1990-91 Gulf War briefing General Norman Schwarzkopf part 2
Top Comments
All Comments (34)
-
Schwarzkopf's plan is pretty much the same as Montgomery's plan at El Alamein
-
@Hperman09 After invasion with 3rd ID, 82nd, 101st 1st MEF, we had 1st AD and 1st CAV in Kuwait. Additional 30,000 troops which was not used, led to further deteriation of Baghdad.LTG McKiernan head of CLLC in Kuwait was quite upset.
-
@Hperman09 Good thought man. Yes, agree, we didn't have enough troops. Rumsfeld didn't want large amt of troops;otherwise Americans would not support the invasion. 300,000 to 400,000 troops needed for occupation was known 10 yrs prior as researched by Central Command after Scwarzkoff left. It required 12 Army and 2 marine divisions. In late 1990's, the # dwindled to 8 Army and 2 marine divisions as added pressure from Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. Gen Zinni narrowed it down.
-
@CosmoShidan Not like 3rd world countries like Cuba, Somalia, North Korea, and China. Iran is a 3rd world country. I mean Kuwait is for example has a very good economy. Iraq should have been like that if we did it in 1991.
-
@Hperman09 2nd world? You mean along the lines of living standards of the former Eastern Block?
-
@CosmoShidan Iran was also bordered with Iraq and backed Al-Qaeda insurgents who was blowing up civilians on daily basis in Iraq once Saddam was removed. In fact, Saddam manage to keep eyes checked in Iran and even rooted out Al-Qaeda in Iraq We botched it up with not enough troops on the ground and a plan to install a leader that could have prevent the insurgency.
Had we done this in 1991 where it's well planned and have the Coalition/UN support us, Iraq would been a 2nd world country.
-
@Hperman09 Interesting points! If Baghdad fell in '91, would the domino effect that has taken place this year occurred much sooner? On another note, Bush Jr. should have learned from Korea!
-
@CosmoShidan We were on the point of adopting a plan how to control Iraq in '91 but since the Coalition and the UN voted not going into Badgdad, we abandoned it. The real problem in the 2003 Iraq war is that we didn't have enough troops, no economic, and political plan. Plus we botched up the war by went in half-heartly so with no enough troops and with the Iraqi Army disbanded was fillled in with insurgents. And fixing does take a long time like the aftermath of WW2 and Korea for example.
-
@Hperman09 Still, would that not be costly to have to put the infrastructure of Iraq back together as well as personnel and material? Also don't the other allied nations have their own domestic problems to contend with? Moreover, is there any other way to avoid a Sun Tzu-esque scenario like 2003?
-
@CosmoShidan Actually H.W. Bush Sr. requested to the UN to he be allowed to push through Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein's regime from power. Only UK and Australia agreed but the rest of the coalition is not. That's what Norman said in 1997. We didn't have enough support. If the UN and our allies agreed to go with us and depose Saddam Hussein's regime from power and conduct an occupation in 1991 with more troops, the insurgency would have been avoided. In 2003 Iraq war, it's not the case.
stormin' norman!!!
reliablethreat23 3 years ago 14
the "BIG DOG" a very smart man... just like playing chess, fake going right then come hard with the left hook.." Checkmate"
cherylz1 3 years ago 5