The Iraq major-combat mission would have proceeded LESS WELL in 2003 if more troops had been utilized. There would have been more friendly fire incidents and coordination problems, as combat congestion rose exponentially.

I wonder if the success of the lower-manpower high tech high-coordination approach let Rumsfeld appropriately proclaim, "See, I told you this is the way to go!" - - and unfortunately this squelched those voices presenting the wisdom of having (for sake of example) a doubling of forces for the policing- and stabilizing-phase of the Iraqi program.

I'd like to hear Jeff's comments about trying to operate jet aircraft from improvised bases.

We've been there before, folks, and it didn't work.

This is what this summer's naval exercises were really about.

In North Korea the US could force the surrounding countries to pony up, but it wouldn't have worked well in Iraq.

We want NKo to be absorbed by somebody else.
We didn't want Iraq to be divided between Kurdistan, Iran, Arabia and for all I know, Russia.

Suppose that the US went into the Sudan, shot up the capital, destroyed the current gov't, and then just withdrew, telling the surrounding countries, "Good luck !"
It would help short term, but within a year, the situation would be worse, probably a resumption of the civil war and certainly famine and starvation.

As pleasant as it would be to come in like gangbusters, and then just ride away, it's not a wise foreign policy.

an aircraft graveyard that includes Soviet-era wooden biplanes

Hey, bring some of those babies back in a C-5 and let old aircraft nuts help pay for all this.

Michael:

But there isn't even a hostile force to defeat in Sudan.

Janjaweed ?

The place is full of our enemies

"Janjaweed" makes me think of some group in a bad Star Wars screen play.

Harry:

Depends on the type aircraft, and how far the base is from a larger support facility. A-10s do okay in austere environments and short-ish runways, but would still probably need rotating out every month or so.

F-16s & F-15s, being higher performance aircraft, need more care and feeding. (Although, without a peer competitor in most cases, those aircraft don't have to use nearly as much of their performance envelope, thereby significantly reducing stress on the airframes.)

Given the basic logistics--sufficient runway & fuel--it is certainly doable. My concern would be the additional strain put on our air refuelding assets, unless a larger footprint facility was available within 600 or so miles.

Ah, OJ maybe this little detail about who is going to occupy the country after the fact, could be resolved BEFORE we invade. Just a thought.

h:

Why? No one will agree until it's a necessity.

Jeff:

Harry read a book once where they didn't work, so such runways can't ever work.

I agree with OJ's general line that more troops now may be unnecessary, but I fail to see how more troops in the beginning would not have been good. With more troops we could have gone directly into holdouts like Fallujah and done a show of force even after Baghdad fell instead of allowing insurgents to gather. Second, more troops would mean a more orderly occupation which would boost the rule of law.

Invasion is easy. Occupation is hard.

Chris:

Because the point is we can do it without.

Hey watch it OJ, Harry visited an improvised runway once. He knows.

Was it next to the poster store where he learned that America's absenteeism problem is as bad as Europe's despite voluminous studies to the contrary?

Logistics, logistics, logistics.

We had lots of experience trying to operate aircraft out of improvised bases in the Southwest Pacific and in Korea.

When the Chicoms chased VMF-214 out of Wonsan, their Corsairs had not been able to use their 20-mm cannon for weeks because they'd gotten dirty and there was no way to clean them in the field.

Lots of guys got killed that way.

We'll never make it to the moon because the V-2 couldn't reach it.

I spent a few weeks with VMFA-314 in Twentynine Palms in 1981 on a Combined Arms Exercise (CAX). The Wing Engineer Squadron can put an Expeditionary Airfield (EAF) in place in about 3-4 days. They flatten out an area and assemble a landing strip using currogated steel mats. They also installed arresting cables and a steam catapult for the F-4 Phantoms to take off & land. The EAF could handle big C-5 cargo jets.

In the future the Marines will use the STOVL F-35 Joint Strike Fighter which will need a short runway for takeoffs and will land vertically.

OK, have it your way. But if it's so easy, why haven't we taken out the Sudanese helicopters -- still attacking farmers as of yesterday, despite Orrin's proclamation of regime change in Khartoum>

Either we can turn on a dime or we can't.

We can.

But we haven't.

I rest my case.

We don't want to. We'd rather resolve it some other way. But we'll go if we have to.

And if a few people get killed while we dither, who's counting, right?

Exactly. Idealism is always tempered by reality.