[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
On Nov. 4, 2006, in an unprecedented editorial, the Military Times (Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, etc) called for Rumsfeld to step down.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.[/b]
As someone who had read the Marine Corps Times for 4 years straight I put no reliablity in anything that comes out of that “newspaper”. The writing is atrocious and the people are morons. That said, I just could never NOT buy it. The cover story always seemed so cool to an 18-22 year old me. Then you discover that you’ve learned nothing.
That said, I really dislike how the war is going though I am a large proponent of it. Not having Rumsfeld is going to make things worse. There are an extra thousand men alive today thanks to doctrines he pressed that made the bulky and lethargic army a lighter and more agile force. This saved MANY lives during the push. Rummy is a patriot and a man of character. I’m glad to see him resign to avoid the democratic witch hunt that had him first on the hit list.
Also, for those of you that think this is a good move; consider his replacement. At a time when we are crying about poor treatment of prisoners, torture and secret prisons we remove Rummy and put in a guy that headed the CIA?! WTF?! I’m sure the CIA is completely devoid of shady characters.
If Rummy had to go, we should have iced off Schwartzkoff or something. He knows how to kick a little ass and has something of a record in the area. We at least could have put a general or a military historian in the slot. (Victor Davis Hanson comes to mind)
mike
It’s not written by soldiers – all those paper are owned by the same company that runs USA Today, and the writers and editors are just normal writers and editors.
Yes, but they listen to their rank and file readership. In a poll in February, two months after Gen. Abizaid indicated that the insurgency is only in 4 of 18 provinces and things are “going well” in the remaining 14, a total of 49% of respondents indicated that they believed the overall competence of the civilian leadership of the Office of the Secretary (i.e., Rumsfeld) is either “poor” or “awful”.
http://armytimes.com/content/editorial/pdf/022406_commandclimate_survey.pdf
It is telling that a paper that is known for insubstantial reporting decided to stand up and take a position on an issue of such consequence. It is also telling that two days later Bush agreed with their position.
[/quote]
They listen to their rank and file? 1/3 of the respondants were officers, 1/5 were field grade. The remainder were NCOs and mostly staff ones at that. What ever happened to vast majority of the military, the privates to lance corporals? Only 1/3 were outside CONUS and less than 1/3 had more than a year in a combat zone in the last ten years. This is during a time of war when guys are doing 2-4 deployments. Hell army guys do 18 month deployments. Marines are doing multiple 6-8 month deployments. So we’re asking senior military, an exceptional high amount of officers (which are politicians that wear a uniform) with a woeful lack of combat experience. The quality and scope of this survey is commensurate with the quality of reporting that rag pushes out.
All this said, I bet you would be rather hard pressed to EVER find a serving soldier/airman/sailor/Marine to say that his chain of command isn’t full of a bunch of idiots. I will at least give you that.
mike
When I was a private, I was hard pressed to remember my chain of command, let alone have an opinion as to the competence of the Secretary of Defense (at the time it was Harold Brown). I was way more interested in reading Soldier of Fortune than US News & World Report.