Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. New: view Recent Searches.
New: visit Schematic Hell!
The sunn still shines online!

Listen to great tunes streaming live right now!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  

is it true that Rumsfeld has tried to teach generals...

3/30/2003 5:11 PM
Kursad K is it true that Rumsfeld has tried to teach generals...
...their own job and that's why US has an inadequate number of troops in Iraq and a war plan that no sane general would agree?  
3/30/2003 7:41 PM
Mark Lavelle
Re: is it true that Rumsfeld has tried to teach generals
Probably, but Bush & Cheney are sure to do their best to keep it a secret until they're dead & gone...
Book Of The Day The Ultimate Tone, Volume III by Kevin O'Connor
Have you ever wondered if there is a better way to build a Bassman, Champ, Plexi, an 800, AC-30, Bulldog or Portaflex? Or you wanted to build an SVT with off-the-shelf parts? How about a master-volume amp that doesn’t change tone with the master setting? Everything you need to know is right here, including: proper grounding techniques, wiring methods, and mechanical considerations. Eighteen chapters cover the “iconic” amps everyone knows and loves, with schematics and layouts for each, along with the technical history of the product. Eyelet-board and chassis-mounted tube socket construction is used throughout, for easy servicing and modding. TUT3 is very accessible even if you cannot fully read a schematic and is a "must have" if you are going to build an amp for your self.

Note: The Ampage Archive is an Amazon Associate site. A small commission is paid to the site owner on any qualified purchase made after clicking an associate link such as the one above.
3/31/2003 12:17 AM
Kursad K
According to a Turkish newspaper the military doctrine is such that the attacking side's number of troops should be the twice of the defending side. The newspaper also says that the generals of Pentagon said that they could not deploy enough number of troops until May, but Rumsfeld insisted that such a large army is not necessary to defeat Saddam because he didn't expect much resistance (because they are the liberators, right?). Seems like he has miscaculated. Hopefully he will not accuse us because of the results of his own war plan and claim that the war has been a long and bloody one because Turkey didn't approve the deployment of US troops to N.Iraq.  
3/31/2003 4:38 AM
Dai Hirokawa

I'm not sure if it'd be fair to call it "insane", but from the looks of it the operation was maybe a bit on the risky side. It could've been that Rumsfeld was pushing the optimistic scenario, emphasizing U.S. vast military technological superiorities, domestic opposition to Saddam, etc, so maybe his standing is a little weaker with the military people now. With 20/20 hindsight, perhaps it would have been better to get more political cover/legitimacy (exhaust the inspection route with a set deadline) while amassing more troops, so when the action did start, you'd have more on the ground. It does seem waaay too early to draw a conclusion though. The U.S. and allies won't ever lose in the long run when it comes to the fighting. The question seems to be more of how long it's going to take, how many casualties, political sustainability/support. Some critics suggest pulling out, but that doesn't seem to be a viable option for the U.S. in my eyes. Seems Bush and co. have to finish and follow through. If (hypothetically speaking) he did pull out now, it would seem that he would lose support from his constituency. It would make no sense to them after all the "evil Saddam", "wmd Saddam", "mustard gasser Saddam",etc. emphases.  
4/4/2003 6:33 AM
Re: is it true that Rumsfeld has tried to teach generals...
Might be interesting to find out where the idea of insufficuent troops comes from. We may be dispersing that Idea to get the Iraqis to come out and try something. Disinformation campaigns are nothing new. Do you really know how many we have over there? You willing to believe anything they rell you without question? And who among us has actual knowledge of their "plan?" Sane or otherwise.  
WHen you have two armies facing one another across a battlefield, you need to have superior numbers. We do not have two simple armies across a battlefield. This is far more complex.  
First, I would wager that man for man the US forces are more effective. The inflated numbers of Iraqi armies inlude every 13 year old boy they handed a rifle to. Ours are trianed and equipped.  
Next, we enjoy air superiority, there is no Saddam airforce to concern ourselves with. We can sit back and destroy entire tank battalions, we do not duke it out on the field.  
Rumsfeld? WHo believes anything he says? WHen I hear our leadership whining that they won't be at strength for months, my first thought is yeah right. I would rather think they want the Iraqis to be emboldened to act now while we are "weak" so as to draw them out into the open where we can crush them. If for no other reason than the weather, sooner is better for US forces.
4/4/2003 3:00 PM
Dai Hirokawa

Well I'm no expert, so I suppose that a disinformation aspect is possible, but what I gathered was that there were more troops there in Gulf War I and that there have been criticism of the number from former miltary people. In general, if you show up for a fight with more people, or more scary looking guys, I think that increases the chance of the other side backing down. It would also seem to make it more possible to do things like patrol/guard a perimeter.  
"First, I would wager that man for man the US forces are more effective. The inflated numbers of Iraqi armies inlude every 13 year old boy they handed a rifle to. Ours are trianed and equipped."
Well, I certainly don't doubt that at all. It's my understanding that the U.S. military is head and shoulders above whoever is considered the 2nd most powerful military. I think the concern is more with guerilla type tactics and casualties and not about military strength. But I still think that you have to take any enemy with lethal weaponry seriously. I don't think the inferiority or non-modern-ness of the weapons make them any less lethal. Even if someone was using some old beat up WWI-era rifle, or older RPGs, outdated tanks, etc. you still don't want to be shot at with those weapons. They can still kill you. Some 13 year-old kid could have a lucky shot, too.  
Proably Saddam is spreading out his forces so they are attrited less when attacked and using those militia-type forces to harass the coalition troops and making sure that Iraqi troops fight by coersion and at gunpoint so they can try to draw out the fighting as long as possible trying to make it a Vietnam type "quagmire" situation. Perhaps they're also lying to their troops that Americans will execute prisoners of war, things like that.  
I saw an interesting thing on Japanese TV where some Iraqi man with a sort of "haha you m****r f***er" type of grin was happy about the Americans invading, and when asked about Saddam, he made sort of a "kerplunk" hand gesture and said "(Saddam) is finished", so while I take things that Rumsfeld, etc. says with a grain of salt (because they naturally want to influence perception in ways favorable to them), it doesn't seem to be entirely untrue about the existence of people wanting to be liberated from Saddam/Baath party rule. He must certainly have lots of enemies. And there was that assassination attempt on one of his sons.  
4/4/2003 4:24 PM
Dai Hirokawa

Here's one interesting report:,12239,925783,00.html
   Page 1 of 2 Next> Last Page>>