Originally posted by semperfoo
Stellar why not make your point short, sweet, and to the point?
My first post probably was but since do many of my corrections are just ignored or misrepresented things tend to go on a bit.
I qouted you so that I could respond to your points, as soon as I started typing it started deleting your post. So im going to addresse of few of your points.
The entire post would have been about 10 000 words so you can not type any more. Copy to whatever you use and type up a response before you break it up for posting.
Judging by what russian officials
Judging by what SOME Russian officials , now probably working for western/Russian funded disarmament groups, have to say that is certainly a conclusion one might be able to reach if you look no deeper and wish to believe that the US armed forces are in fact properly employing those vast amounts of money. That being said there is good evidence showing that the US armed forces are in a even worse position considering it's global aspirations and intervention policy.
Because of this failure, Wilson concludes, the U.S. military remains "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."
Overall, he grades the U.S. military performance in Iraq as "mediocre."
In his analysis of U.S. military operations in 2003 in northern Iraq, Wilson also touches on another continuing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq -- the number of troops there. "The scarcity of available 'combat power' . . . greatly complicated the situation," he states.
Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. "This overly simplistic conception of the 'war' led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve 'success,' " he writes.
Not something a official US army Historian, of the Iraq campaign, should say be saying according to you but there it is.
"Our ground forces have been stretched nearly to the breaking point," warned the bipartisan Iraq Study Group in its recent report. "The defense budget as a whole is in danger of disarray."
It may seem hard to believe that a country which allocated $168 billion to the Army this year -- more than twice the 2000 budget -- can't cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the two pillars of the Army, personnel and equipment -- both built to wage high-tech, firepower-intensive wars -- are under enormous stress:
Here are just a few of the grim facts from Jaffe's exclusive:
* According to Maj. Gen Stephen Speakes, the Army was sent to war in Iraq $56 billion short of essential equipment.
* Army officials told the White House that it needs at least an additional $24 billion, not in the 2007 budget, just to pay its current bills.
* Cash shortfalls have forced the Army to lay off janitorial staff, close base swimming pools, and even stop mowing lawns on Army bases.
* But cuts have also hit soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army officials had to cut $3 billion for replacement of weapons in heavy use in Iraq, such as armored Humvees, two-way radios, remote control surveillance aircraft and trucks.
* National Guard units now lack 40% of their critical readiness gear because it's been sent to Iraq, and the Army lacks the funds to replace it.
Having now killed as many as 700 000 Iraqi's due to this incompetence and mismanagement ( unless one wants to argue that it was their original aim) of funds it's probably time you stop believing vague accusations made by Russian officials who we can show to be lying about the weakness of the Russian armed forces.
had to say after the US quick defeat of saddams conventional army in GW2 I would say the US is in a class of its own, militarily as well as economically speaking.
I don't see what the defeat of the Iraqi army suggest , to even the most ignorant, about the Russian army as it is well documented that the equipment used by the Iraqi army were hopelessly inferior to the Russian army equivalents they are derived from. If one wants to indulge in such superficial analysis one can easily reach the conclusion that the United states are force is incompetent and inferior considering their performance over the past five decades against not much but outdated and stripped down models of Soviet/Russian equipment in their various wars against third world countries who certainly could not operate even those inferior models to their maximum efficiency. If superficial is what your looking for i could make any number of observations about the 'pathetic' US armed forces that can not even subdue a country of 21 million who should have welcomed the American intervention with open arms.
Taking a superficial approach will teach us nothing and do not think that my general respect for the US armed forces ( considering the situations they are dropped into their performance is certainly not bad) may not lead to responding with more superficially accurate claims of US incompetence. Why not rather take my approach and look behind what the Christian science monitor has decided to quote?
The Iraqi Army - which was cloned from the Red Army in the final decades of the Soviet Union - mounted only a feeble defense before falling apart.
The Iraqi army was NOT cloned from the Red army in the final decades of the Soviet Union ( unless you want to provide sources which can prove that to be case) and mounted a relatively spirited defense with it's very limited means, outdated equipment and morale shattered by more than a decade of American bombardment and sanctions and then against
"The key conclusion we must draw from the latest Gulf war is that the obsolete structure of the Russian armed forces has to be urgently changed," says Vladimir Dvorkin,
Since he is 'qualifying' his conclusion based on a something that is simply not true , and he should know if given his position, i don't know what to make of it and must assume it to be misinformation to distract those who are interested in being so. Whatever the tactics or doctrine of the Iraqi armed forces their equipment allowed nothing remotely Russian in thinking and attempting to do so with their obviously inferior models, given terrain, training standards, morale, force numbers and general economic position and the vast volumes of knowledge their enemy gained by two decades of intelligence gathering, it's no surprise that they lose and did so badly. To make generalisations about the Russian armed forces based on these 'qualifications' begs correction in the absence of anything that remotely qualifies it.
head of the Russian Defense Ministry's official think tank on strategic nuclear policy. "The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast.
The gap between the Iraqi army and the invading forces were certainly vast but the connections drawn to the Russian armed forces is non-existent. The Soviet Union is in a far better strategic position than it was in 1941 and even then it managed to survive the Nazi war machine that had few rivals in known history. I don't believe that the USA today has abilities of the then Wehrmacht in either equipment or doctrine and by their exploits in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq i don't see how the Russians have anything to fear from US conventional forces that will probably take years to deploy in numbers suitable for a land invasion of Russia. There is no gap worth calling such in either conventional arms or strategic arms and unless you want to cite the 'knowledge' the author bases this on i believe my sources of the past speaks volumes to this issue.
We are very lucky that Russia has no major enemies at the moment, but the future is impossible to predict, and we must be ready."
Russia has a major enemy in the USA ( take a look at a map and US deployments in recent decades) so even here his is attempting to distract ignorant readers into a false sense of security. The future is hard to predict only if one does not know the workings and plans of those who are attempting to sculpt it and i find it interesting that the author notes this as if in contradiction to his earlier statements.
Unlike you they paint a more realistic picture though grim it is. It goes on..
He ( assuming it's properly translated or not entirely fabricated) paints a picture you would like to believe in but with all such pictures it's rarely has much to do with reality. A more objective look at what people inside and outside their respective former armed forces say will lead you much closer to reality than simply picking the word of a Russian source you would not otherwise believe.