All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Friday, July 16, 2004

Not enough troops in Iraq?
Anonymous wrote
"They should have stationed more troops in Fallujah and throughout Iraq to suppress the insurgency."
Anon, you are making a common mistake, which you often hear parroted wrongly on the TV news.

The Army had plenty of troops in Fallujah. First the 3ID then the 82nd. But the local people rioted when the 3ID clamped down on insurgent activity. When the 82nd Ariborne division took over, in order to avoid a fight or be seen as being opressive, the US commanding general decided to move his troops to bases outside of town. The local leadership and IP promised that they would contain the radicals within the town (the general bought a bridge).

This was a huge strategic blunder on the part of the commander of the 82nd. There were always plenty of troops. The problem was that most of them were sitting around doing nothing, or patrolling areas that were removed from the actual hot spots.

Let us be bold and name the guilty party: Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, Jr.

There were always plenty of troops. The problem was poor intelligence, poor operational deployment, and too many troops carrying out cold war jobs that were basically useless.
Posted by: Zayphar / 7/16/2004 12:31:00 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home