|
|
March 24, 2003
Force Strategy vs. Strength
Here's an interesting article just up by my good friend Joe Galloway, author of We Were Soldiers Once and Young. It speaks to the force strength vs. the pentagons plan as proscribed by SecDef Rumsfeld. Joe is now heading up the Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Washington war desk. Posted By Wallace at March 24, 2003 10:37 PM | TrackBackComments
Well, that wasn't particularly encouraging. And it was quite plausible, IMO. Posted by: brian at March 24, 2003 10:47 PMJoe is a good friend of Barry McCaffrey [article below] and I'm sure Gen. McCaffrey had some input on Joe's article. But Gen. McCaffrey's "been there and done that" in Desert Storm so his opinion is valuable. Posted by: Wallace at March 24, 2003 10:52 PMI have great respect for Galloway's work in Vietnam, but he's way off base on this one. At the very least, how does he explain the surrender of two FULL divisions in the south? That adds up to a lot more than "only 2,000 prisoners"... This sounds like a political war between factions gone public. From what I've read, the 'two full' divisions in name may have surrendered, but most of the troops simply melted away. The pentagon today was reporting officially that they had 3,000 prisoners total in theater. Posted by: Wallace at March 25, 2003 01:18 AMStill I think this reflects on Galloway's (apparent) position that relatively few POWs equates to failure of the mission. As you say, many Iraquis have simply gone home instead of surrendering. It still means that many of the Iraq divsions are gone, no? Post a comment
|