Pentagon Plans To Cut U.S. Military to pre World War II Levels!!

As opposed to body counts? Yeah, some of us are funny that way.

Donald Rumsfeld was much maligned by thinking he could deal with invading Iraq with nothing but special forces and air strikes - Dayton 3
Hold on a second now. Special Fores and air strikes were pretty much all we needed to invade Iraq. I was one of those initial "invaders."
The invasion went great :nuts: - but the next eight or so years not so much.

@Paladin, how does us not selling arms to the Iraqis translate into us needing more troops?

I see it entirely neutrally. We've been using/misusing technology since we figured out rocks could either be used to hit the hissing fanged thing keeping us out of the nice cave, or could be equally applied to Uggs skull in order to have his share of meat and berries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iraq_(2003)_order_of_battle

The order of battle would suggest otherwise. Unless you have evidence the invasion would've differed little without all those divisions

Ah, here we go. Gen. Armchair dismisses "the Wikipedia" when someone else cites it, but will now employ it as his WMD against the argument of the guy who was actually there doing the fighting.

Doesn't get any more comical than this...

Is the wikipedia entry accurate or not? It is accurate on some things, partially on others, inaccurate on others.

I see no reason to dismiss this. I already remembered the Marine Units involved and the Third Infantry Division.

Now yes, I applaud oldfella1962 for his service,

But his assertion that for the invasion of Iraq Special Fores and air strikes were pretty much all we needed is patently false as shown by actual events.

In and of itself, it doesn't. But we wouldn't have to worry about Iraq getting too cozy with Iran if we still had forces there.

It illustrates my point: where you surrender influence...someone else gains it.

@Dayton3: I assume you can at least acknowledge that the 2003 invasion used significantly fewer soldiers than the 1991 invasion. What are your thoughts on why that was possible?

I just find the juxtaposition amusing.

The 1991 invasion NEVER required the 500,000+ the U.S. used. About 250,000 was considered sufficient but Colin Powell (who opposed the attack in the first place) tried to intimidate President Bush by recommending a monstrously huge force he never expected President Bush to approve.

Also, the U.S. had not fought as large a land war as the liberation of Kuwait in decades. There was lots of uncertainty as to how American weapons, tactics and training would work and a great deal of exaggeration about the capabilities of Iraq's Soviet built military.

In 2003, the U.S. had a great deal more information about the effectiveness of Saddam Husseins forces and the general decline in their condition over the last 12 years.

Now here's what your article left out. The Australian special forces annialated the airfields before Bush finished saying "let's roll."
Granted I'm coming from the aviation side of the house. When we arrived to set up the airfields, the Aussies had finished their job, leaving smoking ruins in their wake.
I was there dude, from the git-go.

One of the reason a lot of people laugh at the 173rd's Mustard Stain, by the time they made their 'Combat Drop' C-17s were already landing at the SF controlled airstrips next door.

So? The Australian special forces performed superbly.

Are you actually maintaining that the defeat of Iraq could've been accomplished WITHOUT the army and Marine divisions that rolled into Baghdad (and other cities)?

And you being there from the "git go" means little to me given it is an anecdotal account. I have several from other people who were there also which contradict yours.

Something more amusing than Garamet musings on me using wikipedia.

She has denounced anecdotal evidence routinely before.

Yet applauds your anecdotal account.

OH, NO, YOU DI-INT! :behindsofa:

Just off hand, I have four first cousins who served in Iraq.

Thus when it comes down to it, why should I disregard my four accounts to his one?

Not really. Or did you miss that part about being forced to buy equipment that they don't need or want? Or that part about how the various drone projects aren't exactly cheap?

Yeah, because they're cutting back so much on everything else.

Because they're not your accounts.

Apparently you forgot about the people the machines would be killing.

On the contrary.

Did you miss the part about warthogs and U2s? And no doubt there is more. The budget is being cut, you can't simply say yeah, but we're still gonna buy all this shit.

Ah, yes, the Warthog, which is a tough, reliable ground support aircraft being replaced by a high-tech, high-cost, short-range fighter. And the U-2, an old aircraft that's been continually updated and improved, which is being replaced by robots that can cost as much or more once you add up the development costs. And also both things that the Air Force have been talking about retiring for decades in favor of sexier, more costly replacements it feels better represents the image it wants to project of itself.

No doubt the Marines and Army combat troops were a big factor. I'm just saying from my particular unit (air traffic control and aviation in general) we could roll into a formerly occupied by Iraqis airfield and set up shop in a pretty much secure area so that we could rain down misery on the Iraqi military who didn't haul ass, thanks to the Aussies. Aviation isn't sexy or exciting or photogenic but very necessary. Kind of like Jimi Hendrix's bass player - you don't notice us until we're not there.

Someone has to fly the drones Einstein

Slap their wives and hope their religion prevents their wives from slapping back.

The A-10 has been hated by parts of the Air Force for more than 30 years for various reasons:

1) When it was being flown during the Cold War, it had a high rate of crashes due to being flown into the ground during low level training (the USAF tends to not like airplanes that crash regardless of the reasons.
2) On close support missions which it is famous for, the exact mission of the A-10 is often controlled by forward observers (i.e. Army observers). (the USAF tends to not like having to pay for aircraft it does not control).
3) The A-10 is a pure ground attack aircraft. The USAF sees its PRIMARY role as "obtaining air superiority" which has historically meant chasing down Migs at 20,000 feet.
4) The the image conscious USAF, the A-10 mission shooting at tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, et cetera is seen as particularly unglamorous.

Just because generals of the USAF say they don't need it does NOT mean they actually don't need it.

Because you weren't there, which means little to us given it is an anecdotal account.

You often dismiss denounce anecdotal evidence routinely when it is not from you, yet applaud your own anecdotal accounts routinely. Or read about them.

I did not bring up anecdotal evidence to begin with. That was oldfella who seemed to imply that his "being there" trumped actual online sources.

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to get involved in this conversation.