Why research is important!

[garb811]

An excellent example of why Army.ca is so strict regarding backing up contentious assertions wtih researched facts.

Reading the following in the National Post, I had a hard time reconciling the assertion by the author of this letter that Gen Tommy Franks had "botched" both Gulf Wars, Gulf War I as Commander of VII Corps and then as Commander CENTCOM during War 2.  I recalled reading a book by Gen Franks of Gulf War 1 and things just weren't adding up as I was positive I had previously checked and determined the two were different individuals.  A quick Google of Gen Franks biography showed why my spidey sense was tingling, there are TWO Gen Franks; Gen Fred Franks, who commanded VII Corps in round 1 and Gen Tommy Franks who commanded CENTCOM for round 2.  The author's failure to conduct the most basic of research prior to launching a scathing attack on the professional competence of two officers calls every other "fact" in the submission into question.  Personally, I'd expect a much higher standard of someone who claims such august academic credentials, but that's just me...

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings...yadayada...
General botched both Gulf wars

General botched both Gulf wars

National Post
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Re: Who Lost Iraq? It's Not Who You Think, David Frum, May 2.
I read with great interest David Frum's column that focuses on Michael Gordon's and Bernard Trainor's book Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. It should come as no surprise that General Tommy Franks was at least partly responsible for the failure of the U.S. to establish stability in post-war Iraq. This is because 2003 was not the first time that General Franks botched a military operation in Iraq.
In 1991, Franks was the general officer commanding VII Corps in the First Gulf War. There he quickly proved not only to be well beyond his own competence level, but also overly cautious and lacking in initiative. With their start time for the ground war brought forward by 18 hours because of the lack of significant Iraqi resistance, Franks stopped his modern, night-vision-equipped army at nightfall, for fear of counterattack. Yet the Iraq army -- which had been bombed continuously for 30 days -- was not only immobile, but it also had no night capability. Upon learning of this ridiculous and timorous order (and so the loss of precious time), General Norman Schwarzkopf and General Colin Powell had to be persuaded not to sack Franks on the spot to replace him with a more capable officer. Franks personified the "slow, ponderous, pachyderm mentality" that Schwarzkopf had wanted to avoid: The Iraqis were fleeing Kuwait. Franks was resting.
A few days later, Franks allowed the bulk of the Iraqi Republican Guard to escape destruction because he was apparently afraid of allowing his successful lead units to pass their phase-lines (imaginary lines drawn on a map to help co-ordination). As initiative and "reinforcing success" are the sine qua non of modern manoeuvre warfare, this decision to halt General Barry McCaffrey and his 24th Infantry Division is inexplicable.
Ultimately, this failure to destroy the Republican Guard, which was the military "main effort" explicitly ordered by Schwarzkopf, resulted in Saddam Hussein's continued grip on power. The brutal destruction by the still extant Republican Guard of the Sunni and Marsh Arabs' revolt later that year is proof enough of this.
But this failure did not register. The U.S. military propaganda machine, and those of the individual armed services, geared up after 1991 to portray the war as the vindication of both the Pentagon's new AirLand Battle Doctrine and (especially) all their expensive new weaponry. In this frenzy of self-congratulation, Franks' failure could not possibly have been dealt with publicly, and instead he was put in charge of the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command, presumably a chance for him to spread his skewed concepts of "modern" warfare. As we can see from this new book, the result of his future career was about as successful as his first efforts in Iraq.
Kristian C. Gustafson, senior lecturer, Department of War Studies, Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, England.

 

[Old Sweat]

I emailed the National Post this morning pointing out that LGen Fred Franks, Jr., not General Tommy Franks, had commanded VII Corps in the first Gulf War and received a reply that my letter was being considered for publication. Like you, I am dismayed that an academic failed to research his subject properly.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Reinforces why we tell posters to use the Search function as it saves embarrassment later.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Hahahaha;

This just in from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/05/03/media-trust.html

Article reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
 

C B C . C A  A r t s  -  F u l l  S t o r y :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


More people trust media than government: survey
Last Updated Wed, 03 May 2006 14:15:27 EDT
CBC Arts
Consumers around the world like their national media, but don't necessarily trust them, a new survey shows.


FROM MAY 5, 2005: Journalists more ethical than you think: study

The survey of 10,000 adults in 10 countries, excluding Canada, found 61 per cent trust the media, compared to 52 per cent who trust their government.

But trust in the media varies greatly by country and by type of media. And 28 per cent of consumers said they had abandoned a news source in the past year because they had lost trust in its reporting.

"National TV is still the most trusted news source by a wide margin, although the internet is gaining ground among the young," said Doug Miller, president of London-based research firm GlobeScan, which conducted the polling.

The BBC, Fox News, CNN and Al Jazeera are the most trusted media in their home regions, according to the survey, but Britons trusted their government more than they did the press.

Television was the most trusted source of news in nearly every market but Germany, where newspapers were preferred. Trust in the media was higher in Nigeria, Indonesia, Russia and India than in Britain or the U.S.

About half of Americans chose TV as their first source, with the most trusted stations being CNN and Fox, which each drew a positive response from 11 per cent of viewers. ABC and NBC are a distant second in the survey, drawing four per cent support.

U.S. residents stood out as critical observers, with 69 per cent saying they did not think the media presents all sides of the story.

In the U.K., the BBC is the clear favourite of 32 per cent of viewers.

Al Jazeera was trusted in markets such as Egypt, where it was chosen as the preferred news source by 77 per cent of urban dwellers. Al Jazeera plans to launch an English-language international network, broadcast from London, this summer.

Most consumers chose a national news network as their favourite news source. In Brazil the top choice was Rede Globo, in South Korea, KBS, in Russia, ORT TV, in Indonesia, RCTI TV and in India, AAJ TAK.

Trust in the internet, and particularly in blogs, was low, but 19 per cent of the 18-24 age group got most of their news from the internet.

Seventy-two percent of all respondents said they followed the news closely, including 67 per cent of people under age 24.


Copyright ©2006 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved 

 

[Devlin]

I emailed the National Post this morning pointing out that LGen Fred Franks, Jr., not General Tommy Franks, had commanded VII Corps in the first Gulf War and received a reply that my letter was being considered for publication. Like you, I am dismayed that an academic failed to research his subject properly.

It will be interesting to see if they print a retraction.

 

[Old Sweat]

The rest of Mr Gustafson's comments are open to discussion. During the first Gulf War one of my secondary duties in NDHQ was to be a member of a team that tracked the ground war using current information. We were all flabbergasted when word of the cease fire came in as VII Corps was poised to complete the envelopment and destruction of the Republican Guard. The consensus was that the shooting stopped 24 hours too soon.

I need only add that events in the Middle East may well have developed very differently if the war had gone on until the Republican Guard had been totally smashed.

 

[54/102 CEF]

I need only add that events in the Middle East may well have developed very differently if the war had gone on until the Republican Guard had been totally smashed.

Or maybe not - Seems Iraqui Army was really good at trashing cities and murdering people - hardly the focus of heavy military force not structured to conduct occupation. ------> ie - military executes the strategy and it has not leaked out or been reminisced (as far as I know) that there was a plan to do anything other than eject Iraq from Kuwait

For more faces who were there are the time (1991) look on PBS Frontline Website - there are programs where the senior advisors say to a man - we never planned to go to Bag Dad  --- now their 3rd ICs at the time also grill the crap out of the Army COS Shinseki and tell him he's a fool for saying the political side are undermanning the post conflict stages of the Iraq activity. Senator Levin and Dep of the Def Dept Wolfowitz come in front of the camera right away. ---- I seem to remember Gen Shinseki saying 250,000 troops were needed. Add the total there now - to the number you see on the image that pops up at this link http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/

I'm sure you'll tell the media that an obscure Army.ca reader has clued in that Shinseki was right - they kicked him - then they did what he said to do. And the media has chimed in saying burn Rummy at the Stake. What a buncha maroons!

Background on the Iraq Run-up

Try -
The war behind closed doors http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/
Rumsfeld's Wars http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

 

[Old Sweat]

Actually the Republican Guard would have been smashed in what we had all appreciated was the vital ground, the area SE of Basra and north of the Kuwait border. There was no reason to go all the way to B'dad to defeat Iraq and there were lots of excellent political reasons not to do so.

 

[Old Sweat]

Oops, I have a dozen eggs on my face. I meant SW of Basra.

 

[Centurian1985]

QUOTE
A few days later, Franks allowed the bulk of the Iraqi Republican Guard to escape destruction because he was apparently afraid of allowing his successful lead units to pass their phase-lines (imaginary lines drawn on a map to help co-ordination). As initiative and "reinforcing success" are the sine qua non of modern manoeuvre warfare, this decision to halt General Barry McCaffrey and his 24th Infantry Division is inexplicable.
END-QUOTE

Im sure it was inexplicable to an "expert" academic who was probably not in the loop dring that dust-up in the Middle East sandbox.  To those of us who were monitoring the battle, we didnt need Captain Obvious to point this out to us over ten years later.  Our sources at the time indicated that the advance stopped on the direct orders of US higher command, not due to incompetence.  Apparently there was a lot of politics involved in the decision...  duh!  :blotto:

 

[military granny]

Stories on the military news site.

 

[Old Sweat]

Mr Gustafson formally apologized for his mistake in today's National Post. I would bet he will be extra careful in source checking from now on.

It is a valuable lesson for us all.

 

[garb811]

CFC provides this link for some auto-biographical material regarding Mr Gustafson wherein he states he was a Recce Troop leader in LdSH(RC) in '97.  Not to be overly skeptical and inquisitive but can one of our Strathcona's confirm or refute?  I have the sense I/we may be reading more of his writing in the future and would like to be able to put aside all doubt regarding his credibility and bona-fides.  Thanks much!

 

[Brad Sallows]

>A few days later, Franks allowed the bulk of the Iraqi Republican Guard to escape destruction because he was apparently afraid of allowing his successful lead units to pass their phase-lines

Golly-gosh-gee!  A modern Falaise Gap controversy.  Oh, yummy.

 

[Journeyman]

CFC provides this link for some auto-biographical material regarding Mr Gustafson wherein he states he was a Recce Troop leader in LdSH(RC) in '97.  Not to be overly skeptical and inquisitive but can one of our Strathcona's confirm or refute? 

While I'm certainly not a Strathcona.....I can confirm that he was one of the Recce Tp leaders with SFOR Roto 1, as he claims. Underwhelming, as I recall, since I have no strong memories of him - good or bad, other than remembering his name & face.

I know nothing of his academic credibility, although if this is an indication of his research abilities......... :