I am half way through "The Generals' War" and I am enjoying it immensely. However, as an avid reader and student of military history, I feel the conclusions or the judgements by the authors of the commanders are a bit off and unfair. At times it comes off as a hatchet job.
In one example, the overall plan or objective to destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard did not succeed as well as hoped. But, it was not at the fault of the planners or those fighting the battles. Bottom line - we prepared for the worst case scenario and got the best. With the left hook in motion, the Marines and the Army Tiger Brigade were to attack basically head on. The two events that occurred greatly in our favor to minimize casualties also caused the objective of destroying the Republican Guard to not be fully achieved.
First, the Iraqi soldiers gave up in numbers greater than ever expected. In many cases, it wasn't a fight. Second, partly because of the first, the Marines and the Tiger Brigade blew through their objectives so fast, the left hook barely had time to materialize.
There is something for everyone to remember when reading any book about the Gulf War. The intent of the major commanders was to minimize casualties. I'm thankful that they were a part of the Viet Nam fighting (if one can actually be thankful for such), because it instilled a common goal among each one of them, including Schwarzkopf, Powell, Horner and Franks to name a few.
To achieve the objective as planned would mean the casualties resulting from the expected heavier fighting would have had to occur. Our light casualties verses the full achievement of the objectives? That's a no brainer.