Re: Ken Smith: A Republican???

Teresita wrote:

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith says...
> >
> >Iraq is going about as badly as
> >the competent military man -- who has actually read Sun Tzu -- might
> >have expected
>
> On the contrary, our ability to gather, analyze, and share tactical information
> electronically allows us to fulfill Sun Tzu's dream of a common picture of the
> battle.  And Sun Tzu prescribed a strategy of indirection founded on the concept
> that "normal forces" should fix or distract the enemy though head-on engagements
> while "extraordinary forces" operated on the enemy's flanks, probing for weak
> spots and striking when the opportunity presented itself.  The United States
> used air power to pummel Iraqi ground units from aloft while allowing the 3rd
> Infantry Division and the 1st Marines to function in the exploitive role.

  Asking the Iraqis to put up much more than token opposition to
the invasion force would be like asking the Polish army to go after
the Nazi panzers on horseback.  The REAL war was going to be a
guerilla war, and anyone with a lick of sense knew it.  After all, if
you are outmanned and outgunned, what else can you do?

> >and we shouldn't have gone in there guns ablaze when
> >we did, with no international backing (iirc, Iceland, Belgium, and some
> >South Seas island that even I'd never heard of before were part of the
> >"international coalition") to speak of.
>
> Stormin' Norman said that going to war without France was like going deer
> hunting without an accordian.  None of the allies you sought have the warrior
> spirit of the American fighting man.

  I concede that you could probably do without the French, but
we didn't need help during the conquest part.  When it comes to
blowing things up, there's us, the Israelis, and pretty much every-
body else. :)

>  Lessons learned from constant warfare has
> made us very good at what we do.

  We didn't figure out how to do it in 'Nam.  What are we going
to do differently?