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.
|
Don't know shit about the Stryker except that I hear there are problems with moving them via C-130 in Afghanistan.
Regarding Iraq invasion force levels, I think they were adequate given the logistical support and "size of the pipe" available. I think that it is unlikely that larger forces could have been supported with the demonstrated logistical support.
Occupation forces are, in my opinion, too large. Primarily due to the reasons already identified by TR, the unwillingness of the conventional Army to think outside the box and use SOF in an appropriate and effective manner. I figure that one ACR and one Brigade of the 101st with aviation support, plus one Group of Special Forces would do a more effective job than what is being done currently.