Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:23:48 -0800 (PST)
I am a bit frightened to admit that I think that we are actually
communicating this time...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, James Rogers wrote:
> > You don't think that it's even a little bit "reasonable" to
> > assume that
> > when military spokesmen say "swift" that they might've meant
> > something
> > like "ground war no longer than the first one?"
> The Gulf War was six weeks, and with simpler, smaller objectives.
Gulf War I = simpler, smaller objectives
Gulf War II = more complex, larger objectives
Gulf War I = 6 weeks
Budget Appropriation requested by President Bush = money enough for 4 weeks
Is this happenstance (or coincidence or enemy action? ;)
However -- I feel compelled to note that my New Politeness Power hasn't
worn off yet. So please allow me to rephrase that a bit for clarification
-- I really am trying to communicate -- honest.
It seems to me that if this war is more complex and has larger objectives
(than the last war), then it seems to follow that it is likely to take
more time (than the last war).
In that case, it would seem to follow that when President Bush asked for
$75 billion for one month's worth of fighting (rounding that off to four
weeks), there must be a reason for that.
Possible reasons include -- but are not limited to --
1) Poor planning / bad Military Intelligence
2) The President is an idiot*(1)
3) The President did it on purpose to fool the American Public
Each of these would carry further implications and so I shall stop
the analysis here for now.
*(1) Pardon my French: I meant to say, he is "A foolish or stupid person."
> In that
> war, they used a campaign strategy that was appropriate to their objectives.
> The objectives of this war are substantially different and would not have
> benefited nearly as much from six weeks of non-stop bombing before sending
> in ground troops.
> As for the ground war specifically:
> I would point out that, with fewer soldiers and without six weeks of
> bombing, the US has managed to recapture all the territory they took in the
> Gulf War in the same amount of time or less. If you compare apples to
> apples, they've done more with less in this war. If you thought the Gulf
> War was "swift", then I don't know how you could reasonably consider the
> Iraq War to not be moving at least as
> -James Rogers