Sunday, July 23, 2006
Bill Mon talks logistics
...and does a pretty good job.
Somehow I get the sense that he'd love to see us lose the Army in Iraq, though.
Plus, I think Bill overestimates Iranian influence in the Shia area of Iraq. Iraqi Shia fear, loathe, and despise Iran - and except for a few radical elements, are still pro U.S. Sistani knows which side his bread is buttered on. Things could get more difficult. But Iran just doesn't have the heat to cut off the MSR from Kuwait into Baghdad.
They could make life very difficult for shipping in the Straits of Hormuz. But the U.S. Navy and Air Force will make short work of that.
We'd come under some serious pressure. But we're not going to lose a 140,000 man Army, a la Stalingrad - however fervently Billmon and the left masturbate to the idea.
Splash, out
Jason
Somehow I get the sense that he'd love to see us lose the Army in Iraq, though.
Plus, I think Bill overestimates Iranian influence in the Shia area of Iraq. Iraqi Shia fear, loathe, and despise Iran - and except for a few radical elements, are still pro U.S. Sistani knows which side his bread is buttered on. Things could get more difficult. But Iran just doesn't have the heat to cut off the MSR from Kuwait into Baghdad.
They could make life very difficult for shipping in the Straits of Hormuz. But the U.S. Navy and Air Force will make short work of that.
We'd come under some serious pressure. But we're not going to lose a 140,000 man Army, a la Stalingrad - however fervently Billmon and the left masturbate to the idea.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
What the heck is he smoking?
Oh, dear, Iranians might interdict the MSR from Kuwait! Whatever would we do?
Interdiction of the MSR has already been tried, albeit not in a systematic large-scale way since the end of major combat operations. It can certainly be attempted by a larger, more organized force, and it can certainly hamper us and force us to respond. But to "wipe out" the entire force, and to do so without us striking back at the attackers' government? Please.
I don't want to even think about what this guy will recommend for acourse of action when Iran gets nukes. Heavens to Betsy, they could KILL people, we'd better do as they say, right now!
Oh, dear, Iranians might interdict the MSR from Kuwait! Whatever would we do?
Interdiction of the MSR has already been tried, albeit not in a systematic large-scale way since the end of major combat operations. It can certainly be attempted by a larger, more organized force, and it can certainly hamper us and force us to respond. But to "wipe out" the entire force, and to do so without us striking back at the attackers' government? Please.
I don't want to even think about what this guy will recommend for acourse of action when Iran gets nukes. Heavens to Betsy, they could KILL people, we'd better do as they say, right now!
# posted by 
: 12:09 AM
: 12:09 AM
Yeah, logistics matters, but a decently armed Soviet Army (with far superior tanks, BTW, needed a roughly 10:1 static numerical superiority at schwerpunkts and roughly 3:1 numeric superiority across the front, including at defensive positions, to beat the Germans at Stalingrad, and need I point out that Soviet casualties numbered in the millions? In other words, those weren't starting figures, the Sovs needed to maintain those numbers as the Germans were atritted downwards.
The thing Billmon seems to miss is that the U.S. military, when engaged, doesn't fight on a 1:1 basis with the enemy. Through various force multipliers - training, generally superior small unit leadership, better weapons system, better tactical intelligence systems - a 1:1 ratio of troops on the battlefield, under the type of engagement Billmon imagines, appears to fight as if it had 3:1 numerical superiority. That ratio can be lost, but still.
And yeah, I can smell the Vaseline when he starts talking about 140,000 troops getting slaughtered. It's okay though, at least he's not posting as Wilson and Thomas Ellers. I think.
The thing Billmon seems to miss is that the U.S. military, when engaged, doesn't fight on a 1:1 basis with the enemy. Through various force multipliers - training, generally superior small unit leadership, better weapons system, better tactical intelligence systems - a 1:1 ratio of troops on the battlefield, under the type of engagement Billmon imagines, appears to fight as if it had 3:1 numerical superiority. That ratio can be lost, but still.
And yeah, I can smell the Vaseline when he starts talking about 140,000 troops getting slaughtered. It's okay though, at least he's not posting as Wilson and Thomas Ellers. I think.
Let's not forget that this is the same Iranian military that spent eight years trying unsuccessfully to get to Basra - and that was when they were fighting Saddam's Iraqi Army. It's hardly likely that eighteen years of peace and arms embargoes have suddenly turned it into the force that's going to defeat an Army where most of the NCOs, company commanders, and a sizeable portion of the troops are well-trained combat veterans. And the last I heard, the U.S. still had an Air Force, too.
# posted by : 1:24 PM
: 1:24 PM
the U.S. military, when engaged, doesn't fight on a 1:1 basis with the enemy
But... but... but... that means the US military uses disproportionate force against the enemy? That's wrong and immoral, the Europeans said so!
The idea that the US Army would be trapped and destroyed in Iraq is so stupid as to be beyond belief.
Post a Comment
But... but... but... that means the US military uses disproportionate force against the enemy? That's wrong and immoral, the Europeans said so!
The idea that the US Army would be trapped and destroyed in Iraq is so stupid as to be beyond belief.
# posted by : 1:27 AM
: 1:27 AM
