If you want to bypass the reg, and do it in an approved manner, stick that link in google, then click on the "try visiting that web page" link.
Basically, the US got darn lucky, because the Pentagon, at the urging of the administration, mismanaged the supply chains majorly. The only thing that was keeping the army going was the ingenuity of soldiers on the ground at many points. Not only that, but after the war the lack of an effective support system (still!) created major problems in the civil administration, as commanders had to do full time duty as both civil administrators and military commanders.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Military enthusiasts study tactics, military professionals study logistics...
What have we missed out on here?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:"Local commanders were torn between their fights and providing resources — soldiers, time and logistics — to meet the civilian needs," the report concluded. "Partially due to the scarce resources as a result of the running start, there simply was not enough to do both missions."
quote:The study also found that future adversaries could draw several lessons from the war: that American forces' reliance on high-tech surveillance satellites and aircraft could be countered by decoys and the imaginative disguise of weaponry; that more powerful warheads for rocket-propelled grenades, already effective against helicopters and light vehicles like Humvees, could offset American armor; that American forces could be drawn into a protracted, costly urban war, more effectively than they were by the Iraqis; and that American forces are vulnerable to classic insurgency tactics, like car bombs.
Whoa.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This administration has to be the most hands on, intrusive administration I've ever seen. They forced intelligence, they forced their views on the military, they forced logistics, they forced statecraft.