There's a minor item that's been bugging me lately. I wonder if it matters at all. First off - I'll come out and say the battle plan in Iraq was well planned, well executed, and used a good amount of flexibility and adaptability. Kudos to the generals who did a wonderful job, and the soldiers on the ground/air. Even Rummy - even tho I may not agree with all your opinions, you did not interfere or provide too much bad advice/direction - so you managed it successfully. As an america-hating, spit-on-the-veterans, 100% pessimistic, reality denying, Saddam loving liberal -that must mean something, right? (How do I do that ironic emoticon thingee?) Looking back, I'd say the war went as follows; (Note - this is focused solely on the battles, not post-conflict actions/decisions) 1) Quick strike into Iraq to take southern oil fields to prevent environmental catastrophe or steal oil (take yer pick). Once the potential for major resistance is gone, give this area to the British to take care of. (Also, notice - militarily, more foreign forces would probably have gotten in the way and been more trouble. Giving responsibility of taking Basra to the Brits was a wonderful way to keep our forces separate and minimize americans shooting brits) 2) Unless welcomed with open arms, do not attempt to occupy cities right away. Do not try to keep cities as strong points except at bridgeheads. 3) On a small scale, keep rolling North towards Baghdad. Always at least a little bit each day. Do not get bogged down. when you hit a fortified position or find resistance, hold a front, swing around with superior mobility and flank 'em. Rinse, lather, repeat 4) On a larger scale, do the same. Keep moving north, keep the enemy off-balance. Use large flanking maneuvers to keep moving north by going NW, then swinging NE. Do not try to blast through the better defended direct route. (Note - we attacked Baghdad from the west, after our "stalled" progress on the direct N/S highways) 5) Obviously the appearance of the fedayeen was probably a bit unexpected. The troops did a good job of not geting thrown by this. 6) Here's a contentious issue - resupply. I am sure the lack of security on the major highways was not 100% expected. Nonetheless, the army must have at least had a fallback plan. Airdrops, supply lines through the uninhabited desert, etc. Which they switched to once the original supply route was potentially compromised. Of course, this allowed the forces to keep flanking to the left. 7) MISINFORMATION. Without a doubt one of the least discussed, but most important features of war. No doubt our army expected less civilian resistance early on, fedayeen, etc. But once it appeared, they adapted and switched to plan B. But most importantly, they did not let the Iraqi leadership know this. Once the armed forces got a foothold on some bridges, they exaggerated their "supply problems", and their "stalled advance". Why? 8) Units of the fedayeen and republican guard charged south out of Baghdad suburbs, ready to take advantage and push US forces back. Instead of waiting for us in a good defensive position, they charged into a trap and paid the price. OOooops. Meanwhile we're really flanking Baghdad to the left anyway while they charge south. Result - well, you know that one. Now - how was this misinformation generated? Weren't most of the news channels talking to retired generals embedded in the news room? And I'm sure Bagdhad still had CNN/Fox/MSNBC. Does something smell fishy? One or two calls from the pentagon to some sympathetic retired generals - offer them a chance to once again do the US armed forces a big favor, and save the lives of many soldiers - by giving the impression that our supply lines were too weak and we were stalled. The networks jump on it, it goes for worldwide consumption - even, especially, bagdhad. What retired colonel/general would say no? And before you call me an evil-seeing conspiracy theorist - if it happened, it was ****ing brilliant, and somebody should be promoted for it. Anyway, even if it didn't happen that way, what about Peter Arnett? Didn't he flat out give the same analysis of weakened US supply and botched battle plan to the Iraqis? Which no doubt influenced their charging into a poor position, where they were more easily defeated. So, Peter Arnett - still a traitor?
Your theory is interesting. But the whole supply lines issue started because one of the embedded journalists was interviewing one guy in the military (a low ranking foot soldier) and he was like, I only had one meal in the last 24 hours, supplies are low. So that started the whole our supply lines are weak etc. Although, I enjoy your theory, it probably isn't the truth. With how impossible it is to label one a traitor under the Constitution, I don't think Arnett is a traitor. He definitely is a stupidface who deserved to be fired though.
I think your description is pretty good, though the misinformation stuff is really too clever by half. I do think though that idea of keeping the Iraqi's in the open and out of the cities was certainly an objective. I also think our supply lines were stretched thin NOT because we planned poorly but, interestingly, because we moved so far so fast. I think we knew at bottom the Iraqi populace would be thrilled to see Saddam gone, but how and when that was going to express itself was pretty much unknowable from start. The press made way too much of the initial cautious/sullen response (as perhaps they are making now of the Shiite fundamentalist anti-Amercian/pro-theocratic fervor?) I think the Brits were assigned to take Basra and Umm Qasr not to separate forces but because we were simply more mobile and could bring more force to bear over more distance. Meanwhile, getting both of those cities under control was critical to securing southern oil fileds and port access, and the Brits, as we have discovered, are awfully awfully good at securing urban areas. Bottom line, it was a great plan, extremely well-executed, yet adapatable and flexible. One other thing, I've been meaning to start a thread on this particular subject, and it's this: Is there ANY doubt, from ANYbody ANYwhere, that when it comes to large scale "project management" where the coordination of information, resources, and management is critical, that NOBODY, I mean, NOBODY, does it better than the USA?? That our top level management is astonishingly talented?? That our ability to train and motivate the front-line folks is unsurpassed? That we understand how to deal with the PR issues while keeping our eye on the prize?? Tick it all off...any sort of "Well, how did we do on THIS item???..." and the answer is, we did pretty darn good.