May 10

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sun May 15, 2011 9:29 pm

By that logic the German invasion of France failed since it didn't knock Britain out of the war.
The invasion of France purpose was to defear France. In order to defeat the brave britons the germans had another operation, Sea Lion, which failed miserably.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Sun May 15, 2011 9:43 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
By that logic the German invasion of France failed since it didn't knock Britain out of the war.
The invasion of France purpose was to defear France.
Eactly my point.
In order to defeat the brave britons the germans had another operation, Sea Lion, which failed miserably.
I'd argue that they never tried it. Although if you consider the Battle of Britain part of it then yes it did indeed fail.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Tue May 17, 2011 8:16 am

There is I think a problem of definition here.

Ejecting the ''Iraqi's from Kuwait'' from a military strategic standpoint includes dissolving the Iraqi's capability of returning or causing further international trouble. That means removing the Iraqi dictator. From a British or American politicians standpoint the thinking is more limited and short term. So they don't finish the job. They call it off as soon as the minmum requirement is achieved.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Tue May 17, 2011 12:51 pm

RF wrote:There is I think a problem of definition here.

Ejecting the ''Iraqi's from Kuwait'' from a military strategic standpoint includes dissolving the Iraqi's capability of returning or causing further international trouble.
Not really. There's no implication at all that that is required. Just like the invasion of France didn't require the fall of the British Empire to be successful.
That means removing the Iraqi dictator. From a British or American politicians standpoint the thinking is more limited and short term. So they don't finish the job. They call it off as soon as the minmum requirement is achieved.
Actually the US would just as soon have gone ahead and removed Sadam. Several other countries in the alliance including the Saudis didn't want that. Primarily because they saw Sadam as a counter weight to Iran.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue May 17, 2011 3:57 pm

lwd:
Actually the US would just as soon have gone ahead and removed Sadam. Several other countries in the alliance including the Saudis didn't want that. Primarily because they saw Sadam as a counter weight to Iran.
Stormy Norman and the Brits wanted Saddam dead and Bagdad ocuppied. A great burden of responsability lays in Colin Powel who advise Bush Sr. to stop the war. According to a TIme article Powel was falling to pieces because of what happened at the Basra highway (death highway). Afterwards Powell showed again that he was not a tough military commander at all with Bush Jr.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: May 10

Post by Bgile » Tue May 17, 2011 4:39 pm

If you actually read about the coalition agreement, you will see that there was no authorization to go past the Iraqi border. There were no military plans to do so. No lines on a map with phase lines, no supply organization, nothing. The Arab cooperation was dependent on not invading Iraq. It's as simple as that.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue May 17, 2011 5:05 pm

The original situation in Korea was very much like the one in Kuwait: a dictum from the UN to go ONLY to defend South Korea. But as soon Mac landed at Inchon then Truman decided to invade North Korea. It was done even then considering that... "There were no military plans to do so. No lines on a map with phase lines, no supply organization, nothing..." Plans change and have changed in ALL wars. In this case there is evidence that some military commanders thought, as was plain obvious to even a schoolchild, that leaving Saddam alive will be an issue (that was 100% correct and which is why the US invaded, again, in 2003). Is like trying to liberate France from the nazis in 1944 but not invade Germany afterwards.
The articles from Time and Newsweek are there, written at the moment. And Powel's conduct is not alien, it was the way he is always been.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Tue May 17, 2011 6:00 pm

I wouldn't rely on Time of an assessement of anything military. Just looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War ... er_1950.29 it appears that crossing the 38th parallel was under consideration before Inchon. The only prohibition being if there was signficant Chinese or Soviet intervention on the side of North Korea.

In ODS some of our allies signed on with the clear understanding that operations would cease once Kuwait was liberated. It was and they did (sort of). The campaign may have continued officially a bit longer if the BDA had been more accurate but at the time there looked to be little rational for continuing.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: May 10

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed May 18, 2011 1:41 am

lwd:
I wouldn't rely on Time of an assessement of anything military.
Correct. But that will leave also almost all publishing from the US, starting by the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN and so on. Last time I saw they were using Wesley Clarck as an "expert" in military situations.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Wed May 18, 2011 8:10 am

Bgile wrote:If you actually read about the coalition agreement, you will see that there was no authorization to go past the Iraqi border. There were no military plans to do so. No lines on a map with phase lines, no supply organization, nothing. The Arab cooperation was dependent on not invading Iraq. It's as simple as that.
Iraq was invaded by ground forces to degrade the Republican Guard divisions as fighting units. When that job was half done the Coalition forces pulled out.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Wed May 18, 2011 8:14 am

lwd wrote:
RF wrote:There is I think a problem of definition here.

Ejecting the ''Iraqi's from Kuwait'' from a military strategic standpoint includes dissolving the Iraqi's capability of returning or causing further international trouble.
Not really. There's no implication at all that that is required. Just like the invasion of France didn't require the fall of the British Empire to be successful.
This is completely wrong. And the fact that this type of thinking is wrong made the 2003 operation to finish the job necessary.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: May 10

Post by RF » Wed May 18, 2011 8:16 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:lwd:
Actually the US would just as soon have gone ahead and removed Sadam. Several other countries in the alliance including the Saudis didn't want that. Primarily because they saw Sadam as a counter weight to Iran.
Stormy Norman and the Brits wanted Saddam dead and Bagdad ocuppied. A great burden of responsability lays in Colin Powel who advise Bush Sr. to stop the war. According to a TIme article Powel was falling to pieces because of what happened at the Basra highway (death highway). Afterwards Powell showed again that he was not a tough military commander at all with Bush Jr.
In Britain it was published that Prime Minister John Major talked US President George Bush into calling off the incursions into Iraq and that Colin Powell endorsed that decision.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Wed May 18, 2011 1:06 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:lwd:
I wouldn't rely on Time of an assessement of anything military.
Correct. But that will leave also almost all publishing from the US, starting by the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN and so on. Last time I saw they were using Wesley Clarck as an "expert" in military situations.
IMO newspapers shouldn't be sources of analysis they are for reporting news (when run correctly) although they are often also propoganda organs for various causes. Weekly magazines are little better.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: May 10

Post by lwd » Wed May 18, 2011 1:11 pm

RF wrote:
Bgile wrote:If you actually read about the coalition agreement, you will see that there was no authorization to go past the Iraqi border. There were no military plans to do so. No lines on a map with phase lines, no supply organization, nothing. The Arab cooperation was dependent on not invading Iraq. It's as simple as that.
Iraq was invaded by ground forces to degrade the Republican Guard divisions as fighting units. When that job was half done the Coalition forces pulled out.
There were incursions into Iraq but they were designed to cut off the Iraqii forces in Kuwait. Since those included several Republican Guard units you are sort of right. Said units did have their fighting power degraded so the job was hardly "half done". It is true that some of the Republican Guard units were relativly intact when a ceasefire was called but it was pretty graphically demonstrated that they had little fighting power compared to allied units in the area.
RF wrote:
lwd wrote:
RF wrote:There is I think a problem of definition here.
Ejecting the ''Iraqi's from Kuwait'' from a military strategic standpoint includes dissolving the Iraqi's capability of returning or causing further international trouble.
Not really. There's no implication at all that that is required. Just like the invasion of France didn't require the fall of the British Empire to be successful.
This is completely wrong. And the fact that this type of thinking is wrong made the 2003 operation to finish the job necessary.
Then show me how it's wrong. I certainly don't see it and your proclomation doesn't past muster as proof.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: May 10

Post by Bgile » Wed May 18, 2011 4:33 pm

RF wrote:
Bgile wrote:If you actually read about the coalition agreement, you will see that there was no authorization to go past the Iraqi border. There were no military plans to do so. No lines on a map with phase lines, no supply organization, nothing. The Arab cooperation was dependent on not invading Iraq. It's as simple as that.
Iraq was invaded by ground forces to degrade the Republican Guard divisions as fighting units. When that job was half done the Coalition forces pulled out.
Point me to a reliable source which says the US Army was authorized by the coalition to invade Iraq.

Post Reply