Chairman mao wrote:

E. L. Koba wrote:

That's the key. Rumsfelds (the civilian) plan would have failed. In his plan, only 50,000 ground troops were needed. Super amazing high tech air power would win the war in a week, and the ground troops would roll in with no resistance. The current plan is a compromise, and has not failed. It just hasn't been as easy as the media was making it out to be. The "rolling deployment" was to satisfy Rumsfeld and the top Army commanders. The pentagon wanted at least 6 divisions. That plan would have been a little better, but we are still doing amazingly well.

This is also the key; the press was thumping the war drum feverishly leading up to this, swallowing everything Rumsy and Co. threw at them and shitting yellow journalism all over the nation. Now that it hasn't turned into a turkey shoot, they're all freaking out because their guys may not be home in time to collect their awards.

Yes, it is against all military knowledge to have three divisions up front, without at least one in reserve (to protect supply lines and to guard against breakthroughs). But Rumsfeld and Co are obsessed with "transformational warfare" and unconventional tactics. Well guess what. You don't get style points in war. There is no virtue in being outnumbered. War is about bringing as much violence as you can against the enemy. You can't do that without boots and tracks on the the ground. Lots of them.

You know that, aspiring armchair soldiers like myself know that, but it scares me still that there are people so starry-eyed about the whole affair that this compromise had to take place at all.