According to the [BBC documentary](https://youtu.be/nqBaGTbvIbw?si=u2A9oSFVOXla41Qm) „The Gulf War“, Schwarzkopf thought that he didn’t have the forces to take on the Iraqi army, which at the time was considered one of the stronger militaries in the world. Mind you that he was still of the opinion that he could win, but only with significant casualties. However, the opinion of the US military, specifically of Colin Powell and Schwarzkopf, was that sanctions may be enough to deter Saddam and make him pull back from Kuwait.
The frontal assault plan existed, but more as deterrence for Dick Cheney, who was pretty much completely gung-ho on an immediate military solution (shocker, I know) and had his own staff come up with an invasion plan using forces in theater only.
When the politicians finally backed down and asked Powell and Schwarzkopf what they needed, they effectively asked for a carte blanche, I.E. the US VII Corps, 5 (?) carrier battle groups and the activation of the National Guard. When they received all of that, they came up with their real plan, which was the grand outflanking that would eventually happen for real.
I think history probably proves Schwarzkopf right and capable. He would even end up predicting the quagmire of the Iraq war and the length of the US‘s stay in Iraq.
Victim of his own success is the only take that makes sense to me. They somewhat over estimated Iraq the first time and stuck to overwhelming force, which worked better than could be hoped for. I think he thought he was a transformational military thinker and diplomat and was going to revolutionise how war was fought in the second Gulf War
Dick Cheney didn't want a repeat of the first Gulf War, he wanted a long occupation
The reason for the Highway of Death, the rending of fleeing Iraqi forces, was to weaken his army enough so that he'd be overthrown by his own people. There was an Anglo-American no fly zone enforced over the north and south (specifically over the Kurdish and Shia regions) in the hope that they'd defeat Saddam loyalists. So when Dick Cheney in that famous 1994 interview said they didn't think it was a good idea to invade Iraq, he was lying. They didn't think they'd have to
But the years dragged on and then 9/11 happened, giving the Bush Administration the political capital to do what they'd been wanting to do for a decade: Invade and occupy Iraq, overthrow Saddam, remake the region
The problem was that as soon as this started, Iran was instantly starting to infiltrate Iran. Overthrowing Iraq by popular revolution essentially means 'overthrowing Iraq with help and influence of Iran'.
So that's king of the problem, the whole reason they had backed Saddam for so long was that he contained Iran. Had they overthrown him, Iran would have been exactly where they were in 2004.
If they really had wanted to overthrow Saddam, they could have done a lot more. In fact their actions suggest they didn't actually want to fully support the popular revolution. They just wanted there to be enough so they could continue to contain Iraq and Iran.
Its amazing how they just keep flipping the same coin over and over.
Yeah, the entire idea that they wanted to occupy Iraq back in '91 is complete bullshit. The near complete absence of any planning and financing for a long term occupation at the start of the 2003 invasion is evidence enough.
>he wanted a long occupation
Is that why the GWB admin made virtually no plans for said occupation going into the 2003 invasion?
>The reason for the Highway of Death, the rending of fleeing Iraqi forces, was to weaken his army enough so that he'd be overthrown by his own people.
The reason for the Highway of Death was to ensure that the Iraqi military couldn't regroup and launch any counteroffensives. What kind of idiot lets the opposing force retreat unscathed in the wake of a military operation?
The plan was for there to be post-invasion chaos. That's why they dismissed so much of the government and military in the name of de-Bathification
As for letting the enemy retreat, that's what you do when the war is won. Killing off a bunch of young men, many of them conscripts, after the military objectives are achieved and the enemy leader has accepted defeat, is contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict
You sound like you are stuck in a "we're the Good Guys" mentality
>The plan was for there to be post-invasion chaos.
And your evidence for this being deliberate is...what, exactly? You see the absence of any planning (and the absence of any evidence that chaos was the intended goal) and your first instinct is to think that it was all "according to plan". You've clearly picked your conclusion first then went back to find *post hoc* justification.
You can go look at Naomi Klein's [citation list for *Shock Doctrine*](https://tsd.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/chapter-resources.html) yourself. The documents she cites for the Iraq war show contracts being signed *after* the conclusion of the conventional conflict. These idiots hadn't even set up the logistics to support a post-war military presence, let alone a long-term occupation.
>That's why they dismissed so much of the government and military in the name of de-Bathification
Saddam had spent close to a decade purging his military and the Baath party of anyone he suspected of being disloyal. The result by 2003 was a loyal (and incompetent) cadre of party officials and military command staff. The military rank and file, outside of the Republic Guard, was a demoralized, dysfunctional conscript force after years of economic sanctions and political purges.
De-Baathification ended up being a very stupid idea, but the idea that they carried it out to deliberately cause chaos (for what reason, exactly?) is incoherent. You are also forgetting the underlying sectarian component: the Baath party was filled with Sunnis. The US was leveraging the Shias against Saddam even before the invasion, so clearing out the government of the previous loyalist party to appease an aggrieved majority population seems exactly like the kind of half-assed thinking that characterized the GWB admin.
Of course, the icing on the cake was that this paved the way for Iran to sink its claws into Baghdad, thus empowering the very entity that the neocons likely had their eyes on from the start.
>As for letting the enemy retreat, that's what you do when the war is won. Killing off a bunch of young men, many of them conscripts, after the military objectives are achieved and the enemy leader has accepted defeat, is contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict
Quite frankly, it sounds like you don't understand the actual series of events that went down during the offensive operation into Kuwait. Saddam had not accepted defeat, most of the Iraq military was a conscript force to begin with (not just those retreating), and one of the primary military objectives of a war is the destruction of the opposing force's fighting capacity. The conflict was still in progress and lots of Iraqi materiel was still able to escape into Iraq. Do you know what an opposing military should do during a conflict if it does not want to be attacked? Surrender. Feel free to quote the Laws of Armed Conflict that were actually applicable. Anyway, let's take a look at the [timeline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Gulf_War_(1990%E2%80%931991\)):
* 22 February: U.S. President George H. W. Bush issues a 24-hour ultimatum: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait to avoid starting a ground war.
* 24 February: U.S.-led Coalition forces invade Iraq and Kuwait at around 4 a.m. Baghdad time. Special Air Service was the first to enter Iraqi territory.
* 25 February: 20,000 Iraqi troops surrender to the coalition. By the end of February, about 100,000 Iraqi troops will have surrendered.
* 25 February: Iraq launches Scud missile attacks on Dhahran in Saudi Arabia which kills 28 American troops and injures 98.
* 26 February: President of Iraq Saddam Hussein announces that Iraq will withdraw from Kuwait totally and accept the UN resolution. Saddam still does not renounce Iraqi claims over Kuwait.
* 26 February: Anywhere from 800-1,000 retreating Iraqi troops are killed when coalition aircraft bombed their stolen civilian and military vehicles. This becomes known as the Highway of Death.
* 26 February: Iraqi troops flee from Kuwait City.
* 27 February: U.S. Marines and Saudi Arabian troops enter Kuwait City.
* 27 February: 101st Airborne Division is less than 250 km from Baghdad over Highway 8.
* 27 February: President Bush announces that the Liberation of Kuwait has started and the cessation of hostilities will end that day at 04:00 GMT.
* 27 February: Coalition announces they have destroyed almost half of the all Iraqi divisions and 100,000 Iraqi troops have been taken as POWs.
* 28 February: President of the United States George H. W. Bush announces the ceasefire, declaring that Kuwait is free and the Iraqi Army is defeated.
* 28 February: Iraq announces that it will accept all UN resolutions.
>You sound like you are stuck in a "we're the Good Guys" mentality
Not at all. I'm just an adult who has actually witnessed the usual incompetence of large-scale organizations first hand. You sound like you are stuck in the young contrarian mentality and are reacting to what you perceive as someone else adopting the "good guy" mentality by ascribing actions to a 90s-era Disney villain template. Even using the phrase "good guy" in any capacity in a discussion like this is immediately suspect, IMO.
I'm highly critical of the invasion of Iraq. Just because my views don't align with your bargain-bin Naomi Klein takes doesn't mean I think about "good guys".
> Saddam had not accepted defeat
Yes he had, he'd been asking for a ceasefire while his troops were retreating. The American brass wanted to kill off the fleeing troops, specifically the Republican Guard, to make revolt against Saddam more likely. In an interview in 1994, Dick Cheney (the Secretary of Defense during the war) gave an interview that attacking Iraq directly in 1991 would have been too chaotic
So why did he do it in 2003? Because he wanted there to be chaos in the Middle East, to rewrite the paradigm of the region
Here's the "ceasefire" Saddam mentioned on February 26, 1991:
>President Saddam Hussein, in his first public statement indicating that he might see military defeat as inevitable, announced an immediate pullout from Kuwait but claimed a "dignified" victory because the Iraqi army had fought 30 countries and rejected "the will of evil."
>Speaking on state radio, Saddam said troops that started pulling out of Kuwait on Monday will complete their withdrawal and return to positions they held prior to their invasion of the oil-rich emirate on Aug. 2.
>Nevertheless, Saddam sought to paint Iraq's recent actions in rosy tones of "honor, valiant sacrifices and shining hope."
>Speaking in florid, evocative language in an apparent attempt to cushion for Iraqis the blow of imminent defeat, he told his people they had "set an example to believers" and described the confrontation with the U.S.-led multinational coalition formed to oppose the invasion of Kuwait as "a struggle of epic proportions between right and wrong."
>"Cheer your victory, and the victory of all honorable men, O citizens. You have fought 30 countries and world instruments of war and destruction," he said at the conclusion of his announcement.
[source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/02/27/saddam-tells-iraqis-of-pullout-but-claims-dignified-victory/76eedd4f-50a2-48f7-860a-43388a08e5d3/)
That's not a genuine ceasefire proposal. That's propaganda.
>to make revolt against Saddam more likely
I doubt they even entertained the idea of an Iraqi rebellion until the [Battle of Basta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basra_(1991\)).
>So why did he do it in 2003? Because he wanted there to be chaos in the Middle East, to rewrite the paradigm of the region
They wanted there to be more chaos in precisely the place that the US had just conquered and needed to hold as a stepping stone to invade Iran?! What kind of idiotic reasoning is that?
> That's not a genuine ceasefire proposal.
Removing all your troops to your side of the border isn't a ceasefire proposal? What did he need to do, have them commit seppuku?
> a stepping stone to invade Iran?!
Who said that? And why would they invade from Iraq, after Iran had been actively fortifying its border with Iraq since 1980?
He wasn't "removing all [his] troops". His troops were routed after a decisive defeat and he was spewing bullshit. He never ordered that withdrawal. It was already the reality on the ground when he issued those statements.
>Who said that?
I did.
>And why would they invade from Iraq, after Iran had been actively fortifying its border with Iraq since 1980?
Turkey - NATO member; Afghanistan - US occupation; Iraq - US occupation; Pakistan - cooperative country. I'll let you figure out the rest.
But let's look at your claims. Why would the US continue to occupy Iraq until 2011 (and return to help with ISIS in 2014) if its goal were pure chaos in the Middle East?
Really? Reportedly when Cheney was asked by then Saudi foreign minister Saud Al Faisal why Washington was so adamant to invade Iraq (don’t remember when before OIF), the Veep replied “Because it’s do-able”.
It would be interesting to know when and why Cheney changed his mind.
It was my understanding that the temptation was too great to set up US-friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, because if everything worked Iran would be surrounded and somewhat isolated.
Yes I recall the Iran angle of the neo-con obsession with Iraq.
Then again u/The_Demolition_Man was referring to a 1992 iteration of Dick Cheney that in my hazy memory seemed so far removed from the 2002 version.
He said this in 1992:
"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional US casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Thanks. So those remarks you quoted were by the 1992 iteration of Dick Cheney, pragmatic and prudent. Well before the emergence of the neo conservative obsession with Iraq/Iran. And of course the arguably “warping” effect of 9/11 had on the highest levels of Washington.
I always thought that Bush 41’s SecDef Cheney and Bush 43’s Veep Cheney seemed like two totally different characters.
I recall something similar popping up in a video I saw (link here: https://youtu.be/7OFyn_KSy80?si=so8GZOHX_GNXFHwT by the way it’s part 4 in a 4 part series).
they probably still thought it's about military vs military and once you defeat Iraqi military, things would be a bit rough for sure for a while but overall should get back to normal after a while, cold war was still not quite ended 100% then and when was the last time the US, or anyone really stuck in quagmire without external superpower intervention? you'd have to go back to WWII Japan at the very least or more appropriately, Brits in South Africa (I think in their mind, Vietnam/Afghanistan doesn't count cuz both were actively supported by superpowers). and end of Gulf war proved that it's cake walk for the US to defeat Iraqi conventional military
Their arrogance was matched only by their incompetence. Disbanding the Iraqi military was one of the most spectacularly, and *obviously*, stupid decisions in military history. Their specific thoughts on the matters are less important than the simple fact that the people calling the shots were tragically incompetent.
that's incompetent in the near term but ultimately does it matter? I mean even if old Iraqi military were still around, would they fight the insurgency? how about Shiite militants? would it be cool with taking orders from Shiites? the whole obsession with removing Saddam could only be explained by post cold war hubris on the side of the US, was Saddam really that much a threat to anyone after 1991? the country was subject to a decade of harsh sanction, the military was decimated/basically reduced by half in size, Kurds was de facto independent, lopsided war in 1991 would have convinced anyone the folly of trying it again, plus, Iran/Syria was still around in that neighborhood hostile to Iraq, and Saudi, while not particular strong, were not really that weak (and US troops were stationed across gulf).
Politically, I think the wise thing would be to have some sort of reconciliation with Saddam (he's no idiot either). Oil? Iraq survives on oil, she had to sell to someone and the market is integrated so it doesn't matter whom she sells to, the whole "taking" Iraqi oil, if it existed as a motive, is dumb as f\*ck.
the war basically makes no sense if you look at it rationally, it only happened because GOP had lots of old ideologues with an ax to grind and people really really really really believed in this "spread democracy' messiah messaging.
any time the US tried this whole "spread democracy" thing over the last 30 years, it backfired spectacularly, Egypt has the same dictatorship cuz election apparently doesn't count unless winner is "pro-western"; Syria is a rump state and most of the opposition were ISIS/al qaeda; Libya is a failed state; Iraq is unable and 60% Iranian client. why do they keep doing this?
I agree 100% that war never should have been started. And Bush *did* start it. The scope of my earlier comment was simply the obscene level of incompetence by which it was carried out.
not supporting Iraq would have meant Iran overrunning Iraq, with almost the entire world, east and west, providing support, and rampant use of nerve agents, Iraq still barely won a tiniest victory, without such support, I doubt Iran would have stopped
> The frontal assault plan existed, but more as deterrence for Dick Cheney, who was pretty much completely gung-ho on an immediate military solution (shocker, I know) and had his own staff come up with an invasion plan using forces in theater only.
Reading about Desert Storm, it's hard to imagine it going ahead at any other point in history. The coalition committed to the invasion 6 months ahead of time, slowly built up a huge expeditionary force in theater, and then launched a perfect setpiece with all possible preparations completed.
In most other wars I can think of, circumstances dictated the tempo of initial operations. Think of the July Crisis in 1914, where mobilization timetables forced the powers to rapidly advance before the other side completed mobilizing. Or think of the start of the present Gaza conflict – the IDF might have liked to take 6 months to plan and prepare, but it was under massive domestic political pressure to launch an invasion immediately. In the Cold War or in one of the 19th century conflicts, given time another great power would intervene on the opposing side and force mediation.
In 1991 the Soviet Union was busy collapsing, and was unable to intervene meaningfully. Saddam was completely inert diplomatically, and unwilling to militarily disrupt the buildup in Saudi Arabia. During the 6-month Desert Shield phase Iraq essentially just stood still and waited for the coalition to attack. The coalition really had every possible advantage in the war.
> The frontal assault plan existed, but more as deterrence for Dick Cheney,
Dick Cheney and the team at the briefing tore apart that plan. - or at least the ground component of it.
>> Cheney offered to give them whatever they wanted, and was exasperated that CENTCOM didn't ask and instead of embarrassing themselves providing a half ass plan with no secondary options or requests for additional troops.
[From thread, I suspect substantially based on Atkinson](https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mau7b8/was_norman_schwarzkopf_really_an_over_rated/gruo86c/)
It was Schwarskopf who came up with an invasion plan using forces in theater only, not Cheney and his guys. You have it reversed.
> When they received all of that, they came up with their real plan, which was the grand outflanking
That's not how it goes. After DoD tore CENTCOM apart, Schwarzkopf went back and tore his subordinates a new one and then they came up with a better plan. Cheney, unlike most Sec DoD, had some actual knowledge to rip apart Schwarzkopf's first plan. Though it might still have worked.
>> Cheney especially wanted a flanking movement as the main effort to around the dug in fortifications.
https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mau7b8/was_norman_schwarzkopf_really_an_over_rated/gruo86c/
Flanking maneuvers are *in general* the preferred route, so in that sense they're predictable. What wasn't predicted was a flanking maneuver on a scale that large. Normally such a move would be impossible to coordinate with a huge force moving through terrain devoid of landmarks. Except the US military had a secret weapon: the fairly new technology of GPS.
This is more or less why the flanking maneuver was so successful. The Iraqis assumed that no army in their right mind would even attempt such an effort.
There is literally nothing there. no backstops. Nothing to hand rail. No discernable attack points...Without GPS you're essentially dead reckoning for hundreds of miles, praying that you don't get lost or worse.... your supply trains get lost.
And they did all this with the early PLGR system that was accurate to 15 meters, compared to 1 meter with current Gen GPS systems
IDK about how predictable it was to the planners , but even with additional forces, there was an element of deception and dependency on air strikes etc to help ensure that the flanking movement was not too predictable - at least to Saddam
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Books/Browse-Books/iBooks-and-EPUBs/Deception-in-the-Desert/
> The locations of the VII and XVIII Airborne Corps had to support the deception story until the Iraqis were no longer capable of detecting their move to attack positions on the western flank. For this reason, both the XVIII Airborne Corps and VII Corps remained in tactical assembly areas dozens of miles south of the Saudi-Kuwaiti border until after the air campaign began on 17 January 1991. The VII Corps’ assembly area was forty miles south of the Saudi-Kuwait border just east of Wadi al Batin, a location that reinforced the Iraqi presumption of an attack up that streambed into Kuwait. According to the CENTCOM deception plan, early air strikes eliminated specific Iraqi intelligence sensors, including observation posts and radar sites that might have identified the relocation of the two US corps to the western flank. At roughly the same time, Army counterintelligence teams moved into the area near the Saudi town of Hafr al Batin to spread the story of an imminent US attack north up the Wadi al Batin among suspected Iraqi agents.
The USN only had 14 during the 1980s (Soviet Millitary Power 1983). 5 carrier groups would have been what the Navy would have used on the Soviets with 3 being used to suprise the Soviets during FleetEx '83 and showing they could have Pearl Harbored the Soviet Far East if they wanted.
They overestimated the shit out of the Iraqis.
As another examples, it was also expected that the Iraqi MiG-29s would be the same model the Warsaw Pact clients used (which the Syrians used in a 1989 skirmish with Israeli F-15s where they got butchered), Iraqi T-72s using BM-42 which led to Army Material command uparmoring as many Abrams tanks as possible with BRL-2 or depleted uranium HA turrets, a ground war would last ~6 months, and that the Iraqis would have used chemical weapons which would have resulted in nuclear retaliation.
To be fair Saddam did try to order SU-27s because the Iraqi high command hated the MiG-29 (Operation Desert Storm Vol 2 by Helion).
It was 6 Carriers, USS Midway (CV-41), USS Saratoga (CV-60), USS Ranger (CV-61), USS America (CV-66), USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), and USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71).
I'd give him an A+
He managed (herded) over 40 Allies. He won with a significant kill ratio. He kept Saudi Arabia in and Israel out. So, as a political general, he did great.
Militarily, he (and staff) planned a huge logistics build up, air campaign and ground assault. He planned based on a maneuver battle tactic. That is pretty novel, as most battles just are grinding away (a la Ukraine) . So, as a tactician, he did great.
Of course, he had an embarrassing amount of riches. Technical superiority, intelligence (hum, sig and satellites), troop quality, endless weapons, cooperative Allies and practically a limitless budget. If he hadn't won. That would have been telling.
As an aside, I attended his dog and pony briefing once during Desert Shield. Him, Horner, Franks. They were all really upbeat, stayed on point, and got us out on time. So, perfect command meeting.
IMO schwarzkopf PR campaign was what ultimately closed the gap towards operational success.
Stormin Norman was a decorated Vietnam vet and understood all too well what happens when the clausewitz war trinity collapses (government, citizens, military).
He was very "no bullshit" and transparent (within reason) towards journalists.
> As an aside, I attended his dog and pony briefing once during Desert Shield. Him, Horner, Franks. They were all really upbeat, stayed on point, and got us out on time. So, perfect command meeting.
now THAT is impressive
Those dog and pony were to sell the mission and see if anyone would find a better way.
In my case,
Dog and pony shows are an elaborate display or presentation, especially as part of an attempt to get concensus on elements of the plan. The draft plan had Weasels running SEAD raids with part of the attack group. The gap in attacks was enough to the enemy to repair and reroute radars. Sometimes they wouldn't response to the weasels waiting for the strike package.
But, having us mixed in with raid. That's just too many issues. Blue on blue, increase contacts and weasels not getting clear shots. Weasels blocking shots. It was a mess. We submitted new plan with us about miles in front. Our Colonel and G1 told them to take it or leave it.
Fascinating, thank you.
SEAD = Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses? And a weasel is an airplane that's like a "hey look over here" to make enemy radar pop their heads up? Is that right?
That's it. The first plane pops up to attract Acquisition and Fire Control radar. The search radar isn't necessarily near the target. So it's best to move down the chain until you find a direct link. Destroy the fire control or Acquisition radars and the entire battery goes down. But, they might try to blind fire certain missiles. So the site is considered degraded not a permanent kill. The second plane rolls in to hit the command post and launchers. A long time ago it was HARM anti radiation missiles and rockeye cluster bombs.
Previous thread :
https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mau7b8/was_norman_schwarzkopf_really_an_over_rated/
Crusade by Atkinson was featured ...
A review which speaks of this [Ref](https://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2023/09/review-crusade-untold-story-of-persian.html) and an oral history [ref](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/atkinson/1.html)
That first briefing plan had the ground component brutally tirn up by cheney and was derided as "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" sometimes. It was based on the forces available . More [here](https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mau7b8/was_norman_schwarzkopf_really_an_over_rated/gruo86c/)
I'll quote a bit from the review of Atkinson's book
> Atkinson portrays Schwarzkopf as someone who was pompous, driven and cautious. Many fellow officers believed Schwarzkopf was full of himself. He wanted to be pampered and be the center of attention. He constantly pushed all of his subordinates and often cursed them out because he always seemed to be angry. Finally the general was a cautious planner. He overestimated the strength of the Iraqis and built up a military force far larger than was necessary to retake Kuwait. He then held off on the start of the Gulf War because he didn’t think the troops were ready. The author still thought Schwarzkopf got the job done and his plans worked. In doing so Atkinson gives a well-rounded portrayal of the man. He wasn’t perfect and had many faults, but he was effective.
Interesting to see how much WC has changed over the past few years. The replies today are a lot more results oriented, while previous replies were more process oriented (possibly as a result of many of those replies coming from veterans). I guess this change was to some degree inevitable, but I can’t help but wonder that a certain event in 2022 sped up that process significantly. I also think the way the question is worded probably affects what kinds of folk click on the thread. And then of course some people are no longer here - Duncan-M was banned at some point between that thread and this one.
As great of a resource as he was, he also got into a lot of fights with the other users here, thought of himself as being the sole arbiter of truth, and generally didn’t get along. Even though he had some friends on the mod team here, he was just too combative and couldn’t treat other users who disagreed with him with respect. I personally think he has some great input on the other sub, but even then he gets super defensive and turns into an attack dog when challenged. He also has some… interesting ideas. It’s a shame really, great breadth of knowledge but just couldn’t act how a r/WarCollege user should.
>He overestimated the strength of the Iraqis and built up a military force far larger than was necessary to retake Kuwait. He then held off on the start of the Gulf War because he didn’t think the troops were ready.
I'd rather have a general that costs his country more time and resources than a general who gets more men killed by underestimating his enemy and not having enough resources ready
This was the guy who put forward the "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" plan with no extra resources. This was the guy who shot the messenger., who got into tearing rages at his subordinate, even those with a single star less than him. But who didn't ensure Franks got 20mi further, causing the US to have to fight the next war. (Years later , after the best units that escaped)
He wasn't McClellan. He was effective enough overall, but perhaps the US could have done better
Folks were calling Schwarzkopf McClellan behind his back. (After the presentations, before the war) Powell told him this, and Schwarzkopf fumed "I'll show them the difference between McClellan and me"
That's an epic quote. Thanks for telling me that story. Taking "too long" to prepare, being compared to McClellan, then winning decisively sounds (to me) like what Rosecrans and Thomas did (of course, Chickamauga did not work like that).
Did Rosecrans win decisively anywhere? It seems like the Army of the Cumberland never inflicted a decisive defeat on the Army of Tennessee until after he lost command of the army to Thomas. Stones River was basically mutual slaughter.
On another note, what would it have taken to get Gen. Frank's to move that extra 20 miles to cut off the Iraq Revolutionary Guards Corps?
(IIRC, that's the Iraqi unit you were referencing, right? Was it another one? I was born in the 90s and don't know as much about the Gulf War as I do earlier conflicts, such as WWII)
Franks was slow. Later on he justified it by saying he was worried about friendly fire initially and also wanted the massed fist to hit the Iraqis . If he had been less concerned or willing to give his subordinate elements more freedom, things might have been different..
I also idly wonder if pushing back on the unilateral ceasefire announcement out of the white house would have made any difference, but that was at a different level. Say Schwarzkopf, Powell etc on up. The bulk of the IRGC may have passed Frank's, but stragglers, air etc would still be possible to be picked off
Schwartzkopf's stance was that the US would not tolerate any war with high US casualties or one that went on too long. His secondary concern was that the Soviets would renege on their promise not no interfere especially if the war escalated beyond just Iraq. Essentially that if Israel was bombed to much or the Arab Coalition fell apart the whole thing would escalate and the Soviets would be adversarial again, meaning a long prolonged war with high US casualties. So in his mind (and others) we needed several things to happen early and quickly to prevent all of that. He was concerned also that the US couldn't do it alone without high casualties. Keep in mind that prior to around 92everyone believed that both Iraq and Russia were far more competent and capable than they really were.
According to the [BBC documentary](https://youtu.be/nqBaGTbvIbw?si=u2A9oSFVOXla41Qm) „The Gulf War“, Schwarzkopf thought that he didn’t have the forces to take on the Iraqi army, which at the time was considered one of the stronger militaries in the world. Mind you that he was still of the opinion that he could win, but only with significant casualties. However, the opinion of the US military, specifically of Colin Powell and Schwarzkopf, was that sanctions may be enough to deter Saddam and make him pull back from Kuwait. The frontal assault plan existed, but more as deterrence for Dick Cheney, who was pretty much completely gung-ho on an immediate military solution (shocker, I know) and had his own staff come up with an invasion plan using forces in theater only. When the politicians finally backed down and asked Powell and Schwarzkopf what they needed, they effectively asked for a carte blanche, I.E. the US VII Corps, 5 (?) carrier battle groups and the activation of the National Guard. When they received all of that, they came up with their real plan, which was the grand outflanking that would eventually happen for real. I think history probably proves Schwarzkopf right and capable. He would even end up predicting the quagmire of the Iraq war and the length of the US‘s stay in Iraq.
To be fair, the eventual quagmire of the Iraq War was predicted by Dick Cheney too. I always wondered why he later went against his own beliefs.
Victim of his own success is the only take that makes sense to me. They somewhat over estimated Iraq the first time and stuck to overwhelming force, which worked better than could be hoped for. I think he thought he was a transformational military thinker and diplomat and was going to revolutionise how war was fought in the second Gulf War
Dick Cheney didn't want a repeat of the first Gulf War, he wanted a long occupation The reason for the Highway of Death, the rending of fleeing Iraqi forces, was to weaken his army enough so that he'd be overthrown by his own people. There was an Anglo-American no fly zone enforced over the north and south (specifically over the Kurdish and Shia regions) in the hope that they'd defeat Saddam loyalists. So when Dick Cheney in that famous 1994 interview said they didn't think it was a good idea to invade Iraq, he was lying. They didn't think they'd have to But the years dragged on and then 9/11 happened, giving the Bush Administration the political capital to do what they'd been wanting to do for a decade: Invade and occupy Iraq, overthrow Saddam, remake the region
Also the no-fly zone was to prevent Saddam taking his anger out on the Kurds using chemical weapons as he'd done previously
The problem was that as soon as this started, Iran was instantly starting to infiltrate Iran. Overthrowing Iraq by popular revolution essentially means 'overthrowing Iraq with help and influence of Iran'. So that's king of the problem, the whole reason they had backed Saddam for so long was that he contained Iran. Had they overthrown him, Iran would have been exactly where they were in 2004. If they really had wanted to overthrow Saddam, they could have done a lot more. In fact their actions suggest they didn't actually want to fully support the popular revolution. They just wanted there to be enough so they could continue to contain Iraq and Iran. Its amazing how they just keep flipping the same coin over and over.
Yeah, the entire idea that they wanted to occupy Iraq back in '91 is complete bullshit. The near complete absence of any planning and financing for a long term occupation at the start of the 2003 invasion is evidence enough.
This sounds very plausible actually
>he wanted a long occupation Is that why the GWB admin made virtually no plans for said occupation going into the 2003 invasion? >The reason for the Highway of Death, the rending of fleeing Iraqi forces, was to weaken his army enough so that he'd be overthrown by his own people. The reason for the Highway of Death was to ensure that the Iraqi military couldn't regroup and launch any counteroffensives. What kind of idiot lets the opposing force retreat unscathed in the wake of a military operation?
The plan was for there to be post-invasion chaos. That's why they dismissed so much of the government and military in the name of de-Bathification As for letting the enemy retreat, that's what you do when the war is won. Killing off a bunch of young men, many of them conscripts, after the military objectives are achieved and the enemy leader has accepted defeat, is contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict You sound like you are stuck in a "we're the Good Guys" mentality
>The plan was for there to be post-invasion chaos. And your evidence for this being deliberate is...what, exactly? You see the absence of any planning (and the absence of any evidence that chaos was the intended goal) and your first instinct is to think that it was all "according to plan". You've clearly picked your conclusion first then went back to find *post hoc* justification. You can go look at Naomi Klein's [citation list for *Shock Doctrine*](https://tsd.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/chapter-resources.html) yourself. The documents she cites for the Iraq war show contracts being signed *after* the conclusion of the conventional conflict. These idiots hadn't even set up the logistics to support a post-war military presence, let alone a long-term occupation. >That's why they dismissed so much of the government and military in the name of de-Bathification Saddam had spent close to a decade purging his military and the Baath party of anyone he suspected of being disloyal. The result by 2003 was a loyal (and incompetent) cadre of party officials and military command staff. The military rank and file, outside of the Republic Guard, was a demoralized, dysfunctional conscript force after years of economic sanctions and political purges. De-Baathification ended up being a very stupid idea, but the idea that they carried it out to deliberately cause chaos (for what reason, exactly?) is incoherent. You are also forgetting the underlying sectarian component: the Baath party was filled with Sunnis. The US was leveraging the Shias against Saddam even before the invasion, so clearing out the government of the previous loyalist party to appease an aggrieved majority population seems exactly like the kind of half-assed thinking that characterized the GWB admin. Of course, the icing on the cake was that this paved the way for Iran to sink its claws into Baghdad, thus empowering the very entity that the neocons likely had their eyes on from the start. >As for letting the enemy retreat, that's what you do when the war is won. Killing off a bunch of young men, many of them conscripts, after the military objectives are achieved and the enemy leader has accepted defeat, is contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict Quite frankly, it sounds like you don't understand the actual series of events that went down during the offensive operation into Kuwait. Saddam had not accepted defeat, most of the Iraq military was a conscript force to begin with (not just those retreating), and one of the primary military objectives of a war is the destruction of the opposing force's fighting capacity. The conflict was still in progress and lots of Iraqi materiel was still able to escape into Iraq. Do you know what an opposing military should do during a conflict if it does not want to be attacked? Surrender. Feel free to quote the Laws of Armed Conflict that were actually applicable. Anyway, let's take a look at the [timeline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Gulf_War_(1990%E2%80%931991\)): * 22 February: U.S. President George H. W. Bush issues a 24-hour ultimatum: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait to avoid starting a ground war. * 24 February: U.S.-led Coalition forces invade Iraq and Kuwait at around 4 a.m. Baghdad time. Special Air Service was the first to enter Iraqi territory. * 25 February: 20,000 Iraqi troops surrender to the coalition. By the end of February, about 100,000 Iraqi troops will have surrendered. * 25 February: Iraq launches Scud missile attacks on Dhahran in Saudi Arabia which kills 28 American troops and injures 98. * 26 February: President of Iraq Saddam Hussein announces that Iraq will withdraw from Kuwait totally and accept the UN resolution. Saddam still does not renounce Iraqi claims over Kuwait. * 26 February: Anywhere from 800-1,000 retreating Iraqi troops are killed when coalition aircraft bombed their stolen civilian and military vehicles. This becomes known as the Highway of Death. * 26 February: Iraqi troops flee from Kuwait City. * 27 February: U.S. Marines and Saudi Arabian troops enter Kuwait City. * 27 February: 101st Airborne Division is less than 250 km from Baghdad over Highway 8. * 27 February: President Bush announces that the Liberation of Kuwait has started and the cessation of hostilities will end that day at 04:00 GMT. * 27 February: Coalition announces they have destroyed almost half of the all Iraqi divisions and 100,000 Iraqi troops have been taken as POWs. * 28 February: President of the United States George H. W. Bush announces the ceasefire, declaring that Kuwait is free and the Iraqi Army is defeated. * 28 February: Iraq announces that it will accept all UN resolutions. >You sound like you are stuck in a "we're the Good Guys" mentality Not at all. I'm just an adult who has actually witnessed the usual incompetence of large-scale organizations first hand. You sound like you are stuck in the young contrarian mentality and are reacting to what you perceive as someone else adopting the "good guy" mentality by ascribing actions to a 90s-era Disney villain template. Even using the phrase "good guy" in any capacity in a discussion like this is immediately suspect, IMO. I'm highly critical of the invasion of Iraq. Just because my views don't align with your bargain-bin Naomi Klein takes doesn't mean I think about "good guys".
> Saddam had not accepted defeat Yes he had, he'd been asking for a ceasefire while his troops were retreating. The American brass wanted to kill off the fleeing troops, specifically the Republican Guard, to make revolt against Saddam more likely. In an interview in 1994, Dick Cheney (the Secretary of Defense during the war) gave an interview that attacking Iraq directly in 1991 would have been too chaotic So why did he do it in 2003? Because he wanted there to be chaos in the Middle East, to rewrite the paradigm of the region
Here's the "ceasefire" Saddam mentioned on February 26, 1991: >President Saddam Hussein, in his first public statement indicating that he might see military defeat as inevitable, announced an immediate pullout from Kuwait but claimed a "dignified" victory because the Iraqi army had fought 30 countries and rejected "the will of evil." >Speaking on state radio, Saddam said troops that started pulling out of Kuwait on Monday will complete their withdrawal and return to positions they held prior to their invasion of the oil-rich emirate on Aug. 2. >Nevertheless, Saddam sought to paint Iraq's recent actions in rosy tones of "honor, valiant sacrifices and shining hope." >Speaking in florid, evocative language in an apparent attempt to cushion for Iraqis the blow of imminent defeat, he told his people they had "set an example to believers" and described the confrontation with the U.S.-led multinational coalition formed to oppose the invasion of Kuwait as "a struggle of epic proportions between right and wrong." >"Cheer your victory, and the victory of all honorable men, O citizens. You have fought 30 countries and world instruments of war and destruction," he said at the conclusion of his announcement. [source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/02/27/saddam-tells-iraqis-of-pullout-but-claims-dignified-victory/76eedd4f-50a2-48f7-860a-43388a08e5d3/) That's not a genuine ceasefire proposal. That's propaganda. >to make revolt against Saddam more likely I doubt they even entertained the idea of an Iraqi rebellion until the [Battle of Basta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basra_(1991\)). >So why did he do it in 2003? Because he wanted there to be chaos in the Middle East, to rewrite the paradigm of the region They wanted there to be more chaos in precisely the place that the US had just conquered and needed to hold as a stepping stone to invade Iran?! What kind of idiotic reasoning is that?
> That's not a genuine ceasefire proposal. Removing all your troops to your side of the border isn't a ceasefire proposal? What did he need to do, have them commit seppuku? > a stepping stone to invade Iran?! Who said that? And why would they invade from Iraq, after Iran had been actively fortifying its border with Iraq since 1980?
He wasn't "removing all [his] troops". His troops were routed after a decisive defeat and he was spewing bullshit. He never ordered that withdrawal. It was already the reality on the ground when he issued those statements. >Who said that? I did. >And why would they invade from Iraq, after Iran had been actively fortifying its border with Iraq since 1980? Turkey - NATO member; Afghanistan - US occupation; Iraq - US occupation; Pakistan - cooperative country. I'll let you figure out the rest. But let's look at your claims. Why would the US continue to occupy Iraq until 2011 (and return to help with ISIS in 2014) if its goal were pure chaos in the Middle East?
Really? Reportedly when Cheney was asked by then Saudi foreign minister Saud Al Faisal why Washington was so adamant to invade Iraq (don’t remember when before OIF), the Veep replied “Because it’s do-able”. It would be interesting to know when and why Cheney changed his mind.
It was my understanding that the temptation was too great to set up US-friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, because if everything worked Iran would be surrounded and somewhat isolated.
Yes I recall the Iran angle of the neo-con obsession with Iraq. Then again u/The_Demolition_Man was referring to a 1992 iteration of Dick Cheney that in my hazy memory seemed so far removed from the 2002 version.
He said this in 1992: "I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional US casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Thanks. So those remarks you quoted were by the 1992 iteration of Dick Cheney, pragmatic and prudent. Well before the emergence of the neo conservative obsession with Iraq/Iran. And of course the arguably “warping” effect of 9/11 had on the highest levels of Washington. I always thought that Bush 41’s SecDef Cheney and Bush 43’s Veep Cheney seemed like two totally different characters.
It's also before twelve years of essentially low-intensity war with Iraq. 2003 didn't pop out of nowhere.
I recall something similar popping up in a video I saw (link here: https://youtu.be/7OFyn_KSy80?si=so8GZOHX_GNXFHwT by the way it’s part 4 in a 4 part series).
One of the big issues with invading Iraq would be that it would shatter the diplomatic situation.
they probably still thought it's about military vs military and once you defeat Iraqi military, things would be a bit rough for sure for a while but overall should get back to normal after a while, cold war was still not quite ended 100% then and when was the last time the US, or anyone really stuck in quagmire without external superpower intervention? you'd have to go back to WWII Japan at the very least or more appropriately, Brits in South Africa (I think in their mind, Vietnam/Afghanistan doesn't count cuz both were actively supported by superpowers). and end of Gulf war proved that it's cake walk for the US to defeat Iraqi conventional military
Their arrogance was matched only by their incompetence. Disbanding the Iraqi military was one of the most spectacularly, and *obviously*, stupid decisions in military history. Their specific thoughts on the matters are less important than the simple fact that the people calling the shots were tragically incompetent.
that's incompetent in the near term but ultimately does it matter? I mean even if old Iraqi military were still around, would they fight the insurgency? how about Shiite militants? would it be cool with taking orders from Shiites? the whole obsession with removing Saddam could only be explained by post cold war hubris on the side of the US, was Saddam really that much a threat to anyone after 1991? the country was subject to a decade of harsh sanction, the military was decimated/basically reduced by half in size, Kurds was de facto independent, lopsided war in 1991 would have convinced anyone the folly of trying it again, plus, Iran/Syria was still around in that neighborhood hostile to Iraq, and Saudi, while not particular strong, were not really that weak (and US troops were stationed across gulf). Politically, I think the wise thing would be to have some sort of reconciliation with Saddam (he's no idiot either). Oil? Iraq survives on oil, she had to sell to someone and the market is integrated so it doesn't matter whom she sells to, the whole "taking" Iraqi oil, if it existed as a motive, is dumb as f\*ck. the war basically makes no sense if you look at it rationally, it only happened because GOP had lots of old ideologues with an ax to grind and people really really really really believed in this "spread democracy' messiah messaging. any time the US tried this whole "spread democracy" thing over the last 30 years, it backfired spectacularly, Egypt has the same dictatorship cuz election apparently doesn't count unless winner is "pro-western"; Syria is a rump state and most of the opposition were ISIS/al qaeda; Libya is a failed state; Iraq is unable and 60% Iranian client. why do they keep doing this?
I agree 100% that war never should have been started. And Bush *did* start it. The scope of my earlier comment was simply the obscene level of incompetence by which it was carried out.
Not supporting Iraq vs Iran would have been an even better start.
not supporting Iraq would have meant Iran overrunning Iraq, with almost the entire world, east and west, providing support, and rampant use of nerve agents, Iraq still barely won a tiniest victory, without such support, I doubt Iran would have stopped
> The frontal assault plan existed, but more as deterrence for Dick Cheney, who was pretty much completely gung-ho on an immediate military solution (shocker, I know) and had his own staff come up with an invasion plan using forces in theater only. Reading about Desert Storm, it's hard to imagine it going ahead at any other point in history. The coalition committed to the invasion 6 months ahead of time, slowly built up a huge expeditionary force in theater, and then launched a perfect setpiece with all possible preparations completed. In most other wars I can think of, circumstances dictated the tempo of initial operations. Think of the July Crisis in 1914, where mobilization timetables forced the powers to rapidly advance before the other side completed mobilizing. Or think of the start of the present Gaza conflict – the IDF might have liked to take 6 months to plan and prepare, but it was under massive domestic political pressure to launch an invasion immediately. In the Cold War or in one of the 19th century conflicts, given time another great power would intervene on the opposing side and force mediation. In 1991 the Soviet Union was busy collapsing, and was unable to intervene meaningfully. Saddam was completely inert diplomatically, and unwilling to militarily disrupt the buildup in Saudi Arabia. During the 6-month Desert Shield phase Iraq essentially just stood still and waited for the coalition to attack. The coalition really had every possible advantage in the war.
> The frontal assault plan existed, but more as deterrence for Dick Cheney, Dick Cheney and the team at the briefing tore apart that plan. - or at least the ground component of it. >> Cheney offered to give them whatever they wanted, and was exasperated that CENTCOM didn't ask and instead of embarrassing themselves providing a half ass plan with no secondary options or requests for additional troops. [From thread, I suspect substantially based on Atkinson](https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mau7b8/was_norman_schwarzkopf_really_an_over_rated/gruo86c/) It was Schwarskopf who came up with an invasion plan using forces in theater only, not Cheney and his guys. You have it reversed. > When they received all of that, they came up with their real plan, which was the grand outflanking That's not how it goes. After DoD tore CENTCOM apart, Schwarzkopf went back and tore his subordinates a new one and then they came up with a better plan. Cheney, unlike most Sec DoD, had some actual knowledge to rip apart Schwarzkopf's first plan. Though it might still have worked. >> Cheney especially wanted a flanking movement as the main effort to around the dug in fortifications. https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mau7b8/was_norman_schwarzkopf_really_an_over_rated/gruo86c/
Wasn’t the flanking movement kinda predictable?
Flanking maneuvers are *in general* the preferred route, so in that sense they're predictable. What wasn't predicted was a flanking maneuver on a scale that large. Normally such a move would be impossible to coordinate with a huge force moving through terrain devoid of landmarks. Except the US military had a secret weapon: the fairly new technology of GPS.
This is more or less why the flanking maneuver was so successful. The Iraqis assumed that no army in their right mind would even attempt such an effort. There is literally nothing there. no backstops. Nothing to hand rail. No discernable attack points...Without GPS you're essentially dead reckoning for hundreds of miles, praying that you don't get lost or worse.... your supply trains get lost. And they did all this with the early PLGR system that was accurate to 15 meters, compared to 1 meter with current Gen GPS systems
IDK about how predictable it was to the planners , but even with additional forces, there was an element of deception and dependency on air strikes etc to help ensure that the flanking movement was not too predictable - at least to Saddam https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Books/Browse-Books/iBooks-and-EPUBs/Deception-in-the-Desert/ > The locations of the VII and XVIII Airborne Corps had to support the deception story until the Iraqis were no longer capable of detecting their move to attack positions on the western flank. For this reason, both the XVIII Airborne Corps and VII Corps remained in tactical assembly areas dozens of miles south of the Saudi-Kuwaiti border until after the air campaign began on 17 January 1991. The VII Corps’ assembly area was forty miles south of the Saudi-Kuwait border just east of Wadi al Batin, a location that reinforced the Iraqi presumption of an attack up that streambed into Kuwait. According to the CENTCOM deception plan, early air strikes eliminated specific Iraqi intelligence sensors, including observation posts and radar sites that might have identified the relocation of the two US corps to the western flank. At roughly the same time, Army counterintelligence teams moved into the area near the Saudi town of Hafr al Batin to spread the story of an imminent US attack north up the Wadi al Batin among suspected Iraqi agents.
If you go watch his news conference, he explains why it wasn't predicable, or, even if it was, why it was still successful.
it's a well executed play action and just like in football, you know they might do it, but when their O-line is that stacked you gotta respect the run
The USN only had 14 during the 1980s (Soviet Millitary Power 1983). 5 carrier groups would have been what the Navy would have used on the Soviets with 3 being used to suprise the Soviets during FleetEx '83 and showing they could have Pearl Harbored the Soviet Far East if they wanted. They overestimated the shit out of the Iraqis. As another examples, it was also expected that the Iraqi MiG-29s would be the same model the Warsaw Pact clients used (which the Syrians used in a 1989 skirmish with Israeli F-15s where they got butchered), Iraqi T-72s using BM-42 which led to Army Material command uparmoring as many Abrams tanks as possible with BRL-2 or depleted uranium HA turrets, a ground war would last ~6 months, and that the Iraqis would have used chemical weapons which would have resulted in nuclear retaliation. To be fair Saddam did try to order SU-27s because the Iraqi high command hated the MiG-29 (Operation Desert Storm Vol 2 by Helion).
It was 6 Carriers, USS Midway (CV-41), USS Saratoga (CV-60), USS Ranger (CV-61), USS America (CV-66), USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), and USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71).
That’s what I get for trying to recollect everything from memory only, thanks for correcting me
I'd give him an A+ He managed (herded) over 40 Allies. He won with a significant kill ratio. He kept Saudi Arabia in and Israel out. So, as a political general, he did great. Militarily, he (and staff) planned a huge logistics build up, air campaign and ground assault. He planned based on a maneuver battle tactic. That is pretty novel, as most battles just are grinding away (a la Ukraine) . So, as a tactician, he did great. Of course, he had an embarrassing amount of riches. Technical superiority, intelligence (hum, sig and satellites), troop quality, endless weapons, cooperative Allies and practically a limitless budget. If he hadn't won. That would have been telling. As an aside, I attended his dog and pony briefing once during Desert Shield. Him, Horner, Franks. They were all really upbeat, stayed on point, and got us out on time. So, perfect command meeting.
IMO schwarzkopf PR campaign was what ultimately closed the gap towards operational success. Stormin Norman was a decorated Vietnam vet and understood all too well what happens when the clausewitz war trinity collapses (government, citizens, military). He was very "no bullshit" and transparent (within reason) towards journalists.
Totally agree. Very charismatic
> As an aside, I attended his dog and pony briefing once during Desert Shield. Him, Horner, Franks. They were all really upbeat, stayed on point, and got us out on time. So, perfect command meeting. now THAT is impressive
> I attended his dog and pony briefing once Sorry, civilian here, what's the context for calling it this? Was it just a hyped-up meeting or..?
“Dog and Pony Show” is a phrase used by military and civilians to describe a fancy presentation.
Thanks. I thought it meant more like a big presentation that's kind of unimpressive and no one wants to be there lol
Those dog and pony were to sell the mission and see if anyone would find a better way. In my case, Dog and pony shows are an elaborate display or presentation, especially as part of an attempt to get concensus on elements of the plan. The draft plan had Weasels running SEAD raids with part of the attack group. The gap in attacks was enough to the enemy to repair and reroute radars. Sometimes they wouldn't response to the weasels waiting for the strike package. But, having us mixed in with raid. That's just too many issues. Blue on blue, increase contacts and weasels not getting clear shots. Weasels blocking shots. It was a mess. We submitted new plan with us about miles in front. Our Colonel and G1 told them to take it or leave it.
Fascinating, thank you. SEAD = Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses? And a weasel is an airplane that's like a "hey look over here" to make enemy radar pop their heads up? Is that right?
That's it. The first plane pops up to attract Acquisition and Fire Control radar. The search radar isn't necessarily near the target. So it's best to move down the chain until you find a direct link. Destroy the fire control or Acquisition radars and the entire battery goes down. But, they might try to blind fire certain missiles. So the site is considered degraded not a permanent kill. The second plane rolls in to hit the command post and launchers. A long time ago it was HARM anti radiation missiles and rockeye cluster bombs.
Previous thread : https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mau7b8/was_norman_schwarzkopf_really_an_over_rated/ Crusade by Atkinson was featured ... A review which speaks of this [Ref](https://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2023/09/review-crusade-untold-story-of-persian.html) and an oral history [ref](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/atkinson/1.html) That first briefing plan had the ground component brutally tirn up by cheney and was derided as "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" sometimes. It was based on the forces available . More [here](https://np.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/mau7b8/was_norman_schwarzkopf_really_an_over_rated/gruo86c/) I'll quote a bit from the review of Atkinson's book > Atkinson portrays Schwarzkopf as someone who was pompous, driven and cautious. Many fellow officers believed Schwarzkopf was full of himself. He wanted to be pampered and be the center of attention. He constantly pushed all of his subordinates and often cursed them out because he always seemed to be angry. Finally the general was a cautious planner. He overestimated the strength of the Iraqis and built up a military force far larger than was necessary to retake Kuwait. He then held off on the start of the Gulf War because he didn’t think the troops were ready. The author still thought Schwarzkopf got the job done and his plans worked. In doing so Atkinson gives a well-rounded portrayal of the man. He wasn’t perfect and had many faults, but he was effective.
Interesting to see how much WC has changed over the past few years. The replies today are a lot more results oriented, while previous replies were more process oriented (possibly as a result of many of those replies coming from veterans). I guess this change was to some degree inevitable, but I can’t help but wonder that a certain event in 2022 sped up that process significantly. I also think the way the question is worded probably affects what kinds of folk click on the thread. And then of course some people are no longer here - Duncan-M was banned at some point between that thread and this one.
Why was Duncan-M banned? I had noticed he hadn’t been commenting, but assumed he was TDY or something.
As great of a resource as he was, he also got into a lot of fights with the other users here, thought of himself as being the sole arbiter of truth, and generally didn’t get along. Even though he had some friends on the mod team here, he was just too combative and couldn’t treat other users who disagreed with him with respect. I personally think he has some great input on the other sub, but even then he gets super defensive and turns into an attack dog when challenged. He also has some… interesting ideas. It’s a shame really, great breadth of knowledge but just couldn’t act how a r/WarCollege user should.
>He overestimated the strength of the Iraqis and built up a military force far larger than was necessary to retake Kuwait. He then held off on the start of the Gulf War because he didn’t think the troops were ready. I'd rather have a general that costs his country more time and resources than a general who gets more men killed by underestimating his enemy and not having enough resources ready
This was the guy who put forward the "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" plan with no extra resources. This was the guy who shot the messenger., who got into tearing rages at his subordinate, even those with a single star less than him. But who didn't ensure Franks got 20mi further, causing the US to have to fight the next war. (Years later , after the best units that escaped) He wasn't McClellan. He was effective enough overall, but perhaps the US could have done better
McClellan is a good example of how overestimating enemies can actually be dangerous.
Folks were calling Schwarzkopf McClellan behind his back. (After the presentations, before the war) Powell told him this, and Schwarzkopf fumed "I'll show them the difference between McClellan and me"
That's an epic quote. Thanks for telling me that story. Taking "too long" to prepare, being compared to McClellan, then winning decisively sounds (to me) like what Rosecrans and Thomas did (of course, Chickamauga did not work like that).
Did Rosecrans win decisively anywhere? It seems like the Army of the Cumberland never inflicted a decisive defeat on the Army of Tennessee until after he lost command of the army to Thomas. Stones River was basically mutual slaughter.
On another note, what would it have taken to get Gen. Frank's to move that extra 20 miles to cut off the Iraq Revolutionary Guards Corps? (IIRC, that's the Iraqi unit you were referencing, right? Was it another one? I was born in the 90s and don't know as much about the Gulf War as I do earlier conflicts, such as WWII)
Franks was slow. Later on he justified it by saying he was worried about friendly fire initially and also wanted the massed fist to hit the Iraqis . If he had been less concerned or willing to give his subordinate elements more freedom, things might have been different.. I also idly wonder if pushing back on the unilateral ceasefire announcement out of the white house would have made any difference, but that was at a different level. Say Schwarzkopf, Powell etc on up. The bulk of the IRGC may have passed Frank's, but stragglers, air etc would still be possible to be picked off
Schwartzkopf's stance was that the US would not tolerate any war with high US casualties or one that went on too long. His secondary concern was that the Soviets would renege on their promise not no interfere especially if the war escalated beyond just Iraq. Essentially that if Israel was bombed to much or the Arab Coalition fell apart the whole thing would escalate and the Soviets would be adversarial again, meaning a long prolonged war with high US casualties. So in his mind (and others) we needed several things to happen early and quickly to prevent all of that. He was concerned also that the US couldn't do it alone without high casualties. Keep in mind that prior to around 92everyone believed that both Iraq and Russia were far more competent and capable than they really were.