Article

2008-03-12 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-03-12 10:14|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 Not only enlarge the military front line units, but withdraw the others from areas they are not needed. Korea, Germany, Macedonia, Italy, etc. That right there is another 20,000-30,000 front line and front line support (MPs and the like) units that can be used to relieve the others. Keep the air units in place in areas like Korea, but the ROKs are more than capable of driving the North Koreans back all the way to the Yalu with just our air support.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-03-12 11:11|| 2008-03-12 11:11|| Front Page Top

#2 From Michael Ledeen

Fallon

Without getting into all the unpleasant details, I think it's fair to say that Admiral Fallon was an object of scorn and sometimes contempt by a significant number of his immediate subordinates.

It had nothing to do with Iran, or for that matter even Iraq. Military officers have seen strategic disagreements throughout their careers.

Rather it had to do with the man himself, with his perceived competence, with the way he dealt with his underlings, and with his own quest for personal legacy rather than national victory.

I am sure that Gates was aware of at least some of that. Whether the president was, I cannot say. Since Armitage left the State Department it's hard to get inside information...

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-03-12 11:12|| 2008-03-12 11:12|| Front Page Top

#3 The Goldwater-Nichols Act was specifically designed to put the theater commander in charge and those sitting home in the Pentagon in the support mode. If the President doesn't like what the combatant commander is doing, he fires/retires/reassigns them. Otherwise, that commander is the man in charge on the ground.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-03-12 12:03|| 2008-03-12 12:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Maybe I'm clueless but what was the logic of having an Admiral in charge of a theater that has two ground wars and the Navy is in a supporting role? He was in charge of the Pacific and that at least makes sense to me.

I agree with Darth Vader. We should have expanded the military after Sept 11. We also should have pushed for more local troops earlier. Perhaps the INC couldn't take out Saddam but we could have prepared them to take over after the invasion so we could move on to bases along the Iranian border and into Syria.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-03-12 12:32|| 2008-03-12 12:32|| Front Page Top

#5 RJ I was wondering the same thing. Admiral, Iraq...?

Posted by Icerigger 2008-03-12 12:47|| http://coonlakebeach.com/support_mn_troops.htm]">[http://coonlakebeach.com/support_mn_troops.htm] 2008-03-12 12:47|| Front Page Top

#6 If the Pentagon pencil pushers had any guts they'd got public and tell the populace and Congress that we need to increase spending in order to maintain our forces in this truly world-wide war.

The American peopel need to wake the hell up. Bush needs to put us on more of a war footing.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-12 13:13|| 2008-03-12 13:13|| Front Page Top

#7 Gents, for whatever reason I've seen more navy officers taking ground posts, Djibouti was Army or Marine and I know a navy captain that took that over for a year. I work in a joint command now and though I admire the professionalism of the navy officers I work for and with, as a Marine officer there are some cultural differences I'm still adapting to. The issues I have is when folks from the surface warfare or nuke community try to tell me about the ROE on the ground in Iraq, I can't help but scoff at them after being there twice. Bluntly put: I don't tell them how to drive a sub or run counter piracy ops in the indian ocean, don't tell me about dealing w/the local sunnis if you've never been boots dry on deck in al anbar.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-03-12 13:25|| 2008-03-12 13:25|| Front Page Top

#8 what was the logic of having an Admiral in charge of a theater that has two ground wars and the Navy is in a supporting role?

Just think of the ground forces as the land arm of the Navy!

Posted by SteveS 2008-03-12 13:38|| 2008-03-12 13:38|| Front Page Top

#9 touche SteveS

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-03-12 14:19|| 2008-03-12 14:19|| Front Page Top

#10
what was the logic of having an Admiral in charge of a theater that has two ground wars and the Navy is in a supporting role?

When he was nominated there were speculations that the US would go to war against Iran and that means
that the primary task would be to keep the Gulf open.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-03-12 16:22|| 2008-03-12 16:22|| Front Page Top

#11 He was the first admiral to have the command...

GEN Robert C. Kingston; Army; January 1, 1983- November 27, 1985
Gen George B. Crist; Marine Corps; November 27, 1985- November 23, 1988
GEN H. Norman Schwarzkopf; Army; November 23, 1988- August 9, 1991
Gen Joseph P. Hoar; Marine Corps; August 9, 1991- August 5, 1994
GEN J. H. Binford Peay III; Army; August 5, 1994- August 13, 1997
Gen Anthony C. Zinni; Marine Corps; August 13, 1997- July 6, 2000
GEN Tommy R. Franks; Army; July 6, 2000- July 7, 2003
GEN John P. Abizaid; Army; July 7, 2003- March 16, 2007
ADM William J. Fallon; Navy; March 16, 2007- March 31, 2008
LTG Martin Dempsey (acting); Army; March 31, 2008

Posted by tu3031 2008-03-12 16:35|| 2008-03-12 16:35|| Front Page Top

#12 Zinni, Abizaid, Fallon. No wonder we're having problems there. Lincoln nods. Let's hope Petraeus gets to spend a good long time there.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-03-12 16:49|| 2008-03-12 16:49|| Front Page Top

#13 for whatever reason I've seen more navy officers taking ground posts, Djibouti was Army or Marine and I know a navy captain that took that over for a year.

Would a Navy officer know more about maintaining operational effectiveness for a long time at a distance from the base? I'm thinking submarine logistics, although really I don't know what I'm talking about. Just that they have to think of everything beforehand, because they're going to be underwater for months without resupply. If someone who knows what I really mean to ask -- and what the answer is -- would be so good as to help me out? Thanks!

As for Admiral Fallon's resignation, NPR takes credit for having broken the story and made those opinions a resignation issue.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-03-12 18:03|| 2008-03-12 18:03|| Front Page Top

#14 Be that as it may, Petraeus knows that the clock is ticking. Whatever we hope the Iraqis can do to sustain themselves in our absence, they had better be ready to do, and quickly. This includes an air force, a lot of Stinger SAMs, batteries of anti-missile missiles and anti-tank weapons. And probably a LOT of field artillery.

The major US combat units in Iraq need to be ready for withdrawl in as orderly a fashion as possible, and in such a way that they will not be easily attacked during that withdrawl.

The assumption *must* be that the next President will be utterly spineless, cowardly, and willing to commit forces to operations that will place them in reckless jeopardy.

This means that the further back our forces are from danger, the more opportunity they will have to plan and execute.

When the time comes, President G.W. Bush will have *exactly* from November 15th to January 20th to order them to leave Iraq. And possibly Afghanistan. And possibly Europe, South Korea, and heaven knows where all else.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but when the next President orders them to lay down their arms and surrender to whatever enemy is nearby, hopefully they will say that there isn't one.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-03-12 19:19|| 2008-03-12 19:19|| Front Page Top

#15 TW, this particular guy was a surface warfare type. Sub guys would be less effective methinks. They take everything with them afaik and don't push logistics to anyone. An Army or Marine logistician that's done time w/frontline grunts is best bet imho.

Posted by Phort Barnsmell7838 aka Broadhead6 2008-03-12 22:10|| 2008-03-12 22:10|| Front Page Top

23:46 whatadeal
23:40 RD
23:35 rjschwarz
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:25 Procopius2k
23:13 ryuge
23:08 ryuge
23:05 Harcourt Jush7795
23:03 Rambler in California
22:57 Frank G
22:54 Rambler in California
22:51 Rambler in California
22:46 Rambler in California
22:44 g(r)omgoru
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:28 JosephMendiola
22:25 KBK
22:24 KBK
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:20 Steve White
22:14 Phort Barnsmell7838 aka Broadhead6
22:14 KBK
22:13 Wholuque Protector of the Antelope4061