Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Just_Observing who wrote (2508)	3/24/2003 4:36:25 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

The concern for chemical/biological weapons as a reason for invasion has been directly contradicted by: reuters.com Military analysts said on Monday that Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, may be taking unnecessary risks in the strategy he is employing, including stretching supply lines, allowing concentrations of enemy forces in the rear of his advancing troops, and using an invasion force that simply may be too small for the task at hand. "The force is so light that it probably has the lowest ratio to enemy forces of any major ground campaign we've fielded in the last century," said military analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank in Virginia. In essence the United States is attacking a dozen Iraqi divisions with two divisions of its own, he said. Divisions generally are composed of roughly 15,000 troops. "Normally with a ground force of this size going up against a ground force the size of the Iraqis, one doesn't prevail quickly," said Thompson, who still foresees a decisive and swift victory for the U.S.-led forces. "Can air power compensate for that? It's going to be interesting to watch." Franks, during a briefing in Qatar on Monday, said invading U.S. troops have moved rapidly toward the Iraqi capital and "intentionally bypassed enemy formations," including paramilitary forces, in southern Iraq.