Colin Powell determined that the international community was not ready to either support the toppling of Saddam or help rebuild Iraq after the fall of the regime. Powell had also warned that the United States needed more time to conclude agreements for the deployment of large numbers of U.S. troops and military assets in Turkey and Gulf Cooperation Council states. "Faced with such opposition, Bush felt he needed time and so he took Powell's advice and returned to the Security Council," a diplomatic source with intimate knowledge of the administration said. "For Bush, this is a move that is fraught with uncertainty." The only quarter that supported an imminent attack against Saddam, the sources said, was the civilian leadership of the Defense Department. Defense officials said defense officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, argued that the United States did not need international support to crush the Saddam regime. "We have a force-sizing construct and a strategy that enables the United States of America to engage in two major conflicts, near simultaneously, to win decisively in one and occupy the country, to swiftly defeat in the other case," Rumsfeld said. "The United States military will be prepared to do whatever the president orders, and do it well." Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials were said to have opposed Powell's proposal to seek the return of UN inspectors to Iraq, arguing that this would buy up to a year for Saddam. The officials argued that the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission would require at least six months to arrange for a presence in Iraq. But Powell and the chiefs, supported by former leading officials in the first Bush administration, were said to have presented a more convincing case, the sources said. They said many in Congress were urging that the Iraq issue be referred to the Security Council as the administration builds support within the United States and abroad. A diplomatic source who has been monitoring U.S. troop deployment in the Middle East said Western intelligence agencies have been surprised by the slow pace of the military buildup. The source said the process of moving troops and commands to Turkey and the Persian Gulf region has not demonstrated Bush's intention for an imminent war. "The idea of a November war was unrealistic as the United States is now only beginning the process of transferring commands to Kuwait and Qatar," the source said. "Moreover, the pace of the troop deployment suggests that there will not be a war against Iraq this year."
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 4:19:44 AM EDT
Interesting. It's VERY doubtful that Iraq could pull something like this off in the real world but leave it to us to conduct an exercise and teach them how. [BD]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 4:37:57 AM EDT
Gee, so this is what Rummy was talking about when he said there are a bunch of Know-Nothing-Bozos out there running their mouths about things they know absolutely nothing about. WADR, I don't take much stock in this. Our forces are trained, they are ready, and they are either in place now or on their way. Another CVBG and ARG just left for the Gulf. The ARG is humping 2500 Marines and all their gear including Harriers and helos. The CVBG is taking about 90 planes and a shitload of Tomahawks. This Battle Group is in addition to the one already in place. Another will be leaving soon. If I were Saddam...I would be afraid...VERY afraid. Tennis anyone? [heavy]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 4:51:14 AM EDT
Iraq would defeat the US naval forces? With what? Do they even have a navy? Are they gonna shoot SCUDS at us? That has nothing to do with the MO of the way the US would operate in Iraq. First we bomb and cruise missle all buildings and anything of importance to ground level, including threats to our Navy. Then we attack the armor from the air. Next we move the troops in for the turkey shoot. The whole thing is a bunch of BS. Bush went back to the UN because the rest of the world is a bunch of pussies that need their ass kicked, again, and because the US in now so full of so many goddamn liberals that if he didn't "give peace a chance" [bullshit] he would seriously harm his chances for reelection. Right now he is playing the fucking political game, but in the end Saddam is a dead man walking. His blood and guts are going to end up splattered all over a hot desert in the middle of a wind blown shithole and nobody will give a rat's ass. If he only realized that he doesn't even amount to a speedbump in the road of the American way of life.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 1:12:46 PM EDT
I would have to imagine that there are many things going on behind the scences that one can really only speculate.' I would have to agree that Bush is buying time, for a number of reasons. Most likely because of the damage that was done to our armed forces from the clinton administration there are some issues that need to be addressed. I dont think saddam is going anywere soon, and the weapons that he has he already has hidden, it just will be up to the inspectors if and when they go in to try to find them. If we go the route of inspectors saddam will screw it up eventually. Suddam will be his own destruction, all it will take is for suddam to refuse acces to one palace, and that is it. Bush is buying time and playing the political game, that is all, he is doing a very delicate tap dance. Also it would not surprise me that the navy could have had some issues in this game. I remember back in like 1998 or so there was an aircraft carrier out in the pacific ocean that was caught off guard by two russian fighter pilots, the russian pilots practically buzzed the aircraft carrier, then it took like almost 5 minutes for the aircraft carrier to get any planes up in the air to confront the russian pilots. I remember seeing this I think on 60 minutes, there were also pictures taken from the russian pilots to prove that they had gotten as close to the aircraft carrier as they did. So needless to say, it would not surprise me if there are some issues, we can thank past presidential administrations and our elected officials for not takeing care of our military like they should have been all these years!
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 1:20:46 PM EDT
So how do I work from home and be my own boss? That's the only thing I thought was remotely possible from the article!
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 2:01:08 PM EDT
Watch "basic training" on television and tell me we are prepared for war. Yeah right
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 2:10:07 PM EDT
I say we end it and go cold war on their ass. Scramble the B52's. level every square inch of iraq. End of problem. Of course, for the tree hugger who are worried about innocent bystanders, we could always jsut level Baghdad.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 2:12:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By the-lead-dog: Watch "basic training" on television and tell me we are prepared for war. Yeah right
View Quote
And this show bears similarities to life on earth in what fashion? [rolleyes] Maybe we should just threaten to carpet bomb their country with cheap VHS copies of American Reality TV series. That would probably scare the shit out if them and force them to surrender. I know it would me. [:D]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 2:18:30 PM EDT
[b]Plenty of good 'ol [/b] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/M4%5FAiming%5Fat%5FU%2FBS%2Egif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 2:21:08 PM EDT
Who the hell is WorldTribune.com? Some source they are. Never heard of them. Could be they have an axe to grind or they think that by spouting this crap that they can sway the thinking of some. Unfortunately, there are some that will read it and see it as justification for their liberal, DU, cowardly whining.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 2:34:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By the-lead-dog: Watch "basic training" on television and tell me we are prepared for war. Yeah right
View Quote
Yeah, and I doubt that touchy-feely PC crap that goes on in [i]some[/i] basic units does not carry over into permenant duty stations. You really learn on the job and I highly doubt that motivated unit commanders give a shit about you feelings when it comes to getting the job done. Moreover, the experienced troops will put the severest peer pressure on you to perform or else be labled a shitbird. In combat arms, methinks that's a good way to get your ass in a sling with your buddies; and fubar'd next liberty as well. There's still plenty of harcore hooah types in regular Army, Marine, Navy units to blast through the non-hacker BS. We are ready on an individul soldier, Marine, Sailor level; that I can guarnatee. We may not be ready however when it comes to having high brass with the balls to make sure the job gets done over fear of "career track displacement." Of course, the achilles heel of any military success is the BS policticians who won't let the troops go in a kill people and break things like they know how to do. It the resolve, or lack of it, of our leaders, not our troops, that will be the determinative factor in any US combat op.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 2:39:52 PM EDT
Nice post Mag_99 I think I would have to agree that the US armed forces is more like a business than a fighting force. I don't mean that we make money off of war,what I mean is the inside politics is much like the corporate world these days. just my .02!
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 2:44:40 PM EDT
Well, that's to be expected when the country (and military at the top) is being run by frat boys from Yale and Harvard. Silver Spooners who never had to work a day in their lives don't really understand the world on the level of the "simple masses."
Top Top