Jawa Report (among others on the right, including the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes and Say Anything’s Rob Port) think so.
Me, I think it a bad idea. I understand the whole political impetus for “shakeup,” but I agree with one of Rusty’s commenters that early CPA—as well as some early missteps in learning the grammar of middle eastern nation (re)building—were more responsible for the imperfections in the campaign than was Rumsfeld’s military management. Using a smaller force was intended to drive home the point that we weren’t there to occupy the country (always a gamble, and there’s no telling how a larger force presence would have been perceived); and though I think some of the “compassion” we’ve shown in some of our earlier offensives sent the wrong message, I believe we’ve seen sufficient improvement of late—including a change in policy from one that had us clearing areas, only to leave them and have the insurgents retake them—to argue that the military management of the war has turned the corner.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld would only be spun as a victory for al Qaeda and a sign that Bush has lost confidence in his war plan (which, those of us who read enough commentary from the progressives in the comments section here, only exists for the purposes of Bush losing confidence in it).
Besides, I like the guy. I like his candor, and I like his ideas about restructuring the military. But your mileage may vary.
****
More here.
I like briefings he co-hosts with Pace. The one where he went off on how he didn’t like the term ‘insurgent’ or something? precious.
If Rumsfeld resigns, the terrorists win, huh?
And you may be the only commentator in the world who likes Rumsfeld’s plans to restructure the military. After the last couple of years, the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force looks clearly superior to the Rumsfeld light-and-nimble scheme to… oh, I think everybody. Not that it’s an undignified argument, just that it’s an incredibly novel one.
Why is it that someone so seemingly intelligent always goes for the easy simplification?
Laziness, I guess.
To repeat: “Getting rid of Rumsfeld would only be spun as a victory for al Qaeda …”
But this seems to be the trouble with you folks. Ever casualty is a sign we lost the war, every roadside bomb a nail in the coffin of US imperialism.
Give it a rest, would you please? Either engage seriously or buzz off. I have enough trolls at the moment.
I like the response Rummy gets from the left almost as much as I like his ideas. “Lighter, faster and more lethal” is a goal every army strives for. What we ended up with is a single airman on a hores in Afghanistan with more firepower at his fingertips than a WWII brigade.
Personnaly I prefer that to throwing more bodies at the problem, not only because I’m attached to one of those bodies.
I agree with you Jeff that Rumsfeld should stay, but my reasons for believing this may be different from yours. Most of what Rumsfeld does goes completely under the press’ radar but is understood by the President. Having a SECDEF who doesn’t give a damn about public opinion and is never afraid to voice his own is a valuable asset–if replaced by, say, McCain this quality would be lost. No one in a democracy is indispensible, but why fire someone when there’s not a superior candidate to take his place? Furthermore, Bush knows Rumsfeld isn’t trying to hold on to his job just to hold on to it–he’s willing and ready to resign if needs be.
At the moment, there is no need for him to do so.
Jack and Jeff,
The super big thing about the more or less troops argument is that using more troops is essentially, not compatable with a longer term presence in Iraq. If there’s any one argument that doesn’t show a strong understanding of possible post-war scenarios, the application of the Powell doctrine here is it.
Essentially 1/3 of our combat available units are in Iraq at any one time. This mirrors the standard practice of the Rangers. In this pattern, 1/3 are deployed. 1/3 are getting ready to go (new people, kit, training, et al.). 1/3 are coming back (redeploying to their original bases, making good equipment shortfalls, replacing broken stuff, etc.).
If you go to using 1/2 of your combat troops, then you really start go put your army in a situation where a long term presence puts a much greater strain on your military, as well as strongly limiting the options availiable from having a reserve (like helping the ROK to fend off a North Korean attack, or another Afghanistan-like contingency).
There are certainly times to do that – WWII wasn’t big on keeping only 1/3 of one’s units in the rear, but that doesn’t mean that every time you want to do that, it’s best.
Ideally, if you’re a fan of a bigger presence on the ground at the outset of the war, really, the only way to have done that and done it well is to have increased the number of active divisions in the US army by 50-100% and have started that in the mid-nineties.
BRD
Monkeyboy, how dare you contradict Jack Roy! He knows you don’t exist, so you can just pipe down!
BRD—
I agree. I think the smaller footprint was a gamble—and its downside in hyped by the media—but a larger presence could have sent the wrong message (one of designs on permanent occupation, etc), plus it would have given the insurgents, who act by remotely detonating roadside bombs, more US targets.
Like you, I try to take an historical perspective o Iraq and have concluded from such that we are making impressive inroads in little time, particular given the region (ask Buckley and Will about that) and its history.
Like Lincoln said of General Grant, “I can’t spare this man–he fights.” The Pentagon was always too risk-adverse under Powell. It didn’t take several hundred thousand troops to defeat Saddam’s army like Shinseki claimed, and Baghdad wasn’t our Stalingrad.
One of the things I like most about Rumsfeld is that he has the right enemies. Not only on the left, but (as it strikes me, admittedly viewing from a distant perspective) he’s pissing off the right people in the Pentagon. Somewhat oversimplifying, but the main source of his generals-bitching-to-Washington-Post-reporters opposition seem to be the folks who think any deviation from a big, immobile Army that can defend the Fulda Gap and precious little else is heresy.
jeff,
We could have done, let’s say 300,000 troops. It’s just that there’s no clear way to have that many troops in Iraq for more than about a year. People look to the Gulf War as an example, but at that point we had 18 divisions of 4 brigades each (roughly). Today we have 10 divisions of 3 brigades each. We just flat out cannot sustain a large field presence.
In regards to the historical, I agree. And much like many have said, the only people that are holding the metaphorical gun with the silver bullet on us are ourselves.
BRD
Q- Mr. Secretary, the White House said tod-
Rumsfeld – Excuse me, Houses don’t talk.
Q- (confused, slowly) Excuse me sir, the White House sa-
Rumsfeld – Houses don’t speak. They don’t talk. Continue…
Does anyone remember the question the reporter finally pepped out? He games the press and it is PRECIOUS!
Sounds like a child. Nothing beats his WMD line though:
He’s not just sure of it. He’s sure they’re to the east, west, south and north somewhat!
I believe Rumsfeld should stay also. Thomas Barnett has written quite cogently about the number of changes Rumsfeld has had in altering the pentagon to adjust to actual future warfare (one where we fight people like OBL and take out rouge regimes like Saddam) as opposed to forever hoping for China to go mad-whack-ninja-crazy on Taiwan and kick off WWIII.
While I do think he has to at some point accept some concept of initial “overwhelming force” to bridge light/quick “war fighting” and “low profile post-conflict security reconstruction”, he’s at least got a good vision of how it has to get done…and he’s not going to hope some international coalition is going to do our Army’s clean-up work.
I vote for him to stay. I don’t know what my vote means – he probably doesn’t give a rat’s ass whether I think he should go or stay, and the President doesn’t either.
Rumsfield is intelligent, forceful and knows this military. Bush has confidence in him. I don’t think that you change DOD leader in the midst of a war.
tw: stay, creepy!
Meh. Sherman, Patton, McArthur were all considered idiots and/or insane at one time or another. Rummy’s getting the job done. People can second-guess, but the fact remains the operation has been a huge success by any historical measure.
I’ve loved the guy ever since the “known unknowns, unknown unknowns” speech.
I love Rummy! He’s one of my favorite people in government. (First is Bush, second is Rummy, third is Rice. Cheney is 0 – he’s above all lists.) There’s something very refreshing, needed, and jarring about his candor. He doesn’t mess around. He’s not a politician: he’s a leader. We need more like him.
Having a SECDEF who doesn’t give a damn about public opinion and is never afraid to voice his own is a valuable asset–if replaced by, say, McCain this quality would be lost.
This is quite important. The Secretary of Defense should not sacrifice national security because securing it would involve unpopular plans.
Nice defense of Rummy, Jeff and BRD.
He’s got to stay.
First, his leaving will lead to a real perception that the war plan was a problem/failure/fiasco. There certainly were & are problems after the fall of Saddam’s government, but not fundamentally.
Second, he is a Presidential adviser tasked with Defense. Nowhere in that job description should be anything that describes an adversarial nice guy who puts a pretty face on dropping bombs.
As for force changes, I think he’s moving in the right direction with regards to warfighting abilities. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a larger number of available troops overall.
I have to recognize that Rumsfeld’s press conferences are the probably the most lively spectacle one can see these days- the man knows how to communicate and he usually gets a lot of help from the Beltway’s gullibly jingoistic journalists and the useful idiots/Democrats in Congress.
But, precisely because of his unabashed bluntness, Donald Rumsfeld has become the most visible symptom of a general decline in morality affecting Washington and the country at large: he will be remembered by future generations as the chief choreographer of Abu Ghraib’s torture chambers…
And Abu Ghraib’s unknown Iraqi soldier on the box will forever remain a very powerful symbol of the cruel bestiality of the Neocon Neros of Washington and TeX-Aviv: the hood is a fitting metaphor for the blindness of KKK nostalgics and other Southern Evangelical revivalists such as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Texan-In-Chief George W. Bush.
As for the electrical wires attached to the detainee’s outstretched arms, they are the technological embodiment of a Western civilization gone awry, a once glorious culture caricatured and debased by those who now speak and act in its name: machine-men and scientific cynics who believe in “harnessing the power of new technologies†to torture, kill and maim in the name of “liberty 
I have loved Rumsfeld since he came in very early and cancelled a monsterous, heavy, unwieldy self-propelled artillery system. You could hear the gasps of outrage from all the weapons-systems turf-defending, swivel chair entrenched types. “Transformation” has slaughtered a lot of sacred cows.
I have been lucky enough to benefit from improved military education, doctrine and focus under the current DoD leadership. Perhaps one of the most important things that Rumsfeld has done is to unleash people to debate, propose, theorize and change things. I hardly recognize some of the Army anymore – and I mean that in a good way. War is a hard teacher, and Rumsfeld is trying to spare us from learning some of the lessons again and again.
I don’t he is perfect – last guy I think was perfect got nailed up by some Romans a couple of millenia ago. But I do think he is darn near the best suited for the job that is possible. I would love to hear the critics suggest their replacement – but I won’t hold out great hopes. I suspect they would prefer to stay silent, all the better to criticise any choice made.
Just the opinions of one humble field grade Ordnance Officer…
Uh, doc – you off the lithium again? Twas no “Iraqi Soldier” there.
The left hates Rummy for the same reason they hate Rove.
They’re smart, they’re effective and they’re Bushies. Rummy leaves more IQ in his shoes at night than Howard Dean takes to the office in the morning.
What is this, irony? You want it spelled out, though, and I’m happy to oblige:
Your speculations about the future are completely unsupported by facts or other evidence. Merely saying “liberals will paint Rumsfeld’s departure as a victory for the terrorists” does not make it so. And your clarification doesn’t improve your argument; pointing out that it’s merely a victory for al Qaeda (since when has Rumsfeld been fighting al Qaeda, by the way? or was that one of Qusay’s nicknames?) rather than the victory for them—it’s as we say a distinction that doesn’t make a difference. I suspect you intended to stress the word “spun.” But I’ll take what I get.
But let’s get to it: You and your side(simplified, but I think you understand what I mean) have been singing the same old blues song for four years. If we don’t follow through with our threats it’ll be perceived as weakness; if we withdraw from Iraq after discovering there’s no WMD and no al Qaeda connection it’ll send a terrible signal; if we don’t let a branch of the Dubai government run our ports it’ll send a bad message to our allies…. These don’t even have the dignity of self-fulfilling prophecies; they are non-descriptive statements that purport to describe. But if you try to actually puzzle out what terrible signal any of these steps is threatening to send, you can’t do it—or at least you can’t distinguish it from an equally plausible message of the opposite content. There no evidence for the existence of any of these supposedly awful messages, yet it doesn’t stop it from becoming a Very Serious Idea among the chin-strokers: intellectually vacant, yet still in fashion. Well, you’ll forgive me if I choose to deal with things I can see and feel and don’t have time for spectral emanations of bad P.R.
Major John!
No love for the Crusader?!?!
Aieee!
Thank you Major.
—
Yes the reporter was a sprout.
Oh, the bowels!
So Jack, when did you last feel a terrorist attack on the US or its holdings outside Iraq and Afghanistan?
Dr. de la Vega, I’ve got to say that’s one of the silliest comments you’ve posted here, and that is really saying something. Major John’s already beaten me to the obvious riposte about the non-uniformed combatant under that hoodâ€â€you might want to look into the rules of warfare regarding non-uniformed combatantsâ€â€so let’s move on to the remark about “KKK nostalgics.†There’s only one party with a former Kleagle in the Senate, and it ain’t the Republicans. And Southern Evangelicals, as any dolt knows, generally opposed the Klan. Unlike you, they saw a certain conflict between the gospel message and the Klan’s.
But then, you’re pretty good at ignoring conflict. You’d have to be, not to see the irony in using the internet to make neo-Luddite comments about “machine-men.†And exactly when was that “once glorious†Western culture less violent, or more concerned for the rights of both citizens and those who fight them?
The spam filter is onto you: you’re an idiot, period.
Oh please. I suggest you step outside your box of symbolism machine-man and google a bit.
warning, link is graphic.
« The photos in this publication were taken at various mass grave locations in Iraq and are strong evidence of Sadam [sic] Hussein’s brutality »
Graphic indeed…
If only it were true!
Most of the “mass graves†in question are actually located in provinces of Iraq that were once occupied (from 1982 to 1987) by Iran’s Islamic fundamentalist invaders: NOTHING (except maybe for a handful of websites ending with .gov or .il!) proves that the bodies found there are the remains of Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam’s henchmen.
I hate to reuse a quote I just posted yesterday, but the Dr. is making too hard to ignore:
“Every villian is followed by a sophist with a sponge.”
-Lord Acton
Keep scrubbing Doc, you got a real mess here.
yeah, cuz they wouldn’t do something like that.gov
Actually make that
Saddam’s henchmen would never kill Iraqi civilians.edu
Isn’t this thread supposed to be about Donald Rumsfeld?
He’s a yuck a minute until you realize what he’s selling.
In any case:
Afghanistan: not so great, Osama and the Taliban still around, current president is essentially Mayor of Kabul
Iraq: abysmal from start to no-finish-in-sight
Making members of the press feel stupid: pretty good
Dealing with the military: major league bully, largely hated/feared.
The guy’s an incompetent. He should go.
Works for me.
But it seems you’ve found a way to appear stupid all by yourself, RB. Good job.
But it seems you’ve found a way to appear stupid all by yourself, RB. Good job.
Did I say something untrue?
you presented a bunch of meaningless characterizations without any context. What you said doesn’t fall on a true-false continuoum.
However, I’m sure TA-ing for Chomsky has taught you that the best way to win an arguement is to demonstrate your own incompetence well before anyone would waste real effort in criticizing you.
RB:
“Did I say something untrue?”
I’d have applied “willfully obtuse”, rather than “untrue” to your dismissal of what we’ve done in Afghanistan. Osama has had to expend considerable energy hiding out, rather than plotting his next attack, and the Taliban no longer run the place. Other than that, no, we really haven’t accomplished much.
I would add that it took a SecDef with Rumsfeld’s faith in Special Forces for us to conquer Afghanistan the way we did, with all the messy compromises that entailed (e.g. with regional warlords).
The conventional wisdom, before we went in, was that you either leave the place alone (unacceptable), pound the crap out of it from the air until the Taliban cry uncle (cruel, and likely ineffective), or carry out a massive conventional invasion, of the sort that inspired the doomsayers to remind us of the Russians’ happy experience there. (How many soldiers would the prophetic General Shinseki have wanted us to deploy there, I wonder?)
Give Rumsfeld his due. We invaded–wait for it–with NO PLAN. Oh, and fewer than 300 guys on the ground. The first special forces units were sent in, according to Linda Robinson’s “Masters of Chaos”, under orders to find a way to topple the Taliban. Just make it happen.
(’Course, what do I know? Apologies to Major John if any of the foregoing is absurd, for I am for now just an interested layman.)
Dr. de la Vega is an apologist for a mass-murdering fascist tyrant. He is most unnatural, but unfortunately not unusual, well-credentialed slime.
May you rot in hell for all eternity, doctor.
Opinions don’t have to be true or not, RB.
Yes.
Next question.
you presented a bunch of meaningless characterizations without any context. What you said doesn’t fall on a true-false continuoum.
However, I’m sure TA-ing for Chomsky has taught you that the best way to win an arguement is to demonstrate your own incompetence well before anyone would waste real effort in criticizing you.
“Continuum” and “argument”. You’re welcome, Captain Competent. You’re no capitalist when you start a sentence with lower-case.
Anyway, you let me know what context I should supply and I’ll make every attempt to fill your order. News? Opinion? Numbers? I’m happy to do my best for you.
In any case I guess I’m struggling with when someone such as yourself might replace a secretary of defense. When they knock over a ming vase or whack the president in the head with a ladder while turning around? Or when war planning goes badly, allies are alienated, collegues bullied, and torture embraced?
Opinions don’t have to be true or not, RB.
I can appreciate that you might not agree with the opinion about Rumsfeld, but for god’s sake try to pick my argument apart at least, like JPS there.
Really, the stuff about opinions not having to be true is the worst bullshit in argument. The point is to try to establish the truth of your opinion or the untruth of mine instead of float around in fairyland. Get off your ass and quit with the Monty Python-style parsing.
Uh, you mean colleagues ?
If you’re correcting spelling, at least get your own right.
Jackass.
<style parsing. </blockquote>
Amazing irony considering you completely ignored JPS arguments and instead corrected his spelling.
puh-lease, he corrected my spelling. I’m not watching JPS get the glory while it was Bubba who touched my comments!
But hey, this game is fun, as always.
or- and here’s a crazy thought- you could try to prove the truthfulness of your opinion for us. We could then review the evidence and arguements you put forward to determine if your opinion is sound and, perhaps, true. It’s kind of like being in school, except kids won’t spend their lunch hour dumping milk on your head.
As to where to start- well, I’m sure a local librarian will be willing to help you understand the basics of researching and resourcing.
I’d have applied “willfully obtuseâ€Â, rather than “untrue†to your dismissal of what we’ve done in Afghanistan. Osama has had to expend considerable energy hiding out, rather than plotting his next attack, and the Taliban no longer run the place.
If by “place” you mean Kabul, sure. The Taliban and their general still exist, and still kill people daily, pretty much wherever they want it seems.
The first sentence is good stuff. I snorted.
Other than that, no, we really haven’t accomplished much.
We agree again.
I would add that it took a SecDef with Rumsfeld’s faith in Special Forces for us to conquer Afghanistan the way we did, with all the messy compromises that entailed (e.g. with regional warlords).
Who wouldn’t have faith in the Special Forces? Doesn’t seem miraculous to me. The compromises spoken of were what let Osama cross the border, no? Way to go.
The conventional wisdom, before we went in, was that you either leave the place alone (unacceptable), pound the crap out of it from the air until the Taliban cry uncle (cruel, and likely ineffective), or carry out a massive conventional invasion, of the sort that inspired the doomsayers to remind us of the Russians’ happy experience there. (How many soldiers would the prophetic General Shinseki have wanted us to deploy there, I wonder?)
Obviously option one was unacceptable, but I recall some action that seemed awfully close to option two for a month or more.
Option three would have had the US in the same position as they are in Iraq, except that the US could credibly hold much of the country, whereas Karzai holds a city. It wouldn’t be fun either, but the Afghans are so poor that it wouldn’t take much to spend your way into their good books.
Give Rumsfeld his due. We invaded–wait for it–with NO PLAN. Oh, and fewer than 300 guys on the ground. The first special forces units were sent in, according to Linda Robinson’s “Masters of Chaosâ€Â, under orders to find a way to topple the Taliban. Just make it happen.
(’Course, what do I know? Apologies to Major John if any of the foregoing is absurd, for I am for now just an interested layman.)
Yeah, that’s the mark of a great defence secretary. No plan, just tell people to do it.
Amazing irony considering you completely ignored JPS arguments and instead corrected his spelling.
Anyway, when you’re getting called “incompentent” it’s reasonable to pick on some spelling, though I’m not immune to typos, especially as I get older, and I’m okay with getting called on them. If you want to call names, expect ‘em back, especially if you’re not even reading the fucking comments properly, jackass.
We all make typos, but most of us have enough sense to double check our spelling if we’re being pedantic enough to snivel at other’s mistakes. And I like how his are misspellings and your’s are “typos”. Classy.
How do I read a comment you didn’t yet make?
or- and here’s a crazy thought- you could try to prove the truthfulness of your opinion for us. We could then review the evidence and arguements you put forward to determine if your opinion is sound and, perhaps, true. It’s kind of like being in school, except kids won’t spend their lunch hour dumping milk on your head.
As to where to start- well, I’m sure a local librarian will be willing to help you understand the basics of researching and resourcing.
I do research for a living, my friend, and I could throw links at you from here to doomsday. But what would satisfy you? I’m asking specifically for what you or any of your addled colleagues [there you go] would require before you agreed that yes, this secretary of defense is not good enough to stay on the job. Would I have to prove that the military has a low opinion of Rumsfeld? Would I have to prove that he’d fucked up doing this or that? What are the criteria? Personally I’m for getting rid of anyone who condones torture, but what’s your measure or do you have one?
Thus far JPS is doing an excellent job, and you’re just pretending you’re smart.
Why spend all that time when you can just assert that Iraq is a disaster and Karzai is the “mayor of Kabul”? Just saying it is enough to make it so in his world.
Righteous – I must have been in a different Afghanistan than the one you describe. ‘cause the one you describe doesn;t quite exist in this plane of existance. BTW – the mayor of Kabul thing is so worn out and 2003ish. Pick new talking points from the present year please. You know, opium, blah blah blah, resurgent Taliban (yeah, shoot ‘em ups with the ANP and burning the occassional girls school doesn’t quite equal “resurgent” and can-pretty-much-kill-anyone-they-want-anytime-they-want with ninja-movie style abilities is damn near laughable)
As for the SF – they were told what to do – and they did it well. The Graveyard of Empires, the Brutal Afghanistan Winter, NYT Quagmire, yada yada yada didn’t quite happen. Righteous must have missed the briefing that day at CENTCOM – still trying to get that security clearance thingie cleared up, were you Righteous?
[entire comment removed because the comment’s author, in his haste to dismiss the opinions of everyone here (including the military members who fought under Rumsfeld’s DOD), didn’t bother to read my post or follow the links. Had he done so, he would have found that said editorials are discussed at length at Jawa’s site. The point of MY post is that I disagreed with those assessments. And I gave my reasons why.
When there are many authorities who differ on a topic, pointing to one of two who back your position as proof of your position’s rectitude is a fallacy of argument (conveniently enough named the “appeal to authority” fallacy).
From there, the rest of the comment was invective against worthless no-nothing wingnuts blah blah blah. Trust me. You are not missing anything.]
We all make typos, but most of us have enough sense to double check our spelling if we’re being pedantic enough to snivel at other’s mistakes. And I like how his are misspellings and your’s are “typosâ€Â. Classy.
That’s “yours”.
How do I read a comment you didn’t yet make?
Tom, you dunce, you misread a post a while back and accused me of ignoring the quite competent JPS and your comrade corrected you. That’s what I’m referring to, though I should have made it clearer for such an intellectual titan.
Yeah, OK, Notanexpertbygolly. Whatever you say.
Dunce?
I’d be careful, JPS, I think he has a crush on you.
Notanexpertbygolly,
For money that’s what we might call dissent, or constructive criticsm. That’s the kind of thing that can be considered useful.
This is in contrast to, let’s say, Dean going on radio and announcing that the war, is in fact, lost, or Dick Durbin prattling on about the American Gulag, and so on.
Is the difference apparent to you?
BRD
So you’re a researcher who doesn’t know how to organize and present findings? French employment laws ROXXOR, I hear.
RB,
You could start out by defining the terms of discussion by getting the bare bones legal job requirements and work from there.
BRD
Bravo,
Thanks for the compliment.
The question Jeff–and I am a big fan of Jeff– presents here is simple: should Rumsfeld resign or get fired? Or should he be retained?
I don’t want to be the one to break some of your bubbles here, but quite a few of you sound like rats on a sinking ship who are now breathing from snorkels fifty feet long.
The occupation of Iraq is not going well (certainly not as well as anyone ever imagined three years ago), and maybe it is time to bring in some new blood at the top to refresh the effort and revitalize our resolve.
I’m certainly not some gutless dork who thinks we are losing or that the cause will fail; I am worried, however, that some of the ideas, plans, and policies of our current leadership in the Pentagon have gone stale and it could lead to tragic results.
Also, I think Bush has lost tremendous political weight on the war issue and that there are compelling arguments that mismanagment and institutional arrogance by some of his civilian apointees has depleted the morale of even the most highly motivated troopers in uniform.
The days of carrying your ideological views with such religious certainty are over, as is giving Bush the air of infallibility on the war effort. Mistakes–GRAVE mistakes–HAVE been made, and in our system of governance we can change policy and replace bad leaders whenever we want, and it certainly does not bring aid and comfort to the enemy to do so. That is a weak argument.
During every war we have fought we’ve changed bad leaders and still waged successful campaigns. It’s when we hold onto bad leaders that we lose focus and policy goes haywire. Like in Vietnam, where CLEARLY MacNamara and his “whiz kids” had completely fucked up the war effort yet Johnson refused to can them; in that case, by the time Nixon took power, public opinion was so negative about Vietnam that he had no choice but to pull out, which was a fucking nightmare.
There is both historical precedent and also clear and substantive proof today that changing the civilian leadership will have a positive effect on policy.
Let’s at least acknowledge that public opinion does matter in waging war, and right now it’s very low. Firing a few unpopular and perhaps inept leaders and replacing them with new and energetic go-getters is not the end of the world, nor will it have a positive effect on our enemies.
Rummie has to go.
I swear to God I think jeff makes these up as a sort of pomo unreliable-narrator thing.
Sorry BRD, that thing gave me nightmares when I had to consider how the heck to move it…plus, wouldn’t have come in too handy in Afghanistan then, nor in Iraq now.
Notanexpert – I would respectfully disagree with you on
But you come across as quite bitter and with a hefty axe to grind – have you had dealings with the SecDef that may have caused this ill-will? I like him well enough as one who has had to serve under his DoD (as an Army field grade officer).
I am also keen to know who you would replace him with – do tell.
You know, my patience with “Iraq was an unmitigated disaster” is beginning to really wear just a bit thin.
Folks, not only has Iraq not been an “unmitigated disaster”, the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns are certain to go down in history as two of the great military victories since Zama. Get a clue: the US military brought down two governments, changing the form of government for, what, fifty million people? They did that in two campaigns in which major combat operations lasted a total of weeks, and cost fewer than 1000 deaths; one of those countries had been the graveyard of invaders since Alexander.
By comparison, we lost more than 2300 soldiers etc in the first days of liberating France the last time — and notice France is comparable in size and was comparable in population to Iraq.
In fact — check the mortality reports — we’re consistently having roughly comparable numbers of deaths from hostile action, and from accident and illness. We’re in the middle of a war, and we’re losing almost as many soldiers, sailors, and Marines in accidents as we are in the war!
The US has now held those two countries for years, estabishing working governments, and held them with such complete control that we’re seeing around two deaths a day from enemy action. We can’t manage that with the highways in the state of New York.
This is not a military failure. This is not a mess. This is not a quagmire, and it’s not a disaster, mitigated or not.
Personally, I say we shouldn’t think of getting rid of Rumfeld until something actually goes wrong, at least.
Major John,
Whistles…
<sing song>Somebody doesn’t want to go work for a defense contractor</sing song>
More seriously, I can live with the notion of keeping major systems for another 2 or 3 decades, but I just don’t relish the prospect of 30 more years on the Paladin. The thing is turning into a freaking B-52, but with a lot more operational hours.
If the FCS SP comes together, great. I’m just not holding my breath for that one. The Crusader was a really nice technological system, and would have been ace had it (or a more primitive version) been deployed in the late 80’s. But as is, pretty much only the Air Force can get away with deploying Cold War built systems a decade past the expiration date of the sales pitch.
BRd
Righteous Bubba sez:
I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you peruse this PDF, and then analyze and report on how Rummy is getting our boys killed at a horrific clip.
Although Bush might have to fire Rummy just to make sure we don’t find ourselves in a full employment quagmire.
Major John,
You ask a good question. I can think of three or four people who would bring experience and gravitas to the position, and might even get the public opinion polls moving in a positive direction. I certainly disagree with General Eaton that Joe Lieberman would be a good SoD. Ew. I think you’d agree there!
I like Dick Armitage, but then again I’m probably dreaming here that he’d even be considered. But he’s a good man and a sound leader. Dick Lugar would be my second choice, but I have a Hoosier’s bias on that. And how about Newt Gingrich? That would certainly stir up the pot! (Obviously I am joking!)
What is Joe Lieberman’s experience? I am not a big fan of Senators going into the cabinet (or running for the Presidency for that matter…)
BRD – yeah, I pretty much wrote off a defense contractor job long ago, heh heh.
I think the reason the Air Force can get Cold Warish things passed is they have the best chance (maybe the Navy is a close second) of having to go and fight someone in another machine like theirs. I’d sure like us to have real purdy planes with all the bells and whistles if they have to go knock down the Chinese Air Force some day… Same thing for the Navy.
Cripes, where is my Army provincalism?!
You could start out by defining the terms of discussion by getting the bare bones legal job requirements and work from there.
That’s a good start, but IMO there’s also a “beyond the pale” requirement of civil servants I think, which is crossed with the whole torture/Gitmo blah blah blah. Anyway, nobody’s taking issue with the torture angle, so I assume that torturing people is okay. Off to the “job description”.
A fairly short and bland sentence is “The Secretary is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy.”<cough>torture<cough> But that’s a sentence a bunch of peaceniks wrote.
The first description of his job by the White House is “Secretary Rumsfeld is responsible for directing the actions of the Defense Department in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.”
This seems to say that the measurable results of the war on terror are poor.
Is Iraq a mess? According to Iyad Allawi, yes.
According to the guy who trained the Iraqi Army, <a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19eaton.html?_r=2&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Contributors&oref=slogin&oref=slogin” target=”_blank”>Rumsfeld sucks</a>.
Major Tom’s been to Afghanistan and things were sunnier than depicted, but I visited his blog and the first thing I saw on it were some crappy old rockets lobbed his way from the countryside on his way out. Sounds like a sunny Rumsfeldian utopia, although it’s hard to expect that a country that lost of generation of graduates in anything is going to suddenly become civilized (I know people who honeymooned in Kabul before the coup and subsequent invasion by the soviets: they loved it).
So my case is that things are not great in Iraq, backed up by a former head of government. That Rumsfeld isn’t competent, backed up by a recent general from Iraq. That terrorists haven’t been cowed but emboldened, backed up by a US government report that the state department (not under Rumsfeld of course) did not want released. And that Afghanistan is not the place it could have been with more attention, although I believe the US aid budget (not Rumsfeld’s brief in any case) has been rising and things are slowly getting better (I’ll go crazy and take the Rand Corporation at their word).
Not me; been doing it for nearly two and a half decades, now. Pretty much all of my adult life.
Iffy thing, going into defense after being in the service. On the one hand, you’ve got to be careful to stay within the law. Boeing being the counterexample. Someone who’s actually got experience with the user community comes in handy, though, when it comes to understanding what the customer concern is. I’ve worked with a retired General or three, plus a wide assortment of lower ranks all the way down to…well, down to the technician level. Good guys far outweighed the bad, in my experience.
Mostly USAF, though, given what I do. A few Marines and a smattering of Army guys, but mostly USAF.
Bubba, the problem is that neither Allawi nor that general’s opinions seem to fit the facts. (Notice, by the way, that Allawi is more or less in the same position as Al Gore — he lost the election, and it’s not in his interest to say anything is going well.)
The “Iraq is a failure” position can’t be supported by anyone who has a broader view of history than what happened last week and what their next job will be.
Uh, that’s Major John. Major Tom was the guy in the David Bowie song.
What is the point of making a last parting shot by the HiG (not your invincible TB) into a sneer about a “sunny Rumsfeldian utopia.” The Soviets and the Talib grind a country into the dust and it’s Rumsfeld’s fault? You are drifting into obtuse land again…
Anyhoo – off to see how much my property taxes are going up due to a plethora of referenda…
Slarti – good on ya. Keep up the good work.
BRD – sorry, again, about the Crusader…
Good night all!
I enjoy Rummy.
Bush should only let Rumsfeld go if, in fact, Bush thinks Rumsfeld is doing a bad job. Doing something just to please one’s critics never ever works.
1)It doesn’t please them, they just move onto the next target and
2)They later use it against you by saying: you admitted that you were wrong and we were right when you did x like we told you to.
David C–another important thing to remember is that the big boy generals, and retired generals, at the Pentagon probably got their first stars during the Clinton admin. That doesn’t mean they are all pricks like Tony McPeak or Wesley Clark, but it casts suspicion on the lot of them.
Also, everybody seems to forget that Bush isn’t running again. Isn’t the point of a mid-term administration shake-up to set you up for a better chance of reelection? Poll numbers mean nothing now to the Bush administration, and especially Rumsfeld, who doesn’t seem to have any burning desire to run for president…but what a campaign it would be!
righteous bubba–you did say something untrue. military members I know (married to one, know a lot of them) don’t think Rumsfeld is a bully.
Bubba, the problem is that neither Allawi nor that general’s opinions seem to fit the facts. (Notice, by the way, that Allawi is more or less in the same position as Al Gore — he lost the election, and it’s not in his interest to say anything is going well.)
What are the facts you possess that disagree with those? Serious question.
It’s reasonable to treat Allawi with suspicion as he’s a character at the least. I do, however, like this woman’s work very much.
Note also that the general’s article doesn’t say exactly that Iraq is an unwinnable mess (as is my more pessimistic view) but that it’s far messier than it needed to be given competent advice.
righteous bubba–you did say something untrue. military members I know (married to one, know a lot of them) don’t think Rumsfeld is a bully.
That’s belied by his shoddy treatment of Shinseki and the others mentioned in general whatsit’s Times article. I’m sure his mom thinks he’s nice too.
Yes, I’d imagine many of the former Baathists are rather upset, still, that they are now forced to live under the same conditions as the po folks. I imagine they’ll get over it in time, though.
Rummy’s mom = members of the military?
Ahha. Lib logic at it’s best.
As for Allawi, the Brit Defense Minister said that Allawi told him the complete opposite:
That there has been an increase in sectarian killing but that it is a far cry from civil war.
And indeed what Allawi said to the BBC seems to back this up.
I’d think that in a civil war a helluva lot more than 50 people would be dying. Not to mention millions of refugees streaming out. Army units abandoning their posts, etc. None of which has happened.
I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you peruse this PDF, and then analyze and report on how Rummy is getting our boys killed at a horrific clip.
You might want to get a PDF that goes to 2005, when the deaths, according to the UN Security Council (and I imagine John Bolton signing off on everything that moves outta there, though I’m guessing) nearly doubled.
I’m looking around for a less vague source for 2005. Post it if you got it.
Rummy’s mom = members of the military?
Ahha. Lib logic at it’s best.
This is why you can’t run metaphors by the humorless and unimaginative. The point of the remark is “everybody is loved by someone.” But a nice try, worthy of Rush Limbaugh, if you consider that an achievement.
As for Allawi, the Brit Defense Minister said that Allawi told him the complete opposite:
That there has been an increase in sectarian killing but that it is a far cry from civil war.
And indeed what Allawi said to the BBC seems to back this up.
For what it’s worth I communicate with Iraqis living in Iraq on a weekly basis, both in work and at home. The people I speak to don’t feel that great about current events.
I’d think that in a civil war a helluva lot more than 50 people would be dying. Not to mention millions of refugees streaming out. Army units abandoning their posts, etc. None of which has happened.
50 people a day. If it stays consistent, which is of course unpredictable, that’s around 18000 a year. That’s enough to qualify I think.
They say a community of lols cannot survive…but lol man. lol.
tw: zipper, check it
BRD  “Start rebuilding divisions in the ‘90’s?” Come on! Kerry said he would expand the Army just by ordering it…
Yep dipshit. The point was the metaphor don’t work.
You really think a low level campaign that kills 50 a day—and this after the gross provocation of the Mosque bombing—is a civil war? Wake me when the Iraqis are streaming out of the country.
They say a community of lols cannot survive…but lol man. lol.
tw: zipper, check it
Shit man, I forgot. I don’t have total for the year handy, but what the heck, maybe I’ll phone and see.Here are the deaths via Iraq which are almost identical to the 2004 Iraqi campaign deaths. Alas, I haven’t got the total number to add to that PDF, but if things in Iraq are doing better, I guess it’s four deaths better out of around 850. Keep giggling while the blood spills, genius.
Yep dipshit. The point was the metaphor don’t work.
Yes, that was my point. Didn’t work on you. That’s because you’re not bright.
You really think a low level campaign that kills 50 a dayâ€â€and this after the gross provocation of the Mosque bombingâ€â€is a civil war? Wake me when the Iraqis are streaming out of the country.
They are. <a href=”http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21257&l=i&size=1&hd=0″ target=”_blank”>If you worked with immigrants you’d notice.<i>
No it doesn’t work b/c he’s a half-assed metaphor. You tried to make a funny without thinking it through. It’s ok to admit you’re an idiot. Back away from it.
Uruknet? Teheee. Yep that about proves it.
Oh yeah, I guess the UN must be setting refugee camps up in Jordan to house all those millions of refugees fleeing Iraq.
Oh, but wait, YOU work with immigrants. So you’d know!
Too much fun.
How’s that RESEARCH going on that “less vague source for 2005” researchboy?
Are you stoned? How was Shinseki treated “shabbily”? Because he didn’t get his Stryker? Because he poked his boss in the eye and got poked back? How said that Rummy didn’t blow him, and do everything just the way Shinseki wanted things done! How dare he treat a General as if he were his boss?
It’s the Pentagon, not a kindergarten playground, Bubba. grown up games. No crying allowed.
50 people a day. If it stays consistent, which is of course unpredictable, that’s around 18000 a year. That’s enough to qualify I think.
Numbers don’t make civil war, dipshit. It could be a million a year and still not be a civil war. When organized, indigenous forces are doing battle, THEN it’s a civil war. It is not that.
Oh, and nice job ignoring this PDF detailing US Active Duty military deaths from 1980-2004. Come on, Bubba! Let’s see your research.
No, not your ass, your research.
Someone tell me: What the fuck is the use of 500,000 troops x 10 if you flat out refuse to bomb the mosques that the jihadis and Baathists use to store weapons and shoot from?
You have troops, you use them. We could have armed and transported the entire Eastern seaboard to Iraq, but if you refuse to let them fight, game over, man.
That’s why all of this bullshit is so disingenious; the same assholes that wail and gnash their teeth if we chip the paint on a minaret—housing a sniper team with commander —
bitch that we didn’t have the troops to do the goddamn job they wouldn’t let us do in the first place.
And Shinseki—IT’S THE BERET that makes the Rangers elite [yeah!]– has had some serious judgement issues, besides his 500K troop plan (the ENTIRE ARMY btw). And is that 500K of infantry? Or 500K of supply clerks?
How many troops does an F-16 weigh? An M1A2? An Apache? What about the doctors in Germany? Do we add them to the total? Or B52/B2 crews in America, they count? Or troops in Bahrain, naval ships in the Gulf and Mediterrean, they count?
TW: experience…get experience, because you can make idiots quoting soundbytes look like morons. Or actually can adjust the light levels to bring out their natural idiocy.
I keep an eye on C-Span archives to I can stream all his public statements that they cover. It is hard for me to imagine someone doing a better job. The hammering he took for the “you go to war with the army you have” remark was disgraceful. Its like criticizing someone for noting that the sun came up this morning.
Personally I am a little surprized that he hasn’t resigned for personal reasons…he isn’t exactly a spring chicken.
He would be most welcome in my foxhole and that is the highest praise I can give to another man.
When an honest history of the Iraq war is written, the current conventional wisdom won’t look so hot.
I submit more troops would not have stopped the post-war looting unless we were prepared to shoot the looters on sight. But the Rumsfeld haters do not criticize the military for not shooting looters do they?
Besides the Iraq war is already won. The only question is whether the government of Iraq can prevent the outbreak of civil war. If that occurs, the people of Iraq lose big time. If Bush decides in that case to attempt to restore order with US troops then I will join the chorus.
But, but, but…what about the LOOTING!?!?!
There’s gotta be a civil war!
THERE’S JUST GOTTA BE!!!!!
Bubba,
You mnentioned earlier your opposition to Rumsfeld and later that you were happy to provide information to flesh out your argument. Somewhere in the back and forth, I wanted to ask you if you (or anyone else here) has the bare-bones statutory job description or requirements for SecDef. It’s not an end to the discussion by any means, but I thought it might be a worthwhile place to start.
BRD
BRD, posted by RB at 10:46 last night:
that is the description offered so far.
Some Guy, Bubba
Apologies for my inability to actually read.
Reply coming soon.
Bubba,
You hit on a few major themes, but let’s see if we can’t drill through your response to see what we can find.
Ok, first stop – I don’t think that either of these two issues are nearly as settled as you seem to imply, not by a long shot. And I’m not talking about whereor not torture is OK or not, I am pretty certain that we don’t even have much common ground on what torture is, let alone if it happened or is policy or a whole host of other issues. Furthermore, I would also assert that the grievances against Gitmo basically have no actual substance or standing – they seem to stem from a general perception of ickyness.
Fair enough. And you assert that he’s fallen short in his responsibilities either through negligence (intentional or otherwise) and/or lack of skill and abilites to meet the requirements of the job(s) as described above.
It would seem that the report you cite isn’t necessarily a clear slam-dunk for some reasons that are, essentially bureacratic. But past that, the DoD doesn’t have the full brief for the conduct of all operations relating to the GWOT. That responsibility falls to a number of actors including the intelligence community, State Department, and Homeland Security, among others. So I don’t think that the particular metric you use is applicable to Rumsfeld.
I am reminded of the quote “The plural of anecdote is not data.” These guys both raise important points. And you know full well that disagreement and so an are the bread and butter of democratic debate. I would be vastly more shocked if there were no generals who had a beef with the SecDef, as the 5-sided wind-tunnel breeds a lot of political infighting.
For what it’s worth, in the briefing on the status of training Iraqi forces as given by Lt. General David Petraeus, former commander of the Multinational Security Transition Commandâ€â€Iraq, the transition and training of Iraqi forces seemed to be moving apace as planned.
As for the claims of civil war (Allawi’s – I don’t remember if you may any similar assertion) should be treated with some caution. The first and biggest problem lies with that of “crying wolf” – if the gentleman thinks 50 dead (in a country of 25 million) per day is a civil war, I would submit that the speaker is engaging in a bit of an exaggeration.
.
A bit off topic, but would you be a person who asserts that opposition to the war does not make fighting and winning the war more difficult? That bad press coverage and media distortions do not help our enemies?
Getting back to the point, is that the DoD is but one actor in this, so while broad assertions might be true, absent specific connections to DoD activity, it’s hard to assess how relevant Rumsfeld’s performance is all other issues in the GWOT.
In assessing fault for insufficient attention to Afghanistan, I must note a few things of interest. First, is that the determination of what the government pays attention to is in large part a function of Congress and the budget. I would like to have seen those Congressmen who are concerned about lack of progress in Afghanistan actually take those assertions to committee and assign more money to the project, rather than just pointing fingers.
The other thing that strikes me as amusing, is that there are many here and abroad who assert that if we had better international cooperation and allied participation, the situation in Iraq would be peaceful and copacetic (and here, I’m not putting words in your mouth – I’m just talking about those commenters who make such assertions). They don’t seem to have much of a perspetive on why the war that everyone supported and we got a ton of allied support to fight – Afghanistan – still hasn’t generated a peaceful and copacetic utopia.
But these two minor points aside, Post-Conflict Reconstruction is just flat-out difficult. It never has been spectacularly easy. I don’t think Afghanistan is doing half-bad when one considers the local externalities.
So, back to you Bubba.
BRD
Good points by many. I’m so proud of our neo-cons! *sniff*
Rummy rocks! (Yes, I am one of Rummy’s fanboys.)
BRD sez: So, back to you Bubba.
That’s a pretty great response that I don’t have the time to give an adequate response to (daughter issues y’unnerstand).
But briefly:
The main question I have is, really, what tips the balance? What’s evidence that he’s not the greatest?
Out of that, there are numbers to measure (casualties, terror acts and so forth), documentation of decisions taken and there are policy quibbles. The first is generally always seen as discountable on the basis of general statistics distrust (which I have some fondness for), the second requires some sort of agreed-upon context (did the troops get their body armour? was it a supply-clerk screwing up or haphazard policy?), and the third can always be dismissed as anecdotal (a position I also have some fondness for).
So in these arguments none of these appear to be enough, but enough instances of all of them might sway someone.
But on to the left-wing propaganda.
Torture has been documented, that’s bad enough to resign over, and I believe Rumsfeld’s at least tried. All the pres has to do is say yes, which he’s very good at.
Gitmo violates all sorts of protocols (note that I’m not saying laws so your brethren’s heads don’t explode) international, national, and moral just on the basis of rounding people up for three years and then deciding they’re not criminals. It just ain’t right to do that to an innocent person.
Afghanistan is about to have a death-penalty trial for a guy who made the mistake of converting to Christianity. One loopy bunch of fundamentalists gets traded for another. With better security infrastructure might have had the kind of jump that makes people remember that running water and schools are nice rather than worrying more about order. I’m not sure if Afghanistan is that much better a place to live, although Kabul is. I agree though that had the dough been ponied up by congress thigns would be better.
Iraq…well, what can you say? You think it’s, what’s the phrase…not unexpectedly messy, I think it’s a screw-up (keeping in mind that it’s not Rumsfeld’s decision to invade but to manage). Not enough troops, not enough supplies, not enough planning, yadda yadda yadda, none of which are new or novel complaints and are acquiring traction in the columns of former camp loyalists. While getting in touch with people in Iraq is hard, when I get in touch with people (usually university authorities) they’re not optimistic and to a man (small sample though it may be) think the US has massively screwed up. I know enough to compensate for the natural floridity of Arab rhetoric and even then people are pretty down. The civil war argument seems pretty natural to me given things like thisandthisandthisandthis. On a more contemplative note, this is an interesting picture of two guys whose fates are working out differently.
He would be most welcome in my foxhole and that is the highest praise I can give to another man.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Just couldn’t leave that alone.
Bubba,
Thanks for the response. Tell you what, since you’re a grownup with a hatchling, and I am not, I will go drink beer. This way, if you have extra stuff to add, feel free, and I will ruminate for a bit and try to hold up my end of the conversation.
Cheers!
BRD