Zarathud wrote:Grifman wrote:Zarathud wrote:WWII is a very different combat experience from the War in Iraq.
Wow, I would have never guessed that! Thanks for cluing the rest of us in!
Welcome to the topic sentence. In your haste to reply, you may have missed the prior post comparing Iraq to WWII.
No, I saw it - that's what I was responding to, your response to that post, duh!
Grifman wrote:- The entire US economy was on a war footing in WWII.
Not sure what the point is or how this is relevant.
Then, Sherman tanks required combat retrofits because literally everything that could be done fell short.
Actually it required retrofits because it was an inferior tank armor wise and gun wise to many German tanks - the army failed to anticipate the rate of increase in tank development. When it was introduced in North Africa it could defeat anything the Germans had - but they had Panthers and Tigers in development and the US had nothing further planned. Not sure what you mean by everything that could be done fell short.
Now, Humvees went through an extensive design process
And how is this relevant? The Sherman went through an extensive design process like all Pentagon weapons and it came up short. And the design process apparently worked for the Humvee. It CAN be upgraded - we just don't have enough of those around in Iraq.
Maybe this is because you missed the prior post comparing Humvees to Sherman tanks in WWII. And your point-by-point response which misses the connecting themes between sentences.
No, I saw it, I just didn't buy it
You excused what happened with Shermans in WW2 while blaming the Admin for the Humvee problem. I'm saying you can't do that. Excuse both or blame both, but you can't have it both ways.
WWII military supply shortages could be expected and excused ecause the entire US economy was hard-pressed to supply a world-war.
No, shortage had nothing to do with the problems of the Sherman tank. We produced tens of thousands of them. We could have produced a better tank, fewer but better - but for a number of reasons:
1) Some army leaders believed that tanks shouldn't fight tanks, but that should be left to tank destroyer units, tanks should be for exploitation. But they failed to understand that you don't always get to pick your opponents on the battlefield
2) The Army failed to anticipate the speed of tank development. The Germans and Russians continued to develop upgraded and new models throughout the war while Americans suffered with the Sherman - it had a few upgrades, but not enough. Example:
Germans - Pzr I, Pzr II, Pzr II, Pzr IV, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger
US - Stuart, Grant/Lee, Sherman, Chafee, Pershing (only two last 2-3 months of war)
You can see the Germans developed many more models than the US did, 3 of those after the Sherman. And one of the later US models (Chafee) was a light tank, which the Germans stopped developing.
3) They spent too much time trying to put a 90mm gun into the Sherman turret when they should have started over
You're plain wrong in excusing the Sherman problem by blaming it on supply and resource problems. You seem totally ignorant of the history of US and German tank development. If you think this is supply or production problems were to blame, please provide sources. I can provide you with several documenting the problems with Shermans and why they existed and I can assure you that none of them mention supply/production problems due to fighting a world war.
Short-term solutions were quickly put together for immediate needs -- like the Sherman tank to "catch up" to German tank superiority.
True, but as I have demonstrated, it didn't have to be that way.
Iraq isn't a world war, we had plenty of time to plan and realistically assess our military and its capacity to achieve the military objectives.
With that I agree
It's just your analysis of the Sherman problems in WW2 I disagree with.
Before 9/11, Rumsfeld faced stiff resistance from the Department of Defense against his downsizing of the US military because it would make the US unable to fight a war on two fronts (which was the prevailing military strategy during the cold war and afterwards). We don't have enough around because we didn't order enough to get the job done. Families are able to buy body armor on the internet for their soldiers, so it's not a supply problem -- it's a resource allocation problem, which was caused by Rumsfeld.
Great, but my problem was with your analysis of WW2 not Rumsfeld. That's where you keep getting confused.
Grifman wrote:and less tax cuts would allow for more armor to be made.
This is silly. Tax cuts have nothing to do with the military budget. We spent the money anyway - that's why we have a 400 billion dollar deficit. You really think no tax cuts would have meant one more piece of armor for the military?
Silly? Hardly.
Yes, exactly.
Until recently budget rules capped the deficit.
Those rules never existed under the Bush admin. That was an agreement reached by Clinton and Congress - increased expenses had to be matched by increase revenue or cuts elsewhere. That obviously went out the window when you see the Bush deficits.
More taxes = more money to spend for defense.
Please show me specifically where any amounts were cut from any defense bill under Bush because there wasn't available funding.
While there may have been a debate on whether to spend tax revenues on guns vs. butter, you're clueless if you truly think the military wouldn't have received a significant share of any budget deal.
Bush and the Congress spent what they wanted to spend, regardless of revenue. There has been no connection between revenue and spending since Bush came into office - the size of the annual deficit clearly speaks to that and you are the clueless one if you believe otherwise. Again, specifically show where the defense budge was cut or appropriated less because of the lack of revenue. Since you assert this was true, you should be able to find this in either public Admin statements or the Congressional record.
In fact, to further prove you wrong, Bush has gone back to Congress a number of times to get additional funding for the military since 9/11 for Afghanistan and Iraq - and never once were taxes raised to support this additional funding.
Humvees could be configured or retrofitted to resist bombs. In attacking a "terrorist" country, the administration should have contemplated a potential insurgency and the possiblity of a guerilla war using makeshift bombs. What else are "terrorists" known for doing? Planing bombs, perhaps?
I said I agree - and since you are doing nothing to compare this to World War 2, it seems irrelevant. Where did I say they shouldn't have been prepared for this?
The point is that Rumsfeld based his "new" military on a quick, rapid strike force using massive technology superiority to maximize the effect of a single infantryman. Iraq is showing that Rumsfeld's military plan may have been effective for winning the war, but very problematic (arguably dangerously so) at winning the peace during an occupation.
I agree with this also. But that is in many ways no different than World War 2 - which was the real debate - how different is it, to get back on topic
We relied upon technology to offset our lack of ground forces. The US army only 90 divisions, the Germans had over 300! Even ignoring the German forces on the Eastern Front, the odds were nearly even on the Western Front on a man to man basis. US technology - airpower, artillery made the difference - as it did in Iraq.
Grifman wrote:- WWII was a battle to destroy strong military nations with industrial economies. The Iraq army was weakened by the prior war and had little military effectiveness.
Yes, and the point is?
You're missing it. See above. We're facing a partisan attack in Iraq by civilians intending to disrupt our maneuverability and resist our ability to occupy their country. Even against a weak force, a chink in our technological armor has proven disasterous. Ignoring the Humvee problem is a serious military problem, not something that Rumsfeld should ignore or simply dismiss.
Again, what's the point. You made two disconnected statements about WW2 and then Iraq, without any linkage between them? Then you go on to talk about partisan attacks in Iraq. I can't follow where you are going with this. Unless what you are trying to say is that WW2 against Germany was a "conventional" war while the war against Iraq is becoming a "guerilla" war. That would be a plainer way of saying it, and with that I would agree.
You seem to be getting off topic. The issue for the most part was how different is Iraq from the World War 2 experience with respect to equipment and a few other areas - at least at first. I've never disagreed that the Admin/Rumsfeld messed up. I'm just asserting that this isn't all that different than World War 2 in some ways that you said it was.
But I do agree with some of your statements, once I figure them out
Grifman wrote:- WWII relied on draftees and volunteers who were joining to fight the Japs and Krauts in the main armed services. They knew exactly what was going to happen.
No one who has never been in combat knows "exactly" what is going to happen.
Now, volunteers from auxiliaries (the Reserves) are being sent to hostile territory for extended periods. Those auxiliaries joined thinking that the US would not invade a country to occupy it, but to defeat a military threat. Those auxiliaries were encouraged to "be all that they could be" by getting military job training.
They knew they could be called up whenever their country needed them. How or why is irrelevant - the Army doesn't ask your opinion on what missions you'd like to take part in. Wouldn't be much of an army if it did. But I do agree that they've placed too much of a burden on the reserves - if Bush/Rummy want to keep it up, they need to get smart and increase the regular forces.
Nonresponsive.
I'm non-responsive because your comments often don't seem to have anything to do with the discussion, or are very confusing (see below).
Joining the reserves for the GI Bill and weekend warrior work is nothing like joining the "Grand Crusade" in a World War. Knowing that something can happen is very different than knowing it is likely -- or that your committment as a Reservist will extend to occupation of a foreign country.
Ok, now you're getting somewhere. This actually makes sense. The whole draftee thing your first mentioned seems irrelevant - you don't use it in your point above. And you never compared the purpose of WW2 with the purpose of the Iraq war above. Now that've you've actually put it together I understand your point
But the problem is, not everyone agrees with your view of Iraq. Some think that eliminating a murderer such as Sadaam, bringing democracy to an area of the world where it virtually doesn't exist, are, well, the Arabs don't like us using the term "Crusade"
but you get my point. Only history will tell how this is viewed - it's still too early I would say.
However, I will add that you seem ignorant of the fact that US National Guard divisions - yes, the Guard existed before World War 2 - were "federalized" and brought into national service. And they were sent overseas and did see combat. So "auxiliaries" as you call them did exist in World War 2 and faced an even tougher situation, as once again, US combat units for the most part were not rotated out of action. These "weekend warriors" faced not only occupation of a foreign country, but actual hardcore combat on the line with regular Army units. In fact this was a problem during the war, because many of their officers weren't that good, had only gotten their positions due to political ties, were overage, not fit, etc.. Some performed well, others didn't.
So once again, we find a parallel between the two wars that you say did not exist.
Grifman wrote: The rotation system shows how stretched the military has become under Rumsfeld.
I agree, we need more troops.
And we have Rumsfeld to blame for rejecting the military's request for more troops before the war, not sending enough troops initially to occupy Iraq, and underestimating the number of troops needed to win the peace. Most other CEOs would fire someone who screwed up as much as Rumsfeld, not talk him into serving longer.
Have I disagreed with this anywhere? I said I agreed, dammit. What more do you want?
Grifman wrote:There's a huge moral difference between the wars. WWII was about defeating Hitler/Japs and avoiding another World War -- the "War to End All Wars." Now, the reason we used to justify attacking Iraq has been disproven.
That's really irrelevant. That's an argument for pulling all the troops out, but that's not what you are proposing here. You're just seem to saying it's unfair that reserves are getting heavy duty and that regulars are extended under stop loss. Yes, it's unfair, and we do need more troops, but until we get them - this is the only option. So unless you propose pulling us out of Iraq with our tails between our legs and letting a bunch of terrorists take over a country with some of the largest oil reserves in the world, exactly what else would you propose then?
Don't try to put words into my mouth, especially when it's clear that you don't get what I'm saying.
Well, be more clear and I won't have to put words in your mouth. I'm not sure that it's me not getting what you're saying or more you not able to say what you mean until the second time through
If you have a clear moral cause to go to war, you can expect your soldiers to sacrifice more. In WWII, we could justify sending hordes of troops against the beaches of Normandy. We can't do that in Iraq -- Rumsfeld has a huge responsibility to those troops because the reason he went to war was proven wrong. He failed the troops in deciding to go to war, he's failed the troops so far in equipping them and giving them what they need to do their job safely -- and you want to defend Rumsfeld by saying that we can't just leave?
I think you are very confused here. I've never defended Rumsfeld on the humvees or his strategy in Iraq. Almost everywhere you criticize Rumsfeld, I've kept saying I agree with you. All I was doing was challenging your assertion that Iraq was so different from World War 2 on your specific points. You keep arguing against points I never made.
You've taken my argument about your comparison to WW2 to mean that I agree with Rumsfeld. Sorry, never said it - go back and really read what I wrote in my first response to you - other than saying I didn't find Rumsfeld dismissive, you won't find me defending him, in fact I see a couple of places where I criticized him. Methinks you're confused..
Grifman wrote:You can't just dismiss these problems by saying "War is hell, soldier."
No, but my point was that this sort of stuff has happened before. Doesn't excuse it, but it does put it into context.
If that context was WWII, it's a poor comparison. See above.
Not really. The Sherman is a perfect example, as was the US use of technology, and the problems with reserves/National Guard deployment - see above as you like to say
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I think you're quite confusing. But you got better this time around
Grifman