Rumsfeld's war against the military

[BobG]

I think it's reached the time where Rumsfeld has to resign. From this article, it's apparent the military has lost all confidence in Rumsfeld.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060414/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc_11

Rumsfeld is losing his war against retired generals 6-1, so far (and DeLong's full statement still carried the caveat that the military could have used more troops in Iraq).

If this were just retired Army generals, you could think there's more to the story than just Iraq. The Army has disliked Rumsfeld ever since the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review that emphasized a lighter, faster force designed for the types of battles the military had fought in the last couple decades before Iraq (the high tech Air Force and Navy haven't complained about Rumsfeld). The large, heavy armies capable of invading and holding and securing occupied territories were considered obsolete by Rumsfeld (i.e. - the kind of war we're fighting in Iraq). Rumsfeld really ticked off the Army by making a retired Navy captain the Secretary of the Army (Rumsfeld's Man).

Instead, it's about a 50-50 mix between retired Army and Marine generals - the two services carrying the bulk of the load in Iraq.

You could say the generals' comments would carry more weight if they had had the courage to make those comments while on active duty. Army Gen Shinsecki had the courage to publicly state he thought we needed a lot more troops to keep peace in Iraq and it effectively ended his career - rightfully so. Whatever the fight put up behind closed doors, it's inappropriate for active duty generals to go around their civilian authority via the news media. In a normal situation, generals making disparaging comments so soon after retiring may not technically fall in the area of undermining civilian authority, but it would be seen as poor taste, at least.

The fact that it's turning into a parade of retired generals that barely wait until they're outside the door to attack Rumsfeld is hopefully as close to military coup as the US ever gets (The Revolt Against Rumsfeld). I think it's clear Rumsfeld isn't capable of leading the military anymore.

 

[Astronuc]

Gen. Riggs Joins in Calling for Rumsfeld to Quit
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5340711

All Things Considered, April 13, 2006 · Citing an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the top civilian leaders at the Pentagon, another retired general is calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Retired Maj. Gen. John Riggs sees fault in the handling of the military's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I think he should step aside and let someone step in who can be more realistic," Riggs told NPR's Michele Norris on Thursday.

Now if the rest of the country would wake up and take note of the arrogance and belligerence of the Bush administration. :grumpy:

On the other hand - Rumsfeld has his supporters such as Dan Goure of Lexington Institute

Rumsfeld Should Stay as Head of Defense - Goure's Commentary
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5341022

 

[daveb]

Now if the rest of the country would wake up and take note of the arrogance and belligerence of the Bush administration. :grumpy:

That's the sticky point. There are a lot of folks who believe this administration can do no wrong.

 

[BobG]

On the other hand - Rumsfeld has his supporters such as Dan Goure of Lexington Institute

Rumsfeld Should Stay as Head of Defense - Goure's Commentary
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5341022

Goure's support would probably be more effective if he mentioned at least one success instead of commenting solely on Rumsfeld's personality. His support carried about as much substance as General Pace's:

"He does his homework. He works weekends. He works nights," Gen. Peter Pace said. "People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld."

Sounds similar to one of those (hopefully) fictitious, but humorous comments from Officer Evaluation Reports: "If effort, dedication, and commitment are what matters, this officer should be promoted immediately. If results are the objective, this officer has passed his zenith."

Edit: In fact, Pace's compliment reminds me of another famous compliment: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

 

[Astronuc]

Sounds similar to one of those (hopefully) fictitious, but humorous comments from Officer Evaluation Reports: "If effort, dedication, and commitment are what matters, this officer should be promoted immediately. If results are the objective, this officer has passed his zenith."

:rofl: Well, same could be said of Nixon - he worked nights and on weekends, and he did his homework. The problem was some the work was illegal.

In the case of Rumsfeld, he perhaps undermined the army and its ability to perform in the field. Rumsfeld said " you got to war with the army you've got." But they had 3 years to prepare the army with appropriate bullet proof vests and armoured vehicles. They started planning before the election in 2000.

 

[loseyourname]

Now if the rest of the country would wake up and take note of the arrogance and belligerence of the Bush administration. :grumpy:

Would that even matter? The only people with the power, so far as I know, to remove Rumsfeld are Bush and Rumsfeld. The guy should have left with Ashcroft after the last election at the very latest. It'll take an absolute disaster to get him out at this point.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should do the honorable and right thing - and RESIGN!

But I don't believe they are honorable people.

 

[edward]

There is one odd twist to all of this. Bush frequently reminds us that he will make changes in the way the war is being conducted when he is asked to do so by his Commanders on the ground. Active duty officers can not complain or request anything directly from the president.

Everything goes up through the chain of command and Rumsfeld and others in the Pentagon are in that chain of command. They censor everything before it reaches the president. (not that it would make any difference)

As far as commanders on the ground, they know that any request for a change in current methods of fighting the war could also be career ending. That is why the complaints are comming from retired officers.

 

[Gokul43201]

Army Gen Shinsecki had the courage to publicly state he thought we needed a lot more troops to keep peace in Iraq and it effectively ended his career - rightfully so. Whatever the fight put up behind closed doors, it's inappropriate for active duty generals to go around their civilian authority via the news media.

I thought Gen Shinsecki made that statement in response to a question during a Senate briefing, or somesuch ... ?

 

[BobG]

I thought Gen Shinsecki made that statement in response to a question during a Senate briefing, or somesuch ... ?

You're right, which is a completely different situation than going around the SecDef through the press.

 

[russ_watters]

I must admit to not having paid much attention to this befre a few days ago. I used to have a pretty high opinion of Rumsfeld. The military used to hate him because he cut programs they liked. And I liked that - generals never want to cut anything, even when things need to be cut. The brass is just as guilty as anyone for hanging on to the cold war mentality (the Navy culture, in particular, really pisses me off).

Opinions about whether or not the war should have been fought are irrelevant: people disagree about such things and it isn't the generals' decision on where to go. But they are welcome to their opinion.

What bothers me, though, are the charges of micromanagement of the military. That's bad leadership - its something I hated Clinton for (Somalia) - and if the generals can't trust Rumsfeld to trust them to do their jobs, then he can't lead them effectively and they can't prosecute the war effectively.

I think Rumsfeld should go as well.

However, at this point in his presidency, I don't think it helps Bush any to get rid of him - even if he wanted to (which he probably doesn't), he won't.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think we all need to take into account the number of generals that are currently active in the US military when we think 6 or 7 of them speak for the majority...

 

[Gokul43201]

I think we all need to take into account the number of generals that are currently active in the US military when we think 6 or 7 of them speak for the majority...

You get up to 1 year in prison for openly criticizing a superior in the chain of command - article 134 of the USMJ.

 

[Gokul43201]

I recently listened to a half-hour interview with (retd.) Gen. Bernard Trainor, author of Cobra II : The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. When asked whether he (Trainor) would join the others in calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, he replied that he wouldn't because he doesn't wish to involve himself in the politics of it. If, however, you listen to the things he had to say about Rumsfeld's role, you hear a long list of actions and decisions (taken despite recommendations to the contrary coming from the theater and the military planners) that jeopardized several strategic and tactical advantages held by the US Army.

Micromanagement was only one of a long list of errors on Rumsfeld's part.

 

[russ_watters]

Micromanagement was only one of a long list of errors on Rumsfeld's part.

You're right - I kinda umbrella'd that. Things like not listening to the Generals about prewar planning could kinda be considered micromanagement, but yes, they go beyond it.

 

[BobG]

This article (Defending Rumsfeld From the Generals) provides a little balance to what Rumsfeld did right and what Rumsfeld did wrong.

So, during the run-up to the war, Rumsfeld insisted that the Army didn't need all this heavy artillery—Air Force bombs could do some of the job—and therefore it didn't need all the logistical support that went with the artillery or all the combat troops needed to defend the logistical supply lines. And he was right.

But he didn't realize that by slicing out the support units, he was also slicing out the combat troops, military police, and logistics needed for "stability operations"—the order and occupation after the toppling of Saddam's regime.

Rumsfeld's vision for transforming the military into a single interoperable entity (vs. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines operating independently) is the reason I was a big fan of his at the start of the Bush administration. His vision works for the types of wars you could expect the US to fight. Now a days, the US isn't typically called upon to invade and occupy a foreign country. The military usually responds to a problem, solves it, and gets out (except for a few cases where the US responded, didn't solve the problem, and got out).

Deciding to invade and occupy a foreign country, pre-emptively, was the big mistake. Once the big mistake was made, Rumsfeld failed to adapt to reality; failed to adapt to what the big mistake meant to his idea of the military.

 

[Gokul43201]

According to Gen. Trainor, while the field Generals were engaged in incorporating plans for the occupation into the overall invasion strategy (based on nearly two decades worth of military modeling aimed specifically at this scenario), Rumsfeld appeared to be adamantly in denial of the need for an occupying/stabilizing force of any significant size.

That (IMO) is just blatant and mindless disregard for the countless man-hours put in by the State Dept, military planners and the DIA on preparing a comprehensive military strategy for an occupation of Iraq.

 

[Astronuc]

According to Gen. Trainor, while the field Generals were engaged in incorporating plans for the occupation into the overall invasion strategy (based on nearly two decades worth of military modeling aimed specifically at this scenario), Rumsfeld appeared to be adamantly in denial of the need for an occupying/stabilizing force of any significant size.

That (IMO) is just blatant and mindless disregard for the countless man-hours put in by the State Dept, military planners and the DIA on preparing a comprehensive military strategy for an occupation of Iraq.

It's more like "blatant and mindless denial of reality." Can we say "incompetent!"

 

[Gokul43201]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1885285

April 24, 2006 — The six retired generals who have called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation may soon get a chance to bring their complaints to Capitol Hill.

In response to a request from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said he would ask his committee to vote on whether to hold a hearing with all six generals.

...

ABC News has learned that Rumsfeld will be on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning for a private meeting with senior Republican senators, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. It will be a chance for Rumsfeld to shore up his support among those he is counting on to defend his record.

It takes 2 republican votes for the hearings to be held. Now's another good time to ask the question "What will McCain do ?"

 

[SOS2008]

The fact that it's turning into a parade of retired generals that barely wait until they're outside the door to attack Rumsfeld is hopefully as close to military coup as the US ever gets (The Revolt Against Rumsfeld). I think it's clear Rumsfeld isn't capable of leading the military anymore.

Well than I vote to keep Rummy. That way if Bush tries to impose Martial Law or suspend elections, there won't be military support. :tongue:

Active duty officers can not complain or request anything directly from the president.

Everything goes up through the chain of command and Rumsfeld...

As far as commanders on the ground, they know that any request for a change in current methods of fighting the war could also be career ending. That is why the complaints are comming from retired officers.

The MO -- Sounds similar to so-called congressional oversight of the NSA Spying program.

The fact is Rumsfeld has made several significant tactical errors. From an USA Today article entitiled "Generals defend Rumsfeld but cite 'severe' errors" - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-16-myers-rumsfeld_x.htm

Retired U.S. Army brigadier general James Marks said officers "are charged to speak up" and did. The problem, he said, is that their views were disregarded. "There were requests for forces that were denied," Marks said on CNN. "We requested the 1st Cavalry Division. That was denied — at a very critical point in the war."

Beyond that, I'm not as concerned about Rumsfeld's management style as I am his personality and the poor way he represents our country -- Of course the same thing can be said about the "decider" (Commander-in-Chief). For those who may have forgotten:

Rumsfeld is a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which years ago put Iraq at the top of the neo-conservative agenda for future military action in the Middle East.

In the run up to the war, Rumsfeld catapulted to celebrity status as he strutted at televised news conferences and reassured the public that U.S. troops would be most welcome in Iraq.

Some top generals and former diplomats who knew the Middle East a lot better tried unsuccessfully to dissuade him.

Among them was Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, who told a congressional hearing that it would take "several hundred thousand" U.S. troops to conduct the war in Iraq and carry out the postwar plans.

Rumsfeld was furious with Shinseki's testimony, saying it was "off the mark." A short time later, Rumsfeld made Shinseki a lame duck by announcing his successor.

Shinseki has long since been vindicated by the continuing chaos in Iraq, where civil war seems just around the corner.

Rumsfeld, hardly a diplomat, alienated France and Germany by referring to them as "old Europe" at a time when the U.S. needed all the allies it could get.

He spoke of war glibly, saying "stuff happens," or there are not "nice tidings" in a military conflict.

On a soldier's complaint about the inferior military equipment in Iraq, Rumsfeld said memorably, "You go to war with the army you have."

After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, the defense secretary tried to explain the looting that went on afterward: "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to commit crimes and make mistakes and do bad things."

On July 22, 2002, Rumsfeld initialed a directive to Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, then-chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, on how to execute missions dealing with terrorists.

One excerpt from the memo read: "The objective should be to capture terrorists for interrogation, or if necessary, to kill them, not simply to arrest them in (a) law enforcement exercise."

The secretary also signed off on some horrendous forms of torture during interrogation at U.S.-run prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad, which shamed America, especially when the infamous photographs were made public.

Afterwards, Rumsfeld banned some of the more extreme abuses of detainees -- but made no promise to abide by the Geneva Convention on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put Rumsfeld in his place at a recent joint Pentagon news conference. A reporter asked Rumsfeld this question: If an American soldier saw an Iraqi torturing a detainee, should he intervene?

Rumsfeld said it was not the U.S. servicemen's role to interfere, but Pace interjected that it was incumbent on the American to stop the maltreatment when he saw it. The two men later tried to smooth over their obvious differences.

Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon when it was hit by a terrorist-controlled plane and valiantly pitched into help rescue the victims.

An incident cited in a book titled: "Rumsfeld's War," referred to a meeting of commanders at the Pentagon in 2003 when Rumsfeld pulled aside Air Force General Charles Holland, the special operations chief who Rumsfeld thought was not aggressive enough.

The secretary asked the general: "Have you killed anyone yet?"

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/7615012/detail.html

I thought "dignitaries" were supposed to have dignity. What legitimate member of government says "stuff happens" or "people are free to commit crimes"? Bush and Cheney lack good public relations skills too. The entire cabal is an embarrassment, and that's the kindest thing that can be said.

As for the neocons who dreamed up this whole mess, they still say the invasion was the right thing to do. They can't show how Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than many other leaders in the world, and they still can't show how the invasion was part of the larger war on terror (other than fueling it). Perhaps by spreading democracy? But they never tell you how that would really be accomplished. These are the idiots who think Rummy has been doing a fine job.

It takes 2 republican votes for the hearings to be held. Now's another good time to ask the question "What will McCain do ?"

I think it would help his standing with everyone except the Bush base.

 

[FredGarvin]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Rumsfeld's handling of things is very similar to the Macnamara and his whiz kids during Vietnam?

It appears to me that all of the initial "planning" Rummy and Bush did was almost entirely centered on the monetary aspect of the invasion and had nothing to do with the cost of completion.

 

[Astronuc]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Rumsfeld's handling of things is very similar to the Macnamara and his whiz kids during Vietnam?

Yeah - they thought to much of themselves and their ideas - and we wrong for the most part.

It appears to me that all of the initial "planning" Rummy and Bush did was almost entirely centered on the monetary aspect of the invasion and had nothing to do with the cost of completion.

They didn't plan beyond the invasion. These guys were clueless. There has been plenty written on the missed opportunities.

And recently, I heard during a commentary that Shi'ite militias have been infiltrating the Iraqi forces for two years, and the US has basically ignored it. That's a concern a big for the Sunni and Kurd minorities. And the Bush administration doesn't have a clue.

 

[BobG]

Even Colin Powell has finally came out and said he had recommended more troops for the Iraq invasion. For the most part Powell has been very restrained in his personal comments about Iraq, even if his aide, Wilkerson, has been very vocal.

Except Powell puts the responsibility on Bush:

“I made the case to General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld before the president that I was not sure we had enough troops,” Powell said in an interview on Britain’s ITV television. “The case was made, it was listened to, it was considered. ... A judgment was made by those responsible that the troop strength was adequate.”

In an interview with AARP The Magazine released Sunday, Powell did not say what advice he gave Bush about whether to go to war. Known to be less hawkish than Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and some other presidential advisers, Powell implied he had been more cautious.

“The decisions that were made were not made by me or Mr. Cheney or Rumsfeld. They were made by the president of the United States,” he said.

“And my responsibility was to tell him what I thought. And if others were going in at different times and telling him different things, it was his decision to decide whether he wanted to listen to that person or somebody else.”

Perhaps that's fitting. As Bush said, "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best." Not quite as eloquent as Harry Truman.

 

[BobG]

Editorial in the Air Force Times (also in Army Times, Navy Times): http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php

These aren't official military publications, but they're noted for their staff have very close ties with senior military leaders. Occasionally, you may see something in them critical of how Congress has resolved some military benefits, but I've never seen an editorial like this.

(The home page is more personally interesting to me - it includes an article on a weather satellite launched on Saturday - that was a good day, even if I did have to work on a weekend. )

 

[Bystander]

Maxwell Taylor was a proponent of an expanded standing army --- Ike fired him for just that reason; large standing army looks mighty aggressive to USSR, creates real problems during Cold War era.

Micromanagement? Couple missed opportunities early in Afghanistan when people kept bucking decisions to fire up the chain of command, but nothing like the McNamoron era.

Not enough troops? Organized opposition ended a month in --- that's more than adequate force applied.

Not enough occupation troops? Or not enough exercise of martial law? And who was in the road of applying martial law? And, who would have been screaming had "Marne" shot looters on sight in Baghdad?

Rummy's done fine: sent adequate forces; stayed out of their way; modified equipment as necessary; hasn't done a replay of Sherman's March to the Sea; and, kept the opposition guessing. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz got no complaints with him.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sun Tzu and Clausewitz got no complaints with him.

Sun Tzu didn't ever have to worry about invading, deposing and then returning the land to the original owners!

 

[Bystander]

Sun Tzu didn't ever have to worry about invading, deposing and then returning the land to the original owners!

He most certainly did --- might depend on which translation you've read.

 

[BobG]

Maxwell Taylor was a proponent of an expanded standing army --- Ike fired him for just that reason; large standing army looks mighty aggressive to USSR, creates real problems during Cold War era.

Micromanagement? Couple missed opportunities early in Afghanistan when people kept bucking decisions to fire up the chain of command, but nothing like the McNamoron era.

Not enough troops? Organized opposition ended a month in --- that's more than adequate force applied.

Not enough occupation troops? Or not enough exercise of martial law? And who was in the road of applying martial law? And, who would have been screaming had "Marne" shot looters on sight in Baghdad?

Rummy's done fine: sent adequate forces; stayed out of their way; modified equipment as necessary; hasn't done a replay of Sherman's March to the Sea; and, kept the opposition guessing. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz got no complaints with him.

So you feel things are progressing towards a successful resolution?

Or do you agree with Boehner that it's military leadership that has failed in Iraq, not Rumsfeld?

Or do you feel there's so many other things preventing success that management by the Pentagon is irrelevant?

 

[Bystander]

So you feel things are progressing towards a successful resolution?

Tomorrow? No. The way I'd have proceeded? No. Along a perfectly reasonable path? Yes. When? Well toward the end of the century at the earliest. You've got a lot of "interesting times" ahead of you.

Or do you agree with Boehner that it's military leadership that has failed in Iraq, not Rumsfeld?

No.

Or do you feel there's so many other things preventing success that management by the Pentagon is irrelevant?

No. "Nothing prevents success." "Success" is defined differently by the two major political parties in this country, by the military, by contemporary historians, future historians, and by the people participating in discussions of "success." What is "successful" for one will be an abysmal failure for others. The "partisan" and individual definitions are the least significant, and not really worth discussion; military and historical definitions come a little closer to reflecting what's happening, and what effects are to be expected.

 

[Gokul43201]

Tomorrow? No. The way I'd have proceeded? No. Along a perfectly reasonable path? Yes. When? Well toward the end of the century at the earliest. You've got a lot of "interesting times" ahead of you.

I agree with the probable timeline for noticeable change, but I didn't hear anyone in the Pentagon or Whitehouse express such a possibility.

A month before the invasion, Rumsfeld told airmen in Italy that the entire conflict could last http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t02072003_t0207sdtownhall.html in response to a question about deployment time. The summer before, Perle told us in a PBS interview, that "Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder". (Three years later, the Sunni insurgency is strong, and al Maliki is proposing legislation to pacify Saddam supporters.)

I think Rummy is a brilliant thinker, but I think he (like the rest of the gang at the Whitehouse) let some kind of blind faith get in the way of reason.

 

[Bystander]

I agree with the probable timeline for noticeable change, but I didn't hear anyone in the Pentagon or Whitehouse express such a possibility.

Huh? That's the only noise they've ever made about this conflict.

A month before the invasion, Rumsfeld told airmen in Italy that the entire conflict could last http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t02072003_t0207sdtownhall.html in response to a question about deployment time.

That's how long Saddam lasted. A single campaign is not an entire war.

The summer before, Perle told us in a PBS interview, that "Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder".

And, it did.

(Three years later, the Sunni insurgency is strong, and al Maliki is proposing legislation to pacify Saddam supporters.)

Three years after the end of the ACW, William Quantrill was dead, and the Dalton and James gangs had only begun to "terrorize" mid-America; ten years after WW I, Capone, Schultz, Lansky, Darrows, PB Floyd, MG Kelly, and a whole host of punks and hoodlums were "terrorizing" America; ten years after WW II, Hell's Angels, the Outlaws, Sons of Silence, and a whole boatload of scooter trash were "terrrorizing" America; ten years after Vietnam, Crips and Bloods were "terrorizing" LA. These were not "insurgents," they were punks, hoods, Halbstarke, and general "ne'er do wells."

I think Rummy is a brilliant thinker, but I think he (like the rest of the gang at the Whitehouse) let some kind of blind faith get in the way of reason.

"Some kind of blind faith?" In what? The assorted "straw men" the "arm chair" quarterbacks have been presenting? First principle of warfare, be it open or diplomatic, is "NEVER let the other guy know what's going on." Strategic goals of the U.S. in this conflict? You know what you think you'd like to see happen. Small children know they think they'd like to feel what's on the stove. As a nation, we're interested in reducing the frequency of "9-11" events; prior to 9-11 it was assumed that much as "certain" factions from "certain" areas of the world were inclined to attempt suicidal attacks, that they were incompetent to actually carry such efforts through successfully. That's changed. It's public record that not only are they "that" crazy, they are capable of doing it.

First strategic question is then, how do we handle terrorists? Scrape them out of the sky with buildings? Kill ratio is lousy. Hunt them down with normal law enforcement techniques like Ted Kaczinsky at several thousand man-years per head? Veerrryyyy expensive. Declare war at 1-10 man years per head? They aren't going to come out from under their rocks and fight. Declare war and hunt 'em down a la the "ten men per ankle biter for ten years" (100 man years per head) of Robert Thompson and the Malay Emergency? How about we declare war and set up appropriately baited traps? (O,U)BL in Afghanistan, and the idea that people can question leaders, vote for and against them in Iraq, and see if we can cut Thompson's 100 man years per kill down to something a little closer to that of conventional warfare? "Okay, let's try it." NATO's got a kill ratio 30:1 to 100:1 in Afghanistan, and near's I can tell, we're running between 10:1 and 30:1 in Iraq. "Marne" flattened Saddam while "Ivy" was floating around in the Med; message? We don't have to use the "best equipped" divisions to depose governments. Was it understood? Oh, yeah. Are there a number of governments of Islamic nations taking steps to control extremists? Yup. More than used to be? Yup. Are there governments actively fomenting terrorism? Yup. Fewer than there used to be? If we count Libya, yes --- if we add Lebanon, no. Are our "allies" a little more careful laundering money for terrorists? Yes. Are they laundering less money? Hard telling --- NYT has too much trouble keeping their mouths shut. Did he sh*tcan that worthless, godd&mned 5.56? No. Is it still getting troops killed? Yes. All in all, the man ain't done a bad job on one of the uglier situations anyone's ever faced. Too rough, the libs scream; too easy, the libs scream; too much force, the libs scream; too little force, the libs scream. He knew it when he took the job. Six years of listening to libs scream --- his ears are going to be ringing for a long time.

 

[Gokul43201]

Huh? That's the only noise they've ever made about this conflict.

Nothing I ever heard during the run-up to the invasion. Maybe I missed it. One argument is that you can't sell a war to the people unless you "convince" them it's going to be a really short one - I don't know how you tackle that one! The question however, is whether or not the military planners in the Pentagon themselves expected the largescale deployment of troops to last a significant time.

That's how long Saddam lasted. A single campaign is not an entire war.

I may be misunderstanding the context, but it seems the airman was asking Rumsfeld how long the Guard and Reserves would be deployed.

And, it did.

Are you saying there's little or no support for Saddam today?

Isn't the presence of Saddam-loyal Sunni militias is a big part of the problem today? And to have calculated their demise at the onset of the invasion; isn't that clearly erroneous?

Three years after the end of the ACW, William Quantrill was dead, and the Dalton and James gangs had only begun to "terrorize" mid-America; ten years after WW I, Capone, Schultz, Lansky, Darrows, PB Floyd, MG Kelly, and a whole host of punks and hoodlums were "terrorizing" America; ten years after WW II, Hell's Angels, the Outlaws, Sons of Silence, and a whole boatload of scooter trash were "terrrorizing" America; ten years after Vietnam, Crips and Bloods were "terrorizing" LA. These were not "insurgents," they were punks, hoods, Halbstarke, and general "ne'er do wells."

America had to take care of America. It was conveyed to the people that Iraq would be able to take care of Iraq. Do you recall the projections for the completion of enlisting, outfitting and training Iraqi defense and police forces? The complaint I'm making is not what history has taught us about the reality of a post-war period, but how the administration painted it in stark contrast to what has been learned. But my bigger concern was whether what should have been learned really was. That extensive studies and planning (for Iraq) was close to ignored is staggering.

"Some kind of blind faith?" In what?

I wish I knew. I think some of it stems from some kind of religious conviction.

Did he sh*tcan that worthless, godd&mned 5.56? No. Is it still getting troops killed? Yes.

I thought they switched to bigger rounds after the news reports came out. Still, this isn't something that comes all the way up to Rummy, is it?

All in all, the man ain't done a bad job on one of the uglier situations anyone's ever faced. Too rough, the libs scream; too easy, the libs scream; too much force, the libs scream; too little force, the libs scream. He knew it when he took the job. Six years of listening to libs scream --- his ears are going to be ringing for a long time.

The libs aren't the only ones screaming, though. Every congressman and senator from the right that got booted yesterday is mad that the Rove stuck with an unpopular Sec Def till after the elections. These are not folks that count on winning elections with votes from liberals. Are people like Zinni and Trainor "screaming libs"?

 

[Bystander]

Nothing I ever heard during the run-up to the invasion. Maybe I missed it. One argument is that you can't sell a war to the people unless you "convince" them it's going to be a really short one - I don't know how you tackle that one! The question however, is whether or not the military planners in the Pentagon themselves expected the largescale deployment of troops to last a significant time.

Bush said it was going to take a long time when he was standing on the WTC rubble heap. Never changed the tune. "Planners?" They've read Lawrence --- of course they knew. The "arm-chair" crowd corrupted the meaning of silence on the question --- don't go confusing "interpretations" with what was said or not said by decision makers. SW Asian cultures have no tradition of central government or of rule by law --- that they are mature enough to establish such traditions "overnight" is one of the "interpretations" that has been applied to the assumptions that went into the planning.

I may be misunderstanding the context, but it seems the airman was asking Rumsfeld how long the Guard and Reserves would be deployed.

Servicemen are always asking "How long?" And the answer has always been "As long as it takes." It's one of the boring litanies of warfare. He tried a "change-up," tells the guy how long SH will last, it's taken out of context, and ain't worth haggling about.

Are you saying there's little or no support for Saddam today?

Isn't the presence of Saddam-loyal Sunni militias is a big part of the problem today?

Sunni loyal Sunni gangs, and Shiite loyal Shiite gangs (Bloods and Crips) playing their own version of Hutu-Tutsi, and not even for political power, just for the bloodthirsty fun of it.

And to have calculated their demise at the onset of the invasion; isn't that clearly erroneous?

Iraqi army and Saddam's "Palace Guard" are two different things. The army lasted as long as it took their weapons to hit the ground when dropped. The Republican Guards as long as it took their bodies to hit the ground after the JDAMs and JSOWs hit. Saddam's personal gang of masked thugs for the most part evaporated --- there were what? Ten thousand of them goosestepping their way during parades? They never did show up. SH heads for a hole in the ground, they steal the plumbing and light bulbs from the barracks and disappear.

America had to take care of America. It was conveyed to the people that Iraq would be able to take care of Iraq.

By "the interpreters." Remember, 'tain't PC to "dis" third world ethnic and cultural groups. Everyone in the planning phase understood perfectly that they were facing the same mess Lawrence faced, complete chaos. No one trusts anyone, and every man for himself in SW Asia. One way to impress upon the public that SW Asia is SW Asia, and is always going to be SW Asia is to go in light, save the MPs' lives, and concede to the libs the notion that these are mature people, capable of self-government. Everyone knows democracy hasn't got a snowball's chance, and no one really expects it to work, but it will, in the long run, shut the libs mouths.

Do you recall the projections for the completion of enlisting, outfitting and training Iraqi defense and police forces?

I recall "interpretations."

The complaint I'm making is not what history has taught us about the reality of a post-war period, but how the administration painted it in stark contrast to what has been learned.

"It's going to take as long as it takes?" Something along those lines?

[

But my bigger concern was whether what should have been learned really was. That extensive studies and planning (for Iraq) was close to ignored is staggering.

Kick SH out. Couple months. Round him up from whatever hole in the ground. Year. Set up a government (not so much mandated by Geneva and Hague as it is good form). However long it takes. You got a gripe with the Iraqis for being trapped in however many thousand years of cultural traditions? Take it up with them.

I wish I knew. I think some of it stems from some kind of religious conviction.

You're the guy who brought up "blind faith." And, now, you "wish you knew" in what. He does not have "blind faith" in any of the "interpretations" of strategic goals. He knows exactly what the strategic goals are. He also knows what I emphasized with bold and underlining, that he is not going to publish a white paper under the great seal on strategic goals to be communicated to the opposition. That leaves you, me, and everyone else on the forum in the dark. Too bad. You may live long enough for the strategic planning for this war to be declassified, and you may not. That's the advantage governments give you, they can act in your interests without giving away your interests.

I thought they switched to bigger rounds after the news reports came out. Still, this isn't something that comes all the way up to Rummy, is it?

There isn't a .22 in the world that's legal for anything larger than woodchucks (and you'd best be better trained than the average GI for clean kills there), 5.56 ain't a terribly hot .22, longer slugs require more spin (faster twist) for stabilization, and you can't make the slug long enough to make it as effective as the 7.xx from an AK-47. It's junk. It was palmed off on the troops by McNamoron, and Rummy's perfectly within his job description if he ditches it.

The libs aren't the only ones screaming, though. Every congressman and senator from the right that got booted yesterday is mad that the Rove stuck with an unpopular Sec Def till after the elections.

That's the true test of a good job --- everybody's b!tching. Libs all the time about everything, conservatives for not using "the bomb," retired generals for not expanding "the line" to accommodate their levels of incompetence.

These are not folks that count on winning elections with votes from liberals. Are people like Zinni and Trainor "screaming libs"?

Wouldn't know 'em from "Adam's 'off' ox."