Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 10Bears on September 06, 2002, 04:50:47 AM
-
I know this was postecd a week or so ago but this story has much more detail
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,787018,00.html
If the US and Iraq do go to war, there can only be one winner, can't there? Maybe not. This summer, in a huge rehearsal of just such a conflict - and with retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper playing Saddam - the US lost. Julian Borger asks the former marine how he did it[/i]
snip
What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.
In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.
What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory".[/i]
LOL I think Robert Duvall should play Van Riper in the movie
-
Well (read the article now)... lets just hope Sadam doesn't hire that guy.
Retrying it after the 1st try is a good point (for the sake of not ending a 2 year planned op in 1 day), but... what about the fact that they ignored/denied alternative tactics after that ? sounds very much like 'underestimating your opponent' to me.
Oh well, I see less & less differences between armed forces and big corporations nowadays... as long as the boss believes your bull, all goes well
:rolleyes:
-
LOL, kinda reminds me of some of the stories my dad would tell when he was in the Navy. Apparently during Sub vs Carrier group exercises, the sub was able to easily sink the carrier. After that the carrier would be ruled 'off-limits' and that the sub had to 'attack' the escorts instead.
-
I wonder why they play a wargame.
-
How many of Van Riper's troops were modeled as conscripts who were poorly fed and equipped? Sorry, it's hard for me to forget that most of those guys were very happy to see me because I actually had food and water for them...unlike their own country.
-
At 1st I'd say he is on our side, and he hardly mimic's that fool Saddam we completely destroyed a decade ago. Good for us and wargames to prepare for anything. That's good these days...
But after further disbelief and common sense, I'd say his chest thumping pry caused a Soundblaster ahvoice error. Or maybe Cornered Rat wrote that wargame code.
They need to patch that program, seems like a load a toejam that bicycles as comm center "terrific tactical deployment" , and row boats with instant suicide bombers could wipe out the U.S. Fleet.
I envision them coming in on pleasure cruisers with those vulcan cannon type defense guns. Brrrrrap. Good lord.
Come on.
-
hmmm...aren't we/you supposed to train for 'the worse scenario' ?
That would be what I'd go for, personally... but of course, I'm not in the armed forces... so I might not understand all this too well.
-
from a well known texas journalist, but only vaguely related
"Excuse me: I don't want to be tacky or anything, but hasn't it occurred to anyone in Washington that sending Vice President Dick Cheney out to champion an invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is a 'murderous dictator' is somewhere between bad taste and flaming hypocrisy?
"When Dick Cheney was CEO of the oilfield supply firm Halliburton, the company did $23.8 million in business with Saddam Hussein, the evildoer 'prepared to share his weapons of mass destruction with terrorists.'
"So if Saddam is 'the world's worst leader,' how come Cheney sold him the equipment to get his dilapidated oil fields up and running so he to could afford to build weapons of mass destruction?
"In 1998, the United Nations passed a resolution allowing Iraq to buy spare parts for its oilfields, but other sanctions remained in place, and the United States has consistently pressured the U.N. to stop exports of medicine and other needed supplies on the grounds they could have 'dual use.' As the former Secretary of Defense under Bush the Elder, Cheney was in particularly vulnerable position on the hypocrisy of doing business with Iraq. . . .
"Using two subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, Halliburton helped rebuild Saddam's war-damaged oil fields. The combined value of these contracts for parts and equipment was greater than that of any other American company doing business with Iraq."
-
psst, your probably using Iraqi oil now. Oil is traded just like anything else, The cheapest source is bought and refined. If Chevron can get it cheaper from Iraq then producing it from their own wells they buy it. This keeps gas prices low. Plus how do you know the Iraqi oil wasn't sold to Russia then resold to the US? This way it looks as though no Iraqi oil has been bought. Its business.
Also think of all the products around you that are made from petroleum. Price goes up across the board on just about everything.
edit....
another thing 23 million is nothing in the oil business. Rig prices are fuggin outrageous. 23 million is easily spent on single wells.
-
Didn't we just have this conversation last week? Animal was a participant I know, though I am not sure if he started the thread.
As Toad says, we play the games to learn, not to earn bragging rights. Anyone with any intelligence at all knows this, and wouldn't try to spin it otherwise. If there's going to be a fight, I'll stick with the home team; I like our odds.
-
"If you want to know why the Democrats didn't jump all over this story and make a big deal out it, it's because -- as usual -- Democrats are involved in similar dealings. Former CIA director John Deutsch is on the board of Schlumberger, the second largest oil services firm after Halliburton, which is also doing business with Iraq through subsidiaries.
Americans have long been aware that corporate money has consistently corrupted domestic policy in favor of corporate interests, and that both parties are in thrall to huge corporate campaign donors. "
***
Molly Ivins, although I don't always agree with her is actually writer; you'll note she doesn't need to make up cute names for folks in her pieces. Unlike some other stuff we've been treated to lately.
-
actually i didn't see that part of the column - i read it in howard kurtz' washingtonpost 'media notes', but i quite understand your insinuation. i hate dems as much as GOP members. elections are PR wars, & in a propoganda fight the least honest will always win. thats how gore beat bradley, thats how bush beat mcain. thats how the two parties manage to steal a slowly, but steadily increasing (now about 50%) fraction of everything and remain in power. although i am an atheist, i would rather live in a theocracy. tithe is only 10%. a two party fake fight is not representative democracy
-
Yep, Mr. Gates, a pretty accurate summation.
-
All Hail Great Leader! :D
He kinda looks like a wily mad dictator type....
-
There will be no war. Bush is just playing it up to keep oil prices on the rise. I mean as long as he is in the White House he might as well make money for himself and his oil buddies.
Americans are just a bunch of mindless pawns who let the government walk all over them. Trust me, I know for I am one of these pawns. :(
-
Yep, that's it Swager.
Talked to any of your Guard or Reserve buddies in the last two weeks?
-
I bet this buildup has been going on for at least 6 months if not longer. Let's just pray that strategery is one of Bush 43's strong points. And that Sadam hasn't made his bomb yet. I hope they don't keep our guys all grouped up in one big nukable army or navy.
What's Russia going to do? They sure have been quiet over the past 6 months or so. China? Isreal? I hope and pray this thing stays conventional....
-
Yeah this whole thing was dicussed to death in another thread.
(the previous thread was titled 'Fancy US ARMY beaten')
In yet another thread where some dumb bellybutton zero military experience anti-Bush reporters turned an everyday common occurance that is absolutely no cause for alarm into yet another 'conspiracy theory' seed. Read the other thread I'm not up for cutting and pasting the obvious.
Udie - don't sweat it. You watch too much U.S. 'media'. No one wants Sadaam to stay there and the Chinese and the Russians aren't going to be pissed. The Russians aren't going to care if there's a war - if there is it's just more oil infrastructure repair work for them to bill to the 'new' Iraqi government.
For anyone who cares - remember what the generally anti-Bush (and thus for some stupid reason anti-anything that Bush does even if it's good for America, because it's all about not letting the Republicans 'get away with anything', right?) U.S. 'media' was saying before the action in Afghanistan - thousands of casualties, the Taliban can't be driven out, never been done before, etc.
Mark my words - if it comes to blows in Iraq the bad guys are going to go down harder and faster than anyone thought possible. Take any loss estimated you hear from the U.S. media and 'divide by 100'.
Something to remember - there is no % in the government and the military telling the 'media' that the 'media' is incorrect in their assessment of any situation. When the shootings over and the media turned out to be wrong (again), well - then the truth is out and the fight is over so the bad guys can't learn anything that could help them.
It's at this point that you will begin to see stories about 'atrocities', which usually are corrected/debunked within 10 days or so - but the 'media' isn't held accountable for reporting innuendo.
My current rallying cry against irresponsible and biased media:
"Remember the Jenin Massacre (that never happened)".
Mike/wulfie
-
Wulfie I have to sorta disagree in the casualties dept. I think as soon as the bombs start dropping and the civilian casualties rise, the men in the chicken toejame Iraqi army are gona get VERY pissed and will fight. Also after the initial encounter and things settle, thats when the underground types will have time to think and harras the occupying forces (however long they ill be there). Somalia I would say is a good reference for example in terms of "simple peace keeping mission" that got worse. I think the US will take casualties, not where it expects it though, not at the spearhead but maybe rather along the tail for the politicians.
-
There's a big difference between Iraq and Somalia- we weren't at war with Somalia.
-
no lucrative construction contacts will go to russians unless it is cover for the same people who got the contract$ last time: well connected friends of bush (enron & halliburton) and bin laden construction.
in fact the bin ladens and the bush family have been in business together since the 1970s (they financed juniors many 'failed' oil businesses when senior was top dog@cia) longer before osama was any sort of 'terrorist'
-
"no lucrative construction contacts will go to russians unless it is cover for the same people who got the contract$ last time: well connected friends of bush (enron & halliburton) and bin laden construction."
Gee, that's funny - the Russians just signed a huge development contract with the Government of Iraq...against the wishes of most of the Western world (note: I don't have a problem with the Russians doing this). I didn't see Enron or Halliburton mentioned at all...
"in fact the bin ladens and the bush family have been in business together since the 1970s (they financed juniors many 'failed' oil businesses when senior was top dog@cia) longer before osama was any sort of 'terrorist'"
Ah, roadkill. Conspiracy theory driven nutball roadkill. You've been watching the X-Files too much while dropping acid. Get some mental help fast, or give me some proof and documentation from reliable sources (hint: ain't going to happen).
Everyone loves the 'Bush Sr./CIA/Bin-Laden' 'connection'. It's no big secret - Bin-Laden was a leader of a group of tribal fighters. 1 of about 400 who received aid from the CIA and numerous other Western/N.A.T.O. intelligence agencies when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Turning that connection into some dark conspiracy is like trying to dream up a 'Ford Motor Company Anti-Semite Conspiracy' because Ford did business with people who 15 years later were the senior leadership of Nazi Germany. Where does this stupid idea come from that no one ever becomes an enemy or becomes evil even if they were 'good' before?
"Wulfie I have to sorta disagree in the casualties dept. I think as soon as the bombs start dropping and the civilian casualties rise, the men in the chicken toejame Iraqi army are gona get VERY pissed and will fight. Also after the initial encounter and things settle, thats when the underground types will have time to think and harras the occupying forces (however long they ill be there). Somalia I would say is a good reference for example in terms of "simple peace keeping mission" that got worse. I think the US will take casualties, not where it expects it though, not at the spearhead but maybe rather along the tail for the politicians."
The Iraqi army almost to a man hates Hussein. They did when I talked to various Iraqi POWs 10 years ago, and everyone else I've talked to had roughly the same experiences opinion wise.
Also, no body of people is *that* stupid. The reason the people of Iraq hate Hussein is because they *know* that the reason that 50 children a day are starving to death in Iraq is because Hussein is taking the money from oil sales allowed to generate $$$ for the purchase of food and medicine and is taking that $$$ and buying military equipmen and 'lining his pockets'.
In general, the people of Iraq live in fear of Hussein. Once there is a chance to overthrow him without assuredly being crushed by his secret police and the 15% of the army made up of ultra-loyalist units...I think everyone will be surprised at what happens.
Also, any occupying force in Iraq would almost certainly not be U.S. Probably several far more 'acceptable' Nations' forces (by Middle Eastern political standards) backed up and organized by Turkish forces, etc. Look at Afghanistan - the main body of the ISAF isn't U.S. The U.S. knew very well that the presence of a U.S. security force would only give splintered terrorist elements 'recruiting material'.
People need to get over this blanket opinion that everyone in the U.S. government is fatally stupid and/or driven by evil secret motives. It makes for good movies and 'media' innuendo in an effort to 'sell copy', but it simply isn't true.
Go study this stuff from reliable unbiased sources (i.e., the reams of data from the 80s now available via the FOIA) if you actually care about the truth and the reality of the real world - as opposed to 'repeating the party/conspiracy/sensationalist line'.
Mike/wulfie
-
Senna,
re: Somalia.
Alot of factors led to the trouble in Somalia that can easily be avoided in most other situations. Also, 'peacekeepers' in a post-war Iraq almost certainly aren't going to be U.S. military units (see above).
Mike/wulfie
-
i stick by my beliefs based on the theory that powerful people dont let things happen accidentally and whatever the most disgusting rumor about them is, its probably true:
hitler: ametamine addict, killed millions, unknown number of testicles
stalin: killed more than hitler, whacked every early communist leader
mao: deflowered thousands of 11 year old chinese girls
jfk: friend of mafiosi, banged marylin monroe then had her knocked off
clinton: rapist, bribeable, dope smoker, whacked vince foster
bushes: you already heard my views on them, but also undermined & controlled reagan presidency (after losing to him in the primaries), engineered oil price spike during carter administration, learned all their tricks from nixon who in turn learned all the tricks from eisenhower who was above using that sort of thing domesticly or in an undeclared war
taft: was fat
-
Well, I will say one thing in total honesty:
My overall opinion of you goes way up by knowing that you don't trust *anyone*, as opposed to the current masses who don't trust Bush because 'Ted Rall thinks he's evil and everyone on my block voted for Gore because Oprah likes him'.
Better a paranoid wolf than a blind sheep I guess. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
The Chinese have been rearming the Iraqis. Specifically, more up to date anti aircraft weapons. Most of the Al-Quida cadre are still out there, and are reported to be reorganizing. They are likely to plan any new terrorist attack to coincide with an attack, by us, on Iraq. Hoping to kick off the long desired "holy war"
Instead of stomping on this rattlesnake. Jr. just keeps poking it with a stick. IMO this is going to cost more American lives the most here expect. And no, I don't think or solders are somehow more expendable then the rest of us. So I am not as cavalier as some of you are about it.
-
(http://216.136.200.194/auction/Sep/2002988101711908732021.jpg)
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory".
LOL I think Robert Duvall should play Van Riper in the movie
The purpose of playing war games is to learn from your mistakes and improve your strategy and tactics without killing anyone.
When you plan to play chess for an evening, then get blown away in six moves, don't you set it up and try again?
-
But Holden, that's too obvious and makes too much sense. It can't be that, it must be Enron and Cheney and the CIA and black choppers and stuff again.
-
Holden, every game of chess I've ever played, the opponent must say these two words before there's any re setting up the board short of checkmate
"I concede"
Give the man his win!
-
Last game I lost all I said was "aw s**t"...
Seemed good enough for my opponent, cost me a sixer.
-
The idea was to find any flaw in the plan that they could. Looks like a creative Marine ex-General showed them quite a few.
Good job all around. Best to find the problems during the wargaming, not the war.
They'll probably re-tool the plan and wargame it a few more times before they commit troops.
-
Disagree Toad.
If you have any doubts, look at what happened in our own little community when some bright USAFA cadets ran a "diversionary" NOE raid on the Ruhr. If I recall correctly, the head of the CM corps lamented the decision of those commanders to "game the game".
My point's not to flog this dead horse; but that's the counterargument -- "gaming the game". Yet our buddies in the military don't have the luxury of hiding under the veneer of historicity. Sure, that particular scenario may be "impossible" given the actual circumstances, but without doubt an analogous, perhaps unsimulatable "crease" exists. I'm sorry, you've got to think of those things.
But if these principles are not universally accepted by the AH community, odds are the military won't take them either. (sure, professionals and amateurs; but I suspect with what fellatio's going for in Washington, Baghdad and Moscow, nobody in the world is a professional strategist)
-
To me it sounds like a good exercise. If they did the exercise and didn't find any problems THEN I'd be worried.
If you train properly, your training looks like a real battle, and vice-versa. - Some Roman Dude
-
Anybody who knows anything about modern military weapons and capability knows that you can shoot holes all over that story.
-
Nice toy, senna. Now, if an Iraqi mirage is diving to a profile consistent with an exocet launch, what's gonna stop you from turning it on?
-
Hum, once the ship is underway its all depends on the active systems on board and their preliminary status. Its really up to those systems. You have a point.
:)
-
when I was in, one of thos lite up and took out a officer and half the wheelhouse on another ship at a big seperation ( a couple clicks if memory serves)freak accident according to the navy .
Even then they were questioning the use of makeing one big missile into 1000 little pieces going mach 2 since our ships weren't armored at all.
sound cool when fired though.
ferrrrrappppppppppppppppp!!
you dont even what to know what they said it cost .
-
Even then they were questioning the use of makeing one big missile into 1000 little pieces going mach 2 since our ships weren't armored at all.
Take a look at the pictures of HMS Sheffield shortly before she sank due to an exocet hit during the Falklands War. She didn't have any sophisticated anti-missile systems.
-
So the American Army start's losing so resorts to gaming the game...I'm starting to think there's quite a few US Forces top brass playing AH ;)
-
In contrast, the Stark suffered from being caught in a cognitive frame in which an attack was unexpected. They regarded the closing of the Mirage as a puzzle rather than a threat, and did not take action to unmask its defensive systems in time for them to engage.
sound familiar?
-
You referring to the U.S.S. Cole?
-
No he's referring to the Stark, which lost alot of Sailors and made it home due to superb damage control.
But it wasn't really 'news' to U.S. 'media' because it happened before 11SEP01.
Mike/wulfie
-
Could this be a propaganda tool by our govt.?
Remember all the dire predictions prior to the ground war starting in the Gulf? "Iraq has the 5th largest army in the world", "They are battle hardened and ready after years of war with Iran"
I'll take the USA and give the points on this one.
-
I see, Wulfie. I read the question wrong.
-
MT - if you took coallition + points in the last one would you have won?
sure, kuwait was liberated, but in iraq saddam was able to figure out who was loyal & eliminate those who weren't (kurds, basra, etc.) he is probably more secure domesticly now than before the gulf war