Quote:
Originally posted by Adam White
OK, I will stir the stick:
1) Stryker - good idea or bad? Shinseki fought tooth and nail to get it past Rumsfeld. Discuss.
2) Iraq invasion force levels - were they high enough? I love you special ops guys and all, but is it possible that someone can be a bit too enamored with special ops? Discuss the adopted plan for Iraq vs. Tommy Franks's original war plan, with emphasis on the security situation we face today and traditional occupation responsibilities of an Army.
I am curious as to your viewpoints as SF types and supporters.
|
1) I am not a Shinseki fan.
I would have liked to see a couple of new Motorized Divisions added to the TO&E, not sure I would have bought Strykers.
The Army is understrength and inadequately resourced for the present mission.
2) I would go the opposite track, and said that the key to post conflict success in Iraq would have been MORE SOF.
IMHO, the conventional force was scared silly of what SF did in Afghanistan and sold itself to the leadership as the solution in Iraq.
I would have preferred to have seen us raise a resistance movement (or two) with our hand picked leaders in charge, legitimize them (like we did Karzai and DeGaulle), and provide sufficient conventional force to support a popular uprising. We could have done this pretty easily in 1991, and much less painfully.
Having said that, despite Franks' best efforts, there was insufficient to marginal forces on the ground for the Plan, piss poor log support, and criminally inadequate resources for the post-conflict desired endstate.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR