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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (27628)	2/3/2004 12:21:42 AM
From: Jack Hartmann	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793776

intelligence analysts were at a loss to determine how the Iraqis would defend Baghdad I would be surprised to see that comment in the report. One thing about the intel community is no lack of defense scenarios. Determining which are realistic is a different matter.

To: LindyBill who wrote (27628)	2/3/2004 4:12:48 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793776

The military lets it hang out better in reviews than any other part of the Gov. Not perfect, but better. Army Study of Iraq War Details a 'Morass' of Supply Shortages Supply is standard fare for post conflict bitching. Nobody ever has enough of everything, all the time, on a battlefield. We saw this coming. Every serious pre-war discussion we were involved in discussed supply (trains). The trains for our forces in Iraq originated in the Continental US. That is a long run. With the clinton inspired cutbacks neither USAF nor USNAV had sufficient capacity to move all the needed troops and supplies in anything resembling a timely manner. I remain convinced that the key reason we did not go in stronger initially is because we simply could not support a larger force logistically. We could not copy Gulf War I strength and trains because we had lost over 1/3 of our transport capacity and 1/3 of our troop strength. Turkey's last minute lack of cooperation really caused some trains problems particularly for ammo, vehicles and troops. We did not get everything to the battlefield prior to the on-set of hostilities because we couldn't. Schoonmaker is modulizing our fighting units into smaller size, similar units that can be transported by a set USNAV and USAF combo and resupplied from packets. The focus is on simultaneously increasing the Army's fighting ability while increasing its mobility. I like it...but realize USAF and USNAV will have to reorganize too to support this concept. The old school says that shoot, move, and communicate are the keys to battlefield success. With simultaneous military operations on-going in over forty countries...move has taken on an entirely new meaning to the US Army. uw