"The Best Laid Plans.."

  1. the administration is becoming annoyed with the questioning it is receiving regards the war strategy.

    http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...BE1C5BC764224B
    Bush Administration Defends Coalition Strategy in Iraq
    Alex Belida
    Pentagon
    29 Mar 2003, 03:49 UTC
    _Bush administration officials are defending coalition military strategy in Iraq, blaming the news media for fostering the perception that things may not be going as well as the Pentagon anticipated. But there are some serious questions about the planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom that appear to be going unanswered. <<

    the administration may also be upset by this:

    http://www.boston.com/dailynews/087/...upsets_:.shtml
    Outspoken Army general upsets White House with public comments
    By Laurie Kellman, Associated Press, 3/28/2003 15:52
    WASHINGTON (AP) His war plan may not have panned out in Iraq quite as neatly as Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace had hoped.
    ''The plan is to be decisive, rapid, lethal and to give our adversary no edge he can take advantage of,'' Wallace, commander of the ground battle in Iraq, was quoted as saying earlier this month.

    After a week of war, Wallace upset the White House Thursday by saying publicly that Pentagon strategists had misunderstood the combativeness of Iraqi fighters. The miscalculation, he said, had stalled the coalition's drive toward Baghdad.

    ''The enemy we're fighting against is different from the one we'd war-gamed against,'' Wallace, commander of V Corps, told The New York Times and The Washington Post. ''We knew they were here, but we did not know how they would fight.''

    Wallace's comments fed into the frustration the Bush administration already was expressing over media coverage of the pace of the war effort. The war, the White House says daily, is going well and at a good speed. <<<<<<<<


    we already knew Sec Rumsfeld had the idea of a revamped techno military with less need for 'boots', just like we knew our intelligence warned us of the way the Iraqi's would be likely to fight; let us hope the idealogues have lost some of their say with the President and reality makes a strong showing.
    •  
  2. 141 Comments

  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    I wish they were right.
    Yesterday I attended a funeral, another today. Friends beloved family. These were both in their 70s. I truly hope this ends peacefully soon. There has never been a time I wanted my worries to be unfounded more than now/ I am afraid though.
    -----------------------------------------------
    Conservatives Tailor Tone to Fit Course of the War

    by Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
    March 28th, 2003

    During the months leading up to war, many conservative commentators and policy makers fanned out across the news media to support the president's
    case for a preventive strike against Iraq.

    A swift end to the war in Iraq was predicted by commentators like Richard N. Perle, Rush Limbaugh and Kenneth Adelman. Now, with many Iraqis showing
    support for Saddam Hussein, conservatives are echoing President Bush's optimism and calling the news media pessimistic.

    Many of those commentators who argued for the doctrine of a United States-enforced world order, including Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol and Andrew
    Sullivan, said Iraqis would welcome allied troops as liberators. Others predicted a swift victory against a grossly outmatched and disloyal Iraqi military.

    Now, with televised images of Iraqis chanting anti-American slogans, and with Saddam Hussein's troops fighting back hard, the pundits have returned to
    the offensive, echoing President Bush's optimism and denouncing what they see as pessimism in the news media.

    There is a range of views among the so-called hawks. Some simply urge patience. Some agree that they may have added to the perception that victory
    would come easily.

    But there have been some unifying themes, most notably that allied progress has been swift and that the news media have been exaggerating the
    negative.

    An article in The Washington Post, in which defense officials were quoted yesterday as saying that the war could grind on for months, has become a rallying
    point for the conservatives' indignation. Mr. Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard who has been credited with playing an influential role in the White
    House's decision to attack Iraq, appeared on the Fox News channel to say that the article "comes close to being disgraceful."

    Mr. Limbaugh began his radio program with a harsh critique of the article. "If you read that, you conclude we're losing this war, that we've got no way out,
    that we are hemmed in and we are hopelessly lost," he said. "Now, I have to say that even I thought it would take the mainstream media more than a
    week to attempt to undermine the war effort. I didn't think it would happen this soon."

    In an interview today, Mr. Limbaugh said he was trying to raise national morale in the face of what he said was overly negative news coverage. With 20
    million listeners a week, he has a sizeable platform.

    "I want people to remain optimistic," Mr. Limbaugh said. "I'm not trying to avoid realism. There's no question that we have had setbacks. But we're the
    United States military; there's no way we're going to lose this."

    A week ago, such comments would have seemed unnecessary. There were comparisons to the United States military campaign in Afghanistan, when
    crowds in Kabul greeted troops with cheers. That assessment was even shared by some of those opposed to the war, who argued that the real challenge
    would come after victory.

    In one of the most optimistic military assessments, Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration official, wrote in The Washington Post: "I believe demolishing
    Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."

    Richard N. Perle, who resigned yesterday as chairman of the Defense Advisory Board, an influential group of unpaid advisers to the Bush administration,
    expressed similar confidence in several television appearances.

    "There may be pockets of resistance, but very few Iraqis are going to fight to defend Saddam Hussein," Mr. Perle said in February on "Hardball with Chris
    Matthews" on MSNBC.

    On Saturday morning the predictions seemed accurate. Troops were advancing unopposed through southern Iraq. Television news showed Iraqis
    celebrating the arrival of allied troops.

    But within a few days images of celebrating Iraqis often seemed out-numbered by images of Iraqis chanting Mr. Hussein's name, and American military
    commanders in the field acknowledged that they were surprised by Iraqi resistance.

    Some conservatives said they believed the earlier, rosier predictions might have made battlefield situations seem worse than they actually were. During an
    interview this week, Mr. Kristol, who said he often cautioned against overconfidence, called the optimistic forecasts "unfortunate." Tucker Carlson, the
    conservative co-host of "Crossfire," who had not made such predictions, called them "glib and stupid."

    Mr. Adelman said in a telephone interview this week that he now regretted making his remarks. "I think that the phrase `cakewalk' was too glib," he said.
    "It was too easy and not applicable to a kind of wartime situation."

    He added, "The point that the benefits will overwhelm the costs, I still agree with."

    Supporters of the invasion said there was still good reason to believe that Iraqis would welcome the removal of Mr. Hussein, given the misery of the country
    under his rule.

    On Tuesday, Mr. Sullivan wrote, "It seems to me that we may have underestimated the psychological effect of President George H. W. Bush's brutal betrayal
    of the Iraqi people in 1991, at the behest of the U.N.

    "I also think that we hawks might have underestimated the Iraqis' sense of national violation at being invaded, despite their hatred of Saddam."

    Most of the commentators called these minor problems on the way to victory.

    They pointed to reports that officers loyal to Mr. Hussein may be coercing crowds to cheer him. And several said that more Iraqis might still celebrate the
    allied troops' arrival and that the Iraqi military's resistance could prove short lived. The news media, they said in interviews, have been losing sight of all of
    this.

    Mr. Limbaugh said he blamed the nature of the news business for what he considered to be overly negative coverage. "Four thousand safe plane landings
    a day doesn't make news," he said. "It's the same thing here. I don't think on balance this is any ideological expression on the part of most press people.
    They're oriented toward finding things that go wrong."

    Mr. Kristol said he did not think current perceptions would matter at the end of the war.

    "All the media stuff doesn't matter," he said. "In the end, reality matters. No one remembers Day 3 was a good day, Day 4 was bad. Have we been
    successful in helping create a decent government in Iraq? Reality trumps everything."

    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company




    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar27.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar27.html

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0328-02.htm
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Mar 31, '03
  4. by   sanakruz
    Deeply disturbing.
  5. by   Mkue
    I think there is overly negative coverage of the war and the media is attributing to that , no surprise, trying to find things that go wrong as Limbaugh stated "Four thousand safe plane landings a day doesn't make news,"
  6. by   rncountry
    What you mean we can't win a war in a week? Have we become a people that expects our wants and whims met in an instant, so much so that we aren't willing to take a look at reality and understand this is the long haul? Did no one else besides myself hear the President say so at the beginning on "the war on terrorism"?
    Not to mention the idea that just perhaps the whole "shock and awe" was purposeful disinformation out to a media who seems to want to give away the whole war plan to the enemy? I honestly had to laugh on the first night "a target of opportunity" bombing took place. The consternation of the news people and their paid retired generals and other military people was priceless, fully expecting one thing they got another. My comment to my husband, you mean the generals didn't let the media in on what is going to be the overall plan? What a shocker!
    It is sheer stupidity to believe that this is going to be an easy cakewalk or that there will not be things that will go wrong. Me thinks the media types ought to get out of their ivory towers and come to middle America, smell the coffee and pull their heads out of their asses.
  7. by   WashYaHands
    After a week of war, Wallace upset the White House Thursday by saying publicly that Pentagon strategists had misunderstood the combativeness of Iraqi fighters. The miscalculation, he said, had stalled the coalition's drive toward Baghdad.
    Other news media are reporting that General Wallace was referring to the brutal tactics of the Iraqi military (ie. using innocent Iraqi civilians as human shields, dressing in civilian clothing, dressing in coalition uniforms, demanding civilians take up arms or else their loved ones face execution, and fake surrenders). Certainly no one would have predicted this type of "combativeness".

    I've resigned myself to taking all media reports, especially opinion/editorial reports, as just that...opinion and editorial. One thing I've realized is that each media broadcast company and written newspaper is reporting from a personal or political interest spin.

    The media is not running this war (thank goodness). CENTCOM is running this war, and I don't think the commanders make tactical and logistical adjustments based on what the media wants or does not want the public to believe. You know the old saying, "do you believe everything you read/hear?"

    I continue to have faith in coalition forces to meet the objective set before them from the beginning. I think the most reliable sources are those imbedded with coalition forces, as they are reporting first hand, but that's just me.

    Linda

    edited to add the quote from the initial article on post #1
    Last edit by WashYaHands on Mar 29, '03
  8. by   wv_nurse 2003
    I wondered when this would come up. I don't think for a minute that anyone is surprised that we didn't walk out of Iraq within a week! I think what may have surprised some (although I am not entirely sure it surprised everyone) is the lengths that SH is willing to go in sacrificing his own people to save his own as*.

    I realize some will say "all is fair in love and war"--but there are CIVILIZED rules for combat--you DON'T fire upon those surrendering, you DON'T hide behind civilian clothes--you DON'T "pretend" to surrender in order to attack the enemy--you DON'T run a command post out of a hospital! The list goes on and on...

    SH is not a civilized "ruler"--he is more like a mad-dog, who needs to be put down.

    As for reporters--well they report what makes ratings, and I am not entirely sure they worry about the facts until after they have made the headlines--(admittedly a generalization) . And it does cut both ways--reporting of a chemical weapons factory found, for example, only to find it wasn't what they thought. I don't like 24/7 coverage, but that is just my preference.
  9. by   Mkue
    I also prefer the Pentagon and CENTCOM updates, they are more credible. Some of the embedded reporters are great ! One in particular was in the military for 9 years I believe before becoming a journalist.
  10. by   nurs4kids
    I think we should run the media out of Iraq and drop the imbedded off at the nearest airport. I fear this RT coverage is hurting our military. As much as I like the convenience of watching as it happens, it's not worth risking the lives of our soldiers.
  11. by   caroladybelle
    Originally posted by rncountry
    What you mean we can't win a war in a week? Have we become a people that expects our wants and whims met in an instant, so much so that we aren't willing to take a look at reality and understand this is the long haul? Did no one else besides myself hear the President say so at the beginning on "the war on terrorism"?

    It is sheer stupidity to believe that this is going to be an easy cakewalk or that there will not be things that will go wrong. Me thinks the media types ought to get out of their ivory towers and come to middle America, smell the coffee and pull their heads out of their asses.
    Actually rncountry,

    People are no longer used to waiting for things - there is a serious lack of patience. We all have to have it now - how many pts do we have that expect us to drop everything and do what they want - whether you are in the midst of caring for another pt. You are at stoplight and some idiot is reving his engine to be first off - tooting the horn at the least delay. People cutting in and out of lanes - rush, rush, rush.

    The public has the attention span of a toddler these days.

    But as I recall, within a few weeks of the Gulf War - people did the same thing - and wondered why it wasn't over with already.

    This is why I worry the American public will not have the gumption to support Iraq sufficiently in the aftermath - insuring stability - and we will just have another ugly dictatorship to face down in the future.
  12. by   Furball
    People are morons, I'm sorry. I have zippo military training but I fully understand that this undertaking (poor choice of words) is much more complicated and more difficult than running Saddam out of l'il Kuwait....geesh!
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    I think the military leaders planned and wanted a very short show of force that would lead to a better world.
    Too bad they did not achieve their goal so far.

    Editor's Note: If top fighting generals are making statements like this with troops still in the field, the level of frustration among those tasked to fight this war must be enormous. The game plan espoused by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle has left our troops exposed, underfed, lacking fuel and open to attacks from the flank. Nasiriya and Basra remain untaken, with Baghdad looming ominously in the distance. Many of our soldiers are dead or wounded. General Wallace has every right to be angry. - wrp
    http://truthout.org/docs_03/033003B.shtml
    Outspoken Army General Upsets White House
    By The Associated Press

    Friday 28 March 2003

    WASHINGTON -- His war plan may not have panned out in Iraq quite as neatly as Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace had hoped.
    "The plan is to be decisive, rapid, lethal and to give our adversary no edge he can take advantage of,'' Wallace, commander of the ground battle in Iraq, was quoted as saying earlier
    this month.
    After a week of war, Wallace upset the White House Thursday by saying publicly that Pentagon strategists had misunderstood the combativeness of Iraqi fighters. The miscalculation,
    he said, had stalled the coalition's drive toward Baghdad.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=391460
    Robert Fisk: Raw, devastating realities that expose the truth about Basra
    28 March 2003

    http://truthout.org/docs_03/assault_on_iraq.shtml
  14. by   pickledpepperRN
    People who worked so hard to organize very different people into many actions to stop the war are frustrated too.
    People make different choices. I am going to a peace rally and hymn singing at a friends church tonight.
    Others take direct action:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar14.html
    Antiwar Protesters Plan to Escalate
    'Direct Action' Seen as Next Step If War Begins

    By Evelyn Nieves
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, March 15, 2003; Page A16
    Last Paragraph:
    Eric Johansson, a 32-year-old former Army paratrooper who served in the Persian Gulf War. Johansson, a leader of a group called Veterans Against the Iraq War,
    suggested it is easy to respond to the charge that protesters are not supporting the troops. "You don't
    support the troops by thrusting them into the hell of war," he said. "Support the troops: Bring them
    home!"

close