“U.S. military strategy for a possible new war with Iraq... "criminal…"

Hammer Head · Feb 26, 2003, 12:49 AM

…Retired Air Force Gen. Buster Glosson

“A retired American general who directed the 1991 Gulf War air campaign on Tuesday denounced the U.S. military strategy for a possible new war with Iraq as "criminal," saying it would risk more American and allied lives than necessary…

How do you ethically defend the time we're taking to make a political decision (on using military force against Iraq) and then try to rush a military operation and finish it in a matter of days? Criminal," he told the American Enterprise Institute…”

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030225_641.html

Dave Campbell · Feb 26, 2003, 02:37 AM

Yes, I'm sure the General is intimately familiar with how we plan to execute this militarily....

Tell me, We've been in that area of operations for 12 years, know what we need to hit, when we need to hit it, etc., how are we rushing? We weren't rushing when we went to the UN in the first place! In fact, we had a lot less time to go into Afghanistan and nobody said that was rushed. The US military is all about contingency plans, and there is not a whole lot they haven't figured on.

One might surmise that certain people in the military have become spoiled by the hands-off approach ("precision bombing" targets that don't shoot back from 15,000 ft.) that we have been enjoying for the last decade. Those were different situations, being prosecuted by a commander in chief that refused to have ANY body count on the TV screen. The Zero-Defects mentality is a military disease-at some point the soldier has to be allowed to do his job, and that means they get shot at-and not from 15,000ft away.

I'm not familar with this particular General, but it wouldn't surprise me if his golden parachute dropped him on the board of a defense contractor that is in bed with the Democrats. Follow the money..

His quote does make for a *GREAT* headline though, a military man criticizing the war effort and all. Too bad for them he's referring to what might happen to our GI's and not the Iraqi people. They know that Soccer Mom's and Dad's only pay attention to headlines, so they trot whatever visual soundbite they can to further their agenda.

Dave

lrsudog · Feb 26, 2003, 10:34 AM

Norman Shwartzkopf expressed the opinion that Rumsfeld is pretty contemptous of his military commanders.

Even though Gen. Glosson specifically blames the "Military" planners, I wonder how much of this campaign planning is being influenced by Secretary Rumsfeld's lack of military experience, and his unwillingness to accept the council of his generals.

Shwartzkopf certainly didn't seem to impressed with Rumsfeld's qualifications and command style.

Tim Jonas · Feb 26, 2003, 10:42 AM

I worked for Buster Glosson in the Joint Forces Air Component Command Center (JFACC) in the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in Riyadh during Desert Storm.

If you read the complete article, you will find that Glosson, a proponent of air power (Air Force general a proponent of air power...go figure) is that, in his estimation, the time spent on the air campaign is not enough. He comes from the school that air power wins wars. His point is that we should use more air power during the start of the war, as, oddly enough, he did during Desert Storm. Only after the Iraqi infrastructure has been completely disabled, as it was in 91, by air power, should the ground offensive begin.

He isn't against the war, but he believes in a different approach to how that war should be prosecuted.

Dave Hederich · Feb 26, 2003, 01:17 PM

HH, are we to understand that you support Gen. Glosson's position that more time should be spent softening up Iraqi defenses with aerial bombardment before sending the troops in?

Tim Jonas · Feb 26, 2003, 01:26 PM

I can't say one way or the other. I am not in the planning cell, and neither is General Glosson. I am not in a position to second guess the folks with access to all the intelligence.

Dave Hederich · Feb 26, 2003, 01:36 PM

>> HH, are we to understand that you support ....

>> I can't say one way or the other.

MM (Mr. Mootsie), are you trying to impersonate HH (Hammer Head)?

Tim Jonas · Feb 26, 2003, 01:37 PM

AH! I thought that was for me. It is what I get for reading to fast!

Dave Campbell · Feb 26, 2003, 01:49 PM

Well, I won't pretend to know what's happening over there-but I'M from the school of thought that says we need warm bodies on the ground as soon as their vital resources are compromised. To pound them for 4 or 5 days with air power just gives the Iraqi military more time to plan based on what was hit, too much time to think about how desparate there situation will get and what nasty weapons they will use to try and stop us , the Saudi's and Israel. Given that we already have troops in Jordan to protect Israel(Hmm... didn't hear that from Dan Rather), I think the powers that be know this War is going to be a lot bigger than people think.

This is why I think it was irresponsible for the Commander in Chief to publicly state that we're there to kill Saddam. Sure, we offered to have him exiled (not an attractive option for a man who is King of his own Sandbox), but to give death as his only other option is a sure way to force him to use WMD's when the gig is up.

Dave

Dave Hederich · Feb 26, 2003, 09:40 PM

>> It is what I get for reading to fast!

Been there, done that ... too many times.

BillH · Feb 28, 2003, 12:29 AM

Quote:

we had a lot less time to go into Afghanistan and nobody said that was rushed.

IF I recall, Russia said we were going to get into a lot of trouble. The word quagmire came up a lot, even calling it another Vietnam war. They referred to Afghanistan as their Vietnam war.
Oh what a difference a different strategy makes.

You know, if our troops are going to be fighting door to door, that is going to be a horrible bloody mess. I don't think that will happen though.

Dave Campbell · Feb 28, 2003, 11:19 AM

<Oh what a difference a different strategy makes.>

Well, strategy was pretty good-until we got there to help the Mujahadeen. Russian SF raids on guerrilla postion were pretty successful. The Russians were an airmobile army and had much greater freedom of movement than the Afghans did, so they were pretty much able to hit on any target that presented itself.

When we got involved, their air-superiority was largely compromised and the work had to be done by grunts. Mediocrity and Nepotism have always run rampant in the general ranks of Russia's military, but it really got bad when poorly trained and inexperienced Russian boys tried to root a determined, battle hardened Mujahadeen out.

The Soviets were too busy tripping on their shoelaces to fight a war over there. We got in there and did it 'light and right'.

Dave

Feb 26, 2003, 12:49 AM	#1
Hammer Head the journey is the reward Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,311	“U.S. military strategy for a possible new war with Iraq... "criminal…" …Retired Air Force Gen. Buster Glosson “A retired American general who directed the 1991 Gulf War air campaign on Tuesday denounced the U.S. military strategy for a possible new war with Iraq as "criminal," saying it would risk more American and allied lives than necessary… How do you ethically defend the time we're taking to make a political decision (on using military force against Iraq) and then try to rush a military operation and finish it in a matter of days? Criminal," he told the American Enterprise Institute…” http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030225_641.html

Feb 26, 2003, 02:37 AM	#2
Dave Campbell Registered User Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Westland (Detroit), MI USA Posts: 1,087	Yes, I'm sure the General is intimately familiar with how we plan to execute this militarily.... Tell me, We've been in that area of operations for 12 years, know what we need to hit, when we need to hit it, etc., how are we rushing? We weren't rushing when we went to the UN in the first place! In fact, we had a lot less time to go into Afghanistan and nobody said that was rushed. The US military is all about contingency plans, and there is not a whole lot they haven't figured on. One might surmise that certain people in the military have become spoiled by the hands-off approach ("precision bombing" targets that don't shoot back from 15,000 ft.) that we have been enjoying for the last decade. Those were different situations, being prosecuted by a commander in chief that refused to have ANY body count on the TV screen. The Zero-Defects mentality is a military disease-at some point the soldier has to be allowed to do his job, and that means they get shot at-and not from 15,000ft away. I'm not familar with this particular General, but it wouldn't surprise me if his golden parachute dropped him on the board of a defense contractor that is in bed with the Democrats. Follow the money.. His quote does make for a GREAT headline though, a military man criticizing the war effort and all. Too bad for them he's referring to what might happen to our GI's and not the Iraqi people. They know that Soccer Mom's and Dad's only pay attention to headlines, so they trot whatever visual soundbite they can to further their agenda. Dave Last edited by Dave Campbell; Feb 26, 2003 at 02:41 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
War with Iraq, Why?	windsurfer	Life, The Universe, and Politics	175	May 17, 2007 02:16 PM
U.S. Military Pulls Out of Saudi in Realignment	Gman2	Life, The Universe, and Politics	6	Apr 29, 2003 04:37 PM
U.S. military finds nothing at suspected chemical facility in Najaf	sventek1	Life, The Universe, and Politics	26	Mar 27, 2003 05:57 PM
Conservatives Against A War With Iraq	Hammer Head	Life, The Universe, and Politics	82	Mar 11, 2003 04:40 PM
U.s Military And Weoponary	phreak	Life, The Universe, and Politics	2	Oct 06, 2001 03:13 AM

Feb 26, 2003, 10:34 AM	#3
lrsudog Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Under seven Oak trees... Posts: 2,072	Norman Shwartzkopf expressed the opinion that Rumsfeld is pretty contemptous of his military commanders. Even though Gen. Glosson specifically blames the "Military" planners, I wonder how much of this campaign planning is being influenced by Secretary Rumsfeld's lack of military experience, and his unwillingness to accept the council of his generals. Shwartzkopf certainly didn't seem to impressed with Rumsfeld's qualifications and command style.

Feb 26, 2003, 10:42 AM	#4
Tim Jonas Mr Mootsie Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pepperell, MA, USA Posts: 2,537	I worked for Buster Glosson in the Joint Forces Air Component Command Center (JFACC) in the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in Riyadh during Desert Storm. If you read the complete article, you will find that Glosson, a proponent of air power (Air Force general a proponent of air power...go figure) is that, in his estimation, the time spent on the air campaign is not enough. He comes from the school that air power wins wars. His point is that we should use more air power during the start of the war, as, oddly enough, he did during Desert Storm. Only after the Iraqi infrastructure has been completely disabled, as it was in 91, by air power, should the ground offensive begin. He isn't against the war, but he believes in a different approach to how that war should be prosecuted.

Feb 26, 2003, 01:17 PM	#5
Dave Hederich Registered User Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Walled Lake, MI, USA Posts: 11,182	HH, are we to understand that you support Gen. Glosson's position that more time should be spent softening up Iraqi defenses with aerial bombardment before sending the troops in?

Feb 26, 2003, 01:26 PM	#6
Tim Jonas Mr Mootsie Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pepperell, MA, USA Posts: 2,537	I can't say one way or the other. I am not in the planning cell, and neither is General Glosson. I am not in a position to second guess the folks with access to all the intelligence.

Feb 26, 2003, 01:36 PM	#7
Dave Hederich Registered User Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Walled Lake, MI, USA Posts: 11,182	>> HH, are we to understand that you support .... >> I can't say one way or the other. MM (Mr. Mootsie), are you trying to impersonate HH (Hammer Head)?

Feb 26, 2003, 01:37 PM	#8
Tim Jonas Mr Mootsie Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pepperell, MA, USA Posts: 2,537	AH! I thought that was for me. It is what I get for reading to fast!

Feb 26, 2003, 01:49 PM	#9
Dave Campbell Registered User Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Westland (Detroit), MI USA Posts: 1,087	Well, I won't pretend to know what's happening over there-but I'M from the school of thought that says we need warm bodies on the ground as soon as their vital resources are compromised. To pound them for 4 or 5 days with air power just gives the Iraqi military more time to plan based on what was hit, too much time to think about how desparate there situation will get and what nasty weapons they will use to try and stop us , the Saudi's and Israel. Given that we already have troops in Jordan to protect Israel(Hmm... didn't hear that from Dan Rather), I think the powers that be know this War is going to be a lot bigger than people think. This is why I think it was irresponsible for the Commander in Chief to publicly state that we're there to kill Saddam. Sure, we offered to have him exiled (not an attractive option for a man who is King of his own Sandbox), but to give death as his only other option is a sure way to force him to use WMD's when the gig is up. Dave

Feb 26, 2003, 09:40 PM	#10
Dave Hederich Registered User Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Walled Lake, MI, USA Posts: 11,182	>> It is what I get for reading to fast! Been there, done that ... too many times.

Feb 28, 2003, 11:19 AM	#12
Dave Campbell Registered User Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Westland (Detroit), MI USA Posts: 1,087	<Oh what a difference a different strategy makes.> Well, strategy was pretty good-until we got there to help the Mujahadeen. Russian SF raids on guerrilla postion were pretty successful. The Russians were an airmobile army and had much greater freedom of movement than the Afghans did, so they were pretty much able to hit on any target that presented itself. When we got involved, their air-superiority was largely compromised and the work had to be done by grunts. Mediocrity and Nepotism have always run rampant in the general ranks of Russia's military, but it really got bad when poorly trained and inexperienced Russian boys tried to root a determined, battle hardened Mujahadeen out. The Soviets were too busy tripping on their shoelaces to fight a war over there. We got in there and did it 'light and right'. Dave