Toppling Saddam: Iraq and American Military Transformation
July 27, 2004 10:01 AM   Subscribe

Toppling Saddam: Iraq and American Military Transformation (pdf) The relative speed and ease of the first phase of the war in Iraq are due in part to U.S. military prowess, but also to Iraqi weakness, according to a critical internal account prepared for the U.S. Army."The shortcomings of Saddam's military played an important role in limiting the cost of major combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Coalition strengths were important contributors, but so were Iraqi weaknesses."As a result, there are "important limitations on the Iraq War's lessons for other defense planning challenges.... The Iraqis' shortcomings created a permissive environment for Coalition technology that a more skilled opponent elsewhere might not," according to the study Foreword. The study, which does represent an official U.S. Army perspective, has not been formally released. See also Joe Galloway: Don't Take Too Much From U.S.' Iraq War Experience See also The Fallacies Of Military Transformation See also Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict See also Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare
posted by y2karl (19 comments total)
A war in Iraq?

Did you reconsider before posting, or just ignore that line?
posted by hama7 at 11:47 AM on July 27, 2004

Thanks, y2k, that was an interesting read. Reminds me of the stories of Army higher-ups stopping war games because the 'other guys' were doing too well and were making the fancy tech look useless.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:02 PM on July 27, 2004

thanks karl
posted by matteo at 12:08 PM on July 27, 2004

Well, aren't the links supposed to be new to the web, that it be unlikely they have ever been seen before? The report is new to the web and is not a news story or an op-ed and it did take some work to find it.

New to the web: unlike another recent contribution--did you reconsider before posting, or just ignore that phrase?
posted by y2karl at 2:01 PM on July 27, 2004

I suspect the line hama7 was referring to was "If you're going to make a post related to Iraq, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times." It's right on the page where one writes posts, where I'm sure both y2karl and hama7 have had plenty of opportunities to read it. As for the phrase "new to the web", I had less luck locating that; a quick googling shows only six results, none of which refer to post guidelines.
posted by boaz at 3:02 PM on July 27, 2004

I propose that the United State military become 24% weaker; future invasions take 19% longer, and Europe, most Metafilter readers, and Noam Chomsky can sleep sounder.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:06 PM on July 27, 2004

I am reminded of the tale of a jealous small boy, whose little sister had just done very well at a dance recital. All the adults were admiring her in her outfit, as she was showing some of her ballet moves at home, and they were impressed with how skilled she was.

The small boy just couldn't take it anymore, and dove under the table, red in the face and screaming and crying as loud as he could, "You're stupid! You're ugly! Cut it out god damn it! Damn you to hell!" while pounding his fists on the floor.

Denial is just the first step in learning the truth.
posted by kablam at 3:22 PM on July 27, 2004

...and I was that boy!!! *sob*

Seriously, this is a great post, y2karl.
ParisParamus: what are you talking about?! I don't think you even read the text of the post, let alone the linked articles.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:37 PM on July 27, 2004

Honestly? This time I did not read the posted materials. But I have a fair idea how the headlines will be interpreted by most of the readers here, and decided to address that...
posted by ParisParamus at 3:48 PM on July 27, 2004

Denial is just the first step in learning the truth.

Judging from your predictions of record here, you are quite the expert on denial.
posted by y2karl at 3:52 PM on July 27, 2004

Links are links and can actually be posted with no editorial implied or attached--just like on C-SPAN.
I found an interesting primary source. It came with no conclusions by me. Make of it what you will.
posted by y2karl at 4:04 PM on July 27, 2004

Judging from your predictions of record here, you are quite the expert on denial.

Guess what?

Y2karl has a big, fat opinion about the war in Iraq. Again.

Despite the posting guidelines, he has dumped a big, fat post about it on MetaFilter. Again.

And so on.
posted by hama7 at 4:31 PM on July 27, 2004

Sheesh. I doubt some read beyond the word "Iraq" before having yet another big fat knee-jerk tantrum over the scary possibility of yet another big fat scary challenge to your world view.

Funny how the mere word "Iraq" does that to a few here and there. I mean, hell, we know our gutless little invasion turned out to be the stuff of nightmares, but I wasn't aware how much we need to walk on eggshells around some over the issue. And exactly where was karl's opinion expressed....and so what if it had been?

The main link and most of the supporting detail is about a major study done by those loony liberals at the big fat friggin' UNITED STATES ARMY WAR COLLEGE, fer chrissakes. Yeah. How commie is that?

So, please Karl...try not to post from any more discredited commie, peace-mongering, traitorous sources like that....


See also "Military Operations: Fiscal Year 2004 Costs for the Global War on Terrorism Will Exceed Supplemental, Requiring DOD to Shift Funds from Other Uses".
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 5:54 PM on July 27, 2004

"Boiled down, what the best thinkers in the Army are saying is that we cannot count on winning all future wars with two Special Forces A Teams and an Air Wing. Even with all the high-tech stuff, all the precision GPS-guided bombs, all the blinking markers on blue flat-panel screens, you may very well need Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles and Apache helicopters and well-trained infantrymen to whip your next enemy."

really? How stunning. This guy means we still need tanks and planes?

"They argue that advanced technology in the hands of the allies and a major difference in the level of training and skill between the opposing forces “enabled a small but skilled coalition force to defeat the world’s 12th-largest military at very low cost.”

really, wow. stunning. Like the germans in 1939-1940. Right? All that high tech armor and tactics and training can win battles.
posted by clavdivs at 7:32 PM on July 27, 2004

Please shoot me : I agree with hama7.

posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:43 PM on July 27, 2004

whose little sister had just done very well at a dance recital

yeah, but you forgot the part where the little girl, at the end of the recital, gave those cute little Fascist, warmongering speech about how My Lai was very nice and Negroes shouldn't mess with white women or they'll end up in jail for a long time and a few thousand Iraqi civilians dead are OK retribution for 9-11and gays are second-class citizens

sometimes the girl's speeches are not neven little and cute, but even big and fat. so it's not all about the dance recital, really

but anyway fuck karl for linking commie sources like the famously cowardly, treasonous Foreign Affairs.

it's just so nice at times to see and hear the armchair warmongers throw bitter tantrums, now that their little war has turned into an American GI killing machine, a budget buster, a moral and public relations disaster that showed to the world how Bush's War is a sad laughingstock.

the weight of all that innocent blood must be too much to bear at times, even for the most coldhearted sons of bitches.
maybe there's still hope for them, who knows. maybe they do have nightmares at times, about all those screaming Iraqis, all those US-flag-draped coffins secretly flying back home
posted by matteo at 2:15 AM on July 28, 2004

Y2karl has a big, fat opinion about the war in Iraq. Again.

That was a link--not an opinion. There is a difference.

And so on.
posted by y2karl at 3:06 PM on July 29, 2004

« Older Band2Band   |   I wasn't even supposed to be here today Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments