Looks like the troops are getting tired of Rumsfeld's $h!t.

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by olVENICEdog, Dec 8, 2004.

  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    They asked a panel of retired generals about Rumfelds comments on Meet the Press this morning and it was pretty interesting. They all felt Rumsfelds response was flippant and condescending. It's the way he always responds to the media, but these were soldiers in a combat zone and his response was unacceptable.

    "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want". "it's a matter of logistics, we are producing armored Humvees as fast as possible."

    Well, Bullllll-chit!

    1. You go to war with an army that is ready. We were not defending ourselves from Iraq. We started this war on our own timetable and if the army was not prepared we should have waited until it was. He is indicting himself for poor planning and a rush to war with inadequate forces.

    2. We did not go to war with the army we had. We have a number of heavy armored units that have never been deployed. Other armored units left their tanks and APC's at home and became motorized infantry in Humvees in theater. Our Special Forces, Rangers, and elite Airborne units were committed in Afghanistan. Our heavy armored units deploy too slowly to meet Rummy's expectations.

    3. The US is capable of producing a lot more armor kits for trucks and humvees. There are DOD armor contractors laying off employees for lack of work orders from the Pentagon, including ones that produce the high-tech, lightweight ceramic armor instead of industrial steel plates.

    Then, after telling the troops that they just had to deal with it, Rumsfeld got into his armored vehicle and left. This was not lost on the soldiers.

    Rumsfeld has outlived his usefulness. His obsession with light, rapidly deployed forces equipped with jeeps and his persistent refusal to employ enough troops to get the job done is prolonging this occupation, getting troops killed, and costing us billions.
     
  2. Rex

    Rex Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    766
    Great post, red

    In light of the fact that 1200 of our young people have died, #1 is an especially salient point.

    What amazing arrogance.
     
  3. LSUGradin99

    LSUGradin99 I Bleedeth Purple 'N Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    475

    ^^^^ You lost all credibility whatsoever right there.
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Explain what you mean. Did we not invade Iraq at a time of our choosing?

    It ain't my credibility at question, amigo. It's Rumsfeld's.
     
  5. ashgeaux

    ashgeaux Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    We would still be waiting. I don't think waiting was an option. We were prepared, you can be prepared and not be perfect.

    There are alot of reasons for and against using the heavy armor, but I have to agree with you here. I hope Rumsfeld's plan works in the long-run, in terms of reshaping our military. He shouldn't have relied on it so much for Iraq, when like he said we are fighting with the military we have and he is trying to make it into the military he wants at the same time.

    If that's true they have some explaining to do. I assume there is a great deal of truth behind since I just saw a similar story about it on Fox.

    Of course it wasn't, but I don't think Rumsfeld had anything to do with it. The Secret Service would have it no other way. It is sad.

    I think his plan could be very useful one day, but it looks like it wasn't ready for Iraq. I disagree about the troop number. Unless Tommy Franks is lying he said he always got the amount of troops he asked for. Maybe he asked for the wrong amount, but I don't fault Bush for going with his number.

    We've been there less than 2 years, they'll have elections in January. It's not a failure- people die in war, mistakes are made. I think people are too impatient and want immediate solutions, myself included.

    I don't see how you can complain about it costing too much and then complain that we aren't spending enough? Not directed at you red, just a general question. I don't remember you ever complaining about us not spending enough.
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Well, General Shenseki, the head of the army was fired for doing his job and advising that we needed 500,000 troops to suceed in Iraq. The active generals all got into line after that. Asking for more troops is a career killer in this administration. Sure Tommy Franks got all the troops he asked for. He was damned careful not to ask for any more. But the retired Generals are speaking loudly and in chorus that the army in Iraq is understaffed, underequipped, and underheard from the Pentagon.

    The situation is clearly deteriorating going into its third year and there is no end in sight. What happens after the election? Do we pack up and go home then? Or do we hang around for a decade or so at 5,000 casualties and $75 billion a year? It took eight years and 375,000 casualties to get out of Vietnam. We're still in Korea after 50 years. Whether we leave tomorrow or decades from now, the place will go to hell when we're gone. Ashgeaux, some of us have seen this pattern before.

    I complain that we aren't spending it wisely. Even the US does not have endless money, the national debt is staggering. The War on Al Qaida is not over! This Iraqi misadventure is a costly distraction from the war on terror and the coming wars on nuclear proliferation. Saddam never had a nuclear bomb, but Pakistan and North Korea do. Both are untrustworthy and actually have the missiles to hit US forces. And this administration is militarily unprepared to deal with them while the Iraq war is going on. Iraq was a dreadful mistake and now that we are stuck in it, we don't need to dig the hole deeper. There is still no plan to end the occupation.

    The Colin Powell doctrine worked to perfection in the Gulf War and Kosovo. Don't go into a war without a viable exit strategy and use force, overwheming force if necessary, to achieve victory quickly and decisively. Powell advised against this war and now he also is history, . . . but they should have listened to him. We broke it, now we own it.
     
  7. ashgeaux

    ashgeaux Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was under the impression he retired and the timing of his retirement had been known for months.

    They are trying to delay the elections. It's not a coincedence the insurgency picked up prior to our elections and theirs. They know what is at stake.

    Great questions, but I think we have to wait until after the election to see what happens. We can't just pack up and leave now, because some people don't think it's going well. It all depends on the elections.

    I think it's premature to start comparing this to Vietnam. It will all depend on how the Iraqi's react to the elections and if they want to be free. I don't think they should be given up on, because the minority of them and a bunch of Syrians and Iranians want Iraq to go back to the way it was. Vietnam was a horribly run war and this one may turn out to be as well, but I still say it's too early to tell. We have the majority of the country under control, an interim government in place, and elections to be held.

    I don't think anyone would argue that is was over, especially not anyone in the current administration.

    I disagree with that completely, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

    Pakistan has been a strong ally since 9/11. Are they trustworthy? No way, but I'ld rather the help they are giving than nothing. I don't think they will just start shooting missiles at us. If they did we would just shoot back, they know that North Korea knows that. They aren't stupid. We may be stretched to thin and they know it, but we still have the capability of dropping a bomb on them and they know that too. This is where the Rumsefeld plan comes in. When we won't need 500,000 troops to deal with all possible altercations. They can be deployed as needed. I think he was a little premature in thinking it could work so soon with Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think both should have been dealt with at the time they were.

    As Tony Blair said the strategy is to win. I don't see what else it could be. This isn't like Vietnam, a loss there didn't hurt our national security. A loss in Iraq would do more damage than I would like to imagine. Therefore you don't lose. You stabilize the country, open your bases, and hope the Iraqi people aren't too stupid.

    I love Colin Powell. He's one my favorite people. I prefer him 100 times more than Rummy. It was also Cheney and Rumsefeld in the Gulf War and I think they were all wrong not to go into Baghdad, but I understand why they didn't. We see that now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it anyway. The outcome is far too important. Didn't he and Sachwarzkopf disagree on the Gulf War plan? There are many different possible strategies there is no way to know if his would have worked in Iraq. There is a reason they didn't go into Baghdad with it the first time.
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Always good observations, Ashgeaux.

    General Shenseki was actually "retired early" from his Chief of Staff job.

    Hmmm, better take a closer look, darlin'. There are a lot of parallels already (more political than military) and it would be foolish for the US to repeat all of them again. Remember it was a minority of the Vietnamese that fought us there, too. The Iraq war was run brilliantly, but the subsequent occupation is FUBAR.

    Pakistan is exactly like Iran in the 1970's. The government is pro-US and the people and the military are anti-US. When the Musharrif government falls, Pakistan will be our enemy. If Pakistan is no threat to us with the Islamic Bomb, then why in the world was Iraq? And in the case of the "Beloved Leader" of Korea, he is in fact stupid . . . and possibly deranged.

    Rumsfeld is a civilian politician, not a military man and it shows. I can judge Rumsfeld by the men that refuse to work for him. When Shinseki was sent packing the job of Army Chief of Staff seemed to be General Tommy Franks for the taking. Instead, without comment, the distinguished Franks politely refused and faded off into retirement. Few men that have spent a career of duty and service decline the opportunity to serve in the highest position in the army.


    I've asked this before and nobody has offered an answer yet. What exactly constitutes victory in this war? Technically we already won the war when we occupied the capital in 21 days. So how do win now? If you are expecting a Jeffersonian democracy to break out, you are going to be very disapointed. There is no democracy anywhere in the Arab world, not even among our allies. Democracy may, in fact be incompatible with Islam. I don't see how to "win" this occupation of a country where they hate us and are trying to kill out troops. They looted their own country and are not cooperating with our attempts to rebuild it. Sooner or later, just like in Vietnam, we will just have to leave because it is in our best interests to do so. Then the place will go to hell and some strongman will take charge, possibly a religious fanatic, which would actually be worse for us than the secular Saddam! I opt for sooner rather than later. I ask again, what constitutes victory at this point?


    I admire Powell as well, Bush backed the wrong guy. Colin Powell's and the first George Bush's decision not to invade Iraq in 1991 seemed like a mistake at the time, but present realities make it clear that they did the right thing. George HW Bush wrote in his 1997 memoir "A World Transformed":

    Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy'. Had we gone the invasion route, The United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

    Pity that the son lacked the wisdom and prudence of the father.
     
  9. ashgeaux

    ashgeaux Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure there are many parallels, but I just think it is a little too soon to call it a disaster. I don't know too much about Vietnam, but I do know it was fought politically. We lost because of the politics in America. I don't see that happening today. You can't say Bush went into Iraq for political reasons, Iraq was almost a political disaster for him. I wish they would be more aggressive, but they haven't changed their tactics in Iraq.

    It depends on the Iraqis in this case, as it did then. If they don't fight we will have a problem.

    Agree. Maybe not fubar, but the war was better than the insurgency.

    I'm in no way defending Pakistan. I just admire Musharrif for the time being. He has faced something like 5 assassination attempts and is still standing behind us. Compared to where we were 3 years ago, it's an improvement.

    That comes down to Saddam vs. Mushariff. We had gone in circles with Iraq for over 10 years, not so much with Pakistan. It was more of a "this is your last chance" type of thing.

    Psycho is a better word. I don't know if he is stupid enough to mess with South Korea or us. If he is then he will have a large problem on his hands.

    Rumsfeld never appears to be "politiciany" to me. He has no patience. He also appears to dislike people, and he doesn't give political answers. That's a great observation about Franks. He could have just wanted to write his book? It is still an odd position to give up.

    I can't give any other answer other than that. My guess of winning is creating a stable enviroment and government, but I really know nothing.

    Stability or the best that you can acheive. I used to say we had already won the war, and now we are just fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would always have to clarify what I meant, so I stopped saying it.

    I'm not. There is only one Jeffersonian democracy, and a few that come close. Most countries are far from perfect democracies. I don't expect Iraq to pop up somewhere between France and Germany anytime soon, or ever.

    Having a vote is a democracy and if they choose to vote in a dictator then they are stupid, but it was their choice. We can't just go invade their country and leave them with nothing. Democracy is the only thing we can give them. It might not be compatiable, but if them getting the chance to go to school, make a living, keeps some Muslim or whoever from wanting to fly a plane into an American building- I say give it a shot.

    It's not all of them, it's not even most of them. The Sunni Trinagle is full of Syrians and Iranians. Which brings up another question of why the aren't borders more secure.

    That all could very well happen, that result would be a complete mess. One they just can't let happen. They have to do everything in there power from letting it happen and they know that. This is where I think the difference between Iraq and Vietnam comes into play. The outcome of this could change the shape of the Middle East, and thus the world, hopefully for the better but possibly for the worst. Vietnam just didn't have that impact. Communists/Russia wanted to spread their politics, Islamic fascists want to kill us. Bush or anyone can't just say "oh well, I guess America doesn't want this- lets get out of there". The outcome is far too important.

    I think Powell himself knew his plan wouldn't work in this instance. When you are fighting a global war, which includes 2 full out nation invasions at the same time you can't have 500,000 troops in both countries, as well as dealing with other problems. Or even if it wasn't Iraq, and it was Iran you would have the same problem. Actually an even worse problem, both North Korea and Iran would need over 500,000 troops each under Powell's plan. Then we would be beyond stretched to thin, there would be a draft. That's why I like Rumsfeld's plan. If he can transform the military the way he wants to and it works, it will be impressive. I still say he was wrong in trying to use it to the extent that he did in Iraq.

    This is where we get into that fundamental difference of opinion on Iraq. I say it was worth it. You don't take that chance, and you deal with the consequences. It was a different world then. Which is why I don't fault Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush pre-9/11 or even Carter (maybe Carter) for there stance or lack thereof on terrorism.
     
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    That's an easy one. There are not enough soldiers in Iraq to get the job done properly. There never have been. We can't even keep our supply lines secure to Kuwait and Jordan, they shoot up our trucks and kidnap drivers all of the time. Lately we cannot even secure the road between Baghdad and the main US base at Bagdad International Airport. British and American diplomats are now under instructions not to use the road. Rumsfeld's small, lightweight army is not big enough to accomplish the goals set for them Although extremely capable, there aren't enough troops over there. This was a political decision, not a military one. The military advised against invading Iraq, then when ordered they advised that more troops would be needed.


    All wars are political, of course. But it is more complex than that. We didn't actually lose the Vietnam War militarily. How can you lose a war in which you win every battle? We quit the Vietnam War because it was gaining us nothing for the 58,000 dead young men from my generation and billions of dollars badly needed elsewhere. It was a quagmire guerilla insurgency with no way for us to win. We have failed to learn the lesson of Vietnam, clearly.

    You will begin to see the politics in America turn against this war in Iraq. We were all for Vietnam in the beginning, too. As it went on, the lies and mistakes from the administration became more and more obvious. Anti-war feeling increased and spread from just politically-minded students to Mom'N'Dad and Joe Average and eventually Cronkite himself. Bush won't allow the caskets returning home to be photographed, but he is not fooling the public. There may only be a few dissenting voices now, but everybody will be getting on the train as this drags on. By 1972 nobody in the friggin' country thought we should still be in Vietnam.

    Just like Johnston in 1964 the war is what got George Bush elected in 2004. But in 2008 the continuing Iraqi occupation will leave him discredited, will be a millstone around the neck of his party and it will get the opposition elected. Deja vu.

    History will be as unkind to George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as it has been to Lyndon Johnson and Robert MacNamara. And for good reason. This was is not only a disaster, . . . it is a snowballing disaster.
     

Share This Page