|
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
Well, the American troops are currently doing quite well if measured in the amount of territory gained, so in that sense the plan hasn't failed. On the contrary, the Americans might soon get into excellent positions around Baghdad, so they can be satisfied with the advance. And Rumsfeld can be happy that his small amount of land forces have only made a minor difference to the speed of the advance.
But it still seems that the Americans' plan has failed in a couple of other respects. I found a few articles related to this question. The following article tells that the Americans had counted too heavily on mass defections and pro-American attitude among some regular Iraqi troops:
U.S. officials concede they 'misjudged' Iraqi defections
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/...31/5014928s.htm
The Debka site also says that Shiites in Southern Iraq have been advised by their exiled spiritual leader to sit on the sidelines, and collect the spoils from the winner. So the popular uprisings which were central to PNAC's military plan have not happened, and very possibly will not happen before Saddam and his inner circle have been eliminated.
The following article even suggests that some Iraqi tribal leaders hate the US so much that they will fight to death rather than have Americans occupy the country. This is against the PNAC Plan which assumed that most Iraqi tribes would welcome the American troops.
Tribal chiefs vow to fight to the death for Saddam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,926149,00.html
The Shock & Awe campaign didn't really shock the Iraqi top officers into submission, so the Americans will now have to resort to street battles to take Baghdad. This will bring heavy casualties.
US Said Prepared to Pay 'High Price' to Oust Saddam
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._usa_price_dc_2
Some articles claimed that before the war, the Americans had ordered 70,000 body bags intended for Coalition soldiers. I don't know if this was just a contingency plan in case of nukes, biological and chemical attacks, or if it was a normal worst-case scenario.
So it's possible that the current favourable situation might change in the later stages of the invasion, and bring out the weaknesses of the US military plan. For example, the Iraqis are not going tolarate an American occupation, so the American military plan would also need an exit strategy to avoid the looming Iraqi guerilla warfare.
Whether it's a good or bad plan, Rumsfeld seems to have pissed off some high-ranking American military:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,926158,00.html
But all this will depend on the unpredictable Gods Of War. It's useful to remember that Saddam's army is also in problems, so it might collapse easily if confronted at the right moment. |
Yes I agree that things aren't going as according to plan, however, I hardly think that they can be considered a "failure". We are in no sense bogged down, and I think that once the frontline troops are resupplied we can begin the main assault against the Republican Guard.
What I'm actually more concerned about is the influx of Arabs into Baghdad to fight for Saddam and the ufortunate deaths of civilians. I wish we could get some reliable sources for civilian casualties ... Basically all we're going on are government estimates and I doubt that Iraq is being completely honest with us. It's critical that this conflict be concluded as soon as possible, or I fear that things will take a turn against the US. Hopefully once we begin the massive influx of humanitarian aid, opinions will shift. Iraqi civilians aren't hostile to US forces so much as they are waiting to see what happens. Much like you said war is unpredictable and we'll see what happens.
I doubt that the body bag thing is very significant ... 70,000 deaths would be more casualties than 7 years of fighting in Vietnam.
___________________
Retro ...
|
