Donald Rumsfeld

[vroom]

[quote]The drive to Baghdad was stalled for 2 reasons. A sandstorm and logistic difficulties due to irregular harrasment of our supply lines.

Our casualties were minimal.

The drive for Baghdad is one of the greatest feats in our military history. [/quote]

Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t part of the problem that captured areas were very sparsely occupied?

Anyway, given the strength of the opposition (or more accurately the lack of it) I don’t know if I’d be all that excited about the historic feat aspect of things.

[GDollars37]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
dermo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The initial successes in Iraq and Afghanistan were a result of Rummy pushing them to do it his way. .

I am not an expert, but wasn’t it Rummy’s idea to have a light, fast-moving army race to Baghdad? I read that he only wanted to take 30,000 troops there, in contrast to the much higher numbers that Colin Powell and others called for. Doesn’t the current mess owe much to the initial lack of security - i.e. not having enough troops to secure the country?

Yes. Most in the Pentagon didn’t think they would make it to Baghdad. They thought the drive would stall and they would need more divisions to get there.

[/quote]

OK, most of the generals and defense talking heads on the news didn’t think there were enough troops to drive to Baghdad and win the conventional war as decisively as we did. Rumsfeld was right there. However, he didn’t even consider the possibility of an insurgency (he can barely bring himself to use the word now) and was planning to have U.S. troop levels down to 30,000 within six months of the invasion. Which, I ask you, is the bigger error? Yeah, it’s a rhetorical question.

[GDollars37]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Rummy went to the Naval Academy. Much of his life he has been associated with military/defense affairs.

To portray him as anything less than an expert is foolish.[/quote]

Since when does pedigree equal performance? George Bush has a Harvard MBA, didn’t seem to turn him into the world’s greatest businessman.

As to drawing down troop levels, perhaps it should have been done long ago. More troops equal more targets for the terrorists.

That’s a stupid argument, although it’s one often parroted by a Pentagon that knows it doesn’t have enough troops and has to make excuses. It runs counter to the entire experience of the last century of counter-insurgency warfare. Read any good study of Vietnam, or, for more topical, shorter stuff, this week’s New Republic cover story, or the Washington Post article I posted a few days back. If you want one of the most damning indictments of how this war’s been run, I can email you the Andrew Krepinevich (ex-Army Major, wrote one of the best books on Vietnam) article in Foreign Affairs this past fall.

The Iraqis should have been made responsible for their own security faster. Unfortunately due to many political considerations we were forced to disband the Iraqi Army and most other Shiite/Baathist dominated institutions.

You think they’re capable of being responsible for their own security? Wow. Read the paper.

[quote]
The Pentagon weenies have had their knives out for Rummy since day one. He made very clear he was going to change the makeup of the armed forces since his firsy day in office. They obviously felt threated because many of them still wanted to fight the last war and not the next war.

This is age old politics.

Rummy is not perfect, but to pretend he is incompetent is stupid.[/quote]

Did you read any of the links I posted? This Army is still structured to fight the last war, due to Rumsfeld. He is flat out ignoring the lessons of Iraq, because they don’t fit into his vision of warfare. I fail to understand how anyone could think he isn’t grossly incompetent.

[kenmen]

Rumsfeld is horrible. Why is he still Defense Secretary? Because removing him would be acknowledging just how poorly the entire war effort has gone.

“Entire” means the initial invasion and the aftermath. Both must be considered together. It does us no good to say how great we did initially when here we are three years later stuck in a quagmire.

I don’t know whether or not Rumsfeld is an expert on the military. He should be based on the important position he occupies. One thing I do know is that Rummy’s gotten things dreadfully wrong concerning Iraq. Where do we go from here? I’d like to see some accountability.

[Dorso]

“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” -on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction

“Learn to say ‘I don’t know.’ If used when appropriate, it will be often.”
[/quote]

Why does everyone have to get all political and ruin a funny thread? These are funny quotes. I do not like Rummy but I have to admit he is gifted with words. Clever stuff.

[Brad61]

Rummy went to the Naval Academy. Much of his life he has been associated with military/defense affairs.

Yeah, Rumsfeld sure did a great job defeating the Iraqi navy.

[quote]The drive to Baghdad was stalled for 2 reasons. A sandstorm and logistic difficulties due to irregular harrasment of our supply lines.

Our casualties were minimal. [/quote]

It was a screwup in planning. They were hit with something they were unprepared for. I don’t see how anyone can condone a failure in preparation, but apparantly you do. Had we been fighting a formidable opposition, the stall-out could have been a massacre of our guys.

The Iraqis should have been made responsible for their own security faster. Unfortunately due to many political considerations we were forced to disband the Iraqi Army and most other Shiite/Baathist dominated institutions.

We weren’t forced to do anything, it was a conscious decision on the part of the suits in the White House. The US envoy at the time, General Garner, recommended that the Iraqi army be maintained, and used as a security force for their own homeland. General Garner was fired almost immediately and replaced with Paul Bremmer (another unqualified jackass). The army was disbanded and all those trained people were let go, where they were free to join the insurgency if they wanted to, instead of given an active role in protecting their own country.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Rummy went to the Naval Academy. Much of his life he has been associated with military/defense affairs.

Yeah, Rumsfeld sure did a great job defeating the Iraqi navy.
[/quote]

This is stupid so no real response is necessary.

The drive to Baghdad was stalled for 2 reasons. A sandstorm and logistic difficulties due to irregular harrasment of our supply lines.

Our casualties were minimal.

It was a screwup in planning. They were hit with something they were unprepared for. I don’t see how anyone can condone a failure in preparation, but apparantly you do. Had we been fighting a formidable opposition, the stall-out could have been a massacre of our guys.

Why would they pln to fight an opponent that didn’t exist?

The drive to Baghdad was masterful. To deny this is foolish.

The Iraqis should have been made responsible for their own security faster. Unfortunately due to many political considerations we were forced to disband the Iraqi Army and most other Shiite/Baathist dominated institutions.

We weren’t forced to do anything, it was a conscious decision on the part of the suits in the White House. The US envoy at the time, General Garner, recommended that the Iraqi army be maintained, and used as a security force for their own homeland. General Garner was fired almost immediately and replaced with Paul Bremmer (another unqualified jackass). The army was disbanded and all those trained people were let go, where they were free to join the insurgency if they wanted to, instead of given an active role in protecting their own country.

You show zero understanding of the issues and just seem able to criticise.

You don’t understand why we felt we had to disband the Iraqi Army and security forces. If you would like I could give you a brief explanation but I am sure you would not listen.

Perhaps you could explain to me how the Shiites would have felt if we left the Sunni army intact.

[kenmen]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Rummy went to the Naval Academy. Much of his life he has been associated with military/defense affairs.

Yeah, Rumsfeld sure did a great job defeating the Iraqi navy.

This is stupid so no real response is necessary.

The drive to Baghdad was stalled for 2 reasons. A sandstorm and logistic difficulties due to irregular harrasment of our supply lines.

Our casualties were minimal.

It was a screwup in planning. They were hit with something they were unprepared for. I don’t see how anyone can condone a failure in preparation, but apparantly you do. Had we been fighting a formidable opposition, the stall-out could have been a massacre of our guys.

Why would they pln to fight an opponent that didn’t exist?

The drive to Baghdad was masterful. To deny this is foolish.

The Iraqis should have been made responsible for their own security faster. Unfortunately due to many political considerations we were forced to disband the Iraqi Army and most other Shiite/Baathist dominated institutions.

We weren’t forced to do anything, it was a conscious decision on the part of the suits in the White House. The US envoy at the time, General Garner, recommended that the Iraqi army be maintained, and used as a security force for their own homeland. General Garner was fired almost immediately and replaced with Paul Bremmer (another unqualified jackass). The army was disbanded and all those trained people were let go, where they were free to join the insurgency if they wanted to, instead of given an active role in protecting their own country.

You show zero understanding of the issues and just seem able to criticise.

You don’t understand why we felt we had to disband the Iraqi Army and security forces. If you would like I could give you a brief explanation but I am sure you would not listen.

Perhaps you could explain to me how the Shiites would have felt if we left the Sunni army intact. [/quote]

I don’t know. However, based on the actions we took (disbanding the army, etc.) things have gone horribly wrong. Clearly, the actions we took had disastrous consequences. It’s pointless to attempt to justify or even explain some of these decisions… we know the results. We need to focus on the current situation and do things better. New leadership from the top (Defense Secretary) would be a very good start.