Sunday, March 19, 2006

It's a dirty job, part 2

Another brilliant post from Wendy, one of the military analysts at Never Never Land:
Whose miscalculation?

One criticism we're hearing of the war effort is that we didn't send enough troops to Iraq initially. The fact that we're sending more now is presented by some as indisputable evidence of miscalcualtion (sic) by the Admnistration (sic). It is certainly possible that the Adminstration (sic) miscalculated. However, to me it seems more likely that it calculated wisely. There was always a good chance that Iraqi resistance would be limited to the point that the initial force we sent in (a substantial one) would defeat the regime. In that event, it would have been a mistake to have sent a larger force because it would have resulted in unnecessary cost. It turned out that a larger force is necessary, or at least desirable. That force is on the way. Since the initial force was large enough to get to Baghdad without suffering defeat or real damage, little has been lost by not sending in a larger force at the outset. [italics are Spot’s]
Posted by Paul at 12:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) 3/30/03

Remember, this was some eleven days after the invasion began. We’d had a few dustups with Saddam’s fedayeen, and these were being dismissed by people like General Richard Myers and Donald Rumsfeld, as David Brooks, of all people, tells us today in the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Some weeks nothing happens; some weeks change history. The week of March 24, 2003, was one of those pivotal weeks. U.S. troops had just begun the ground invasion of Iraq. They were charging north, but hadn't reached Baghdad. The Fedayeen had begun to launch suicide attacks and were putting up serious resistance in Nasiriya.

Everybody denigrates pundits and armchair generals, but immediately the smartest of them recognized that something unexpected was happening: The U.S. was not in the midst of a conventional war, but was in the first days of a guerrilla war.

The smartest among them certainly does not include our friend Wendy!

Tags: misreads the again

No comments: