The Clipboard: Rumsfeld sent too few troops, say retired generals

From an article¹:

As coalition troops became stretched to the limit and supply lines increasingly vulnerable to attack, retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said that Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, had ignored warnings that he was underestimating the number of troops needed. "If they (the Iraqis) actually fight . . . it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," he said. (link)

Damn. I do not like the sound of this at all. The job of the politicians is to decide what wars to get into, the job of the generals is to decide how to fight them. Rumsfeld should let his people do their jobs instead of doing it for them.

I'm against the war, but for God's sake, if you're going to put troops in the field, put in enough to do the job right and make sure they'll be prepared in case something goes wrong.

I don't want to have to add reckless endangerment of American troops in pursuit of a political goal to the list of reasons why I oppose this war policy.

---

Complete text of the article, Rumsfeld sent too few troops, retired generals say, by Tim Reid and Michael Evans

The US-led invasion force heading to Baghdad is too small, several veteran commanders from the last Gulf War say. One gave warning yesterday that coalition forces might suffer 3,000 casualties in the battle for Baghdad.
As coalition troops became stretched to the limit and supply lines increasingly vulnerable to attack, retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said that Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, had ignored warnings that he was underestimating the number of troops needed. “If they (the Iraqis) actually fight . . . it’s going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties,” he said.

Mr McCaffrey said that the invasion force should have included at least one other heavy Army division. Mr Rumsfeld’s obsession with a smaller ground force had left the 300-mile supply line from Kuwait towards Baghdad largely unprotected.

Two other retired Gulf War ground commanders, Lieutenant-General Thomas Rhame and Major-General William Nash, added their voices to growing concerns within the US military establishment that Mr Rumsfeld’s plan for a “rolling start” to the invasion — in which combat actions begin before the arrival of all ready forces — was built on a misguided assumption that victory would be swift and easy.

Mr Rumsfeld had misjudged the conflict’s nature. Mr McCaffrey said. Asked if the Defence Secretary had been mistaken not to send more troops to start the offensive, he said: “Yes, sure. I think everybody told him that. I think he thought these were generals with feet planted in World War Two, that didn’t understand the new way of warfare.”

While stating his belief that Baghdad would fall, he added: “We’ve never done something like this with this modest a force at such a distance from its bases.”

Mr Rhame said: “We would be much better off if we had another heavy division on the ground and an armoured cavalry regiment to deal with the mission in the rear.”

The generals’ warnings echo those of two of America’s most senior serving generals, who gave warning in December that the Pentagon’s civilian leaders were in danger of believing that victory would come easily. General Eric Shinseki, chief of the US Army, and General James Jones, commandant of the US Marine Corps, were reported as harbouring fears that the war plan dangerously underestimated the risks of invading Iraq.

The lack of a northern front after Turkey’s refusal to allow 62,000 American troops to be based in the country is affecting the whole structure of the war plan. With only between 100,000 and 150,000 American and British combat troops available for prosecuting the war on the ground — the remainder of the land forces are logistics and support personnel — there has been no move yet to send any of the formations up to the north to apply pressure on Baghdad from that direction. All three of the Republican Guard armoured divisions and one infantry division have been able to take up defensive positions around Baghdad, to the south, east and west, to face the Americans arriving from Kuwait, without worrying about their backs.

Although both American and British military commanders insisted yesterday that they had enough troops to overcome Iraqi opposition, the coalition does not appear to have a strategic reserve division to fall back on if the drive to Baghdad gets bogged down.

The Pentagon gave warning recently that without a northern front, deploying the 4th Infantry Division with elements of the 1st Cavalry Division in Turkey, the war would be longer and more dangerous.

Mr Rumsfeld countered yesterday: “The plan was approved by all the commanders. It is a good plan, a plan which in 4?-5 days has put ground forces within a few miles of Baghdad. Forces are increasing in the country every minute of every day.”

General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “It’s a brilliant plan and it’s right on track.”

It will still be several weeks before the 4th Infantry Division is fully deployed in Kuwait, and unless General Tommy Franks, the coalition commander, puts the battle for Baghdad on hold, the tanks and artillery of the 4th Division, the “Iron Horse”, will be late players.

Royal Marine commando units have had to be deployed to the Iran border because of fears that the Iranians might exploit the war in Iraq for their own interests. The 7th Armoured Brigade has been tied up surrounding Basra instead of joining the Americans in advancing to Baghdad, as was expected before the campaign.

reference=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-624021,00.html